Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other namespaces, such as appendices, templates and modules.	Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, mergers and splits.
		Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Discussion of proposed moves, mergers and splits of entries or other pages.	Category and label treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's categories or labels, including additions, deletions, renames, mergers and splits.
		Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}} • {{rfref}} • {{rfscript}} • {{rftranslit}} • {{t-needed}}

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

This page is for entries in English as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, 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 whose existence is in doubt

Templates:

• {{rfd}}
• {{rfd-sense}}
• {{rfd-redundant}}
• {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Page deletion guidelines

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

Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

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

Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.

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

(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Newest 10 tagged RFDs

hemitonic pentatonic scale
Wikidata
MediaWiki
high school student
progestogen-only
progestin-only
digester
drive to distraction
drive round the bend
drive someone up the wall

Oldest 100 tagged RFDs

say
click off
highering
The Sea
put
screw
operator
reincarnation
Amazon
Sony
freak
Gretel
Hansel
Mars
fourth estate
araneomorph funnel-web spider
even if
U-235
beryllium-9
boron-10
boron-11
aluminium-27
argon-36
argon-38
argon-40
calcium-40
calcium-45
fall orange
occasional furniture
-ximab
caesium-137
co's
hobosexual
be a thing
plasma gem
plasma gemstone
forward time machine
barcode reader
barcode scanner
-umab
-zumab
malding
ex-minister
anti-Hindu
Phall
tacit collusion
takes (something) to
taking (something) to
took (something) to
taken (something) to
typical bandicoot
the math ain't mathing
door close
up here
summer yellow
London City
lemon yellow
TWOW
object thingy
ne'er a
economic plunder
how dare you
Elon
Musk
thunder fire
blonde joke
love away
misinformation drive
disinformation drive
Glagolitic alphabet
Proto-Canaanite alphabet
Greek alphabet
Zhuyin alphabet
beard bug
nonstandard method
nonstandard variety
Forbidden City
Holocast
campfire cookie
bird
Protestant work ethic
goofy ahh
say yes
FD&C Red No. 3
FD&C Red No. 40
who's your daddy
woke supremacy
woke supremacist
ol' reliable
Zrinislav
from dawn to dusk
hoo man
Cheapside
Cable Street
Canal Street
Bay Street
Bishopsgate
Bow Street
Burmah Road
Baker Street

September 2023

be at

SOP. Compare "be on", "be in", etc. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If the usage examples are correct (and I don't know that they are) I think this would be worth keeping since it departs from standard English grammar. Vergencescattered (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds. On the one hand, I hate this—"where are you at " (or "where you at"!) means exactly the same as "where are you". But people do say this. My nephew says it all the time. If it's worth keeping nonstandard grammar, then I guess we should keep it. Though the meaning does seem pretty transparent, and I doubt anybody will be left in the dark if we don't keep it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• If kept, we should list the standard-grammar sense too (which I have now added), otherwise it looks as if "be at" only has a slang or non-standard use. As far as the non-standard use is concerned, does it occur only with "where"? If so, this should be mentioned. Mihia (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems perfectly intelligible with the very first sense of at, "In, near, or in the general vicinity of". Where are you at, where are you in the vicinity of? I am at the mall. I am at Dave's place. Etc. So delete IMO. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete, agree with above. TranqyPoo (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete, not really seeing how this is a separate sense (requiring its own entry) from at (“in, near, or in the general vicinity of (a particular place)”, sense 1). I think this sense might be non-standard (at least to pedants), but that does not retract from it ultimately being SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the colloquial sense is NSOP because 'at' has no meaning, it's the same as 'where are you'. Justin the Just (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Justin the Just: For me, at least, at is being used to mean in or located: “where are you at” is the same as saying “where are you located'', both of which are indeed synonyms of “where are you”. Comparing sense 1 of at, it does not exactly seem like a filler word with no meaning when used in be at. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought about this further @Vergencescattered, Andrew Sheedy: one can also say “where he at?” or “where at?” (from a clipping of where is it at?) and completely skip be all together; the definition should under at sense 1 instead. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer to just create pages for those phrases as well. But I honestly am not that concerned about it either way. Vergencescattered (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Create pages for which phrases? There are an unlimited number of them: "where you at?", where Big Dog at, where shawty at, where Mike at, "he at the mall?", "he at your place?", ""I+seen+him+at"&pg=PA241&printsec=frontcover I seen him at the bar", ""I+seen+him+at"&pg=PA253&printsec=frontcover I seen him at the office", etc. With or without be, and with or without the composite utterance being 'standard grammar' or nonstandard, it's the usual sense of at being used here (and so, be at is SOP) AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• My reading of the above discussion is that there is an overall consensus to delete, but for this purpose I am reading the fence-sitters who are not specifically voting to keep as, well, not voting to keep. Any last words before I close this accordingly? bd2412 T 05:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• • You're too diplomatic, lawyer dude. I faailed it alreadyVealhurl (talk)

December 2023

because reasons

SOP. We could instead put this meaning in reasons. A Westman talk stalk 18:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's actually already given as an example at because. (Saying "because X", rather than "because of X", seems to be recent net slang.) Equinox ◑ 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that "for reasons" is also used. So this meaning should be moved. A Westman talk stalk 22:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep, since it refers to reasons that are "tangential, dubious or unknown", so it's not SOP. Perhaps "for reasons" is also used (I've never heard it), but I don't think other collocations are possible. Theknightwho (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well: "for reasons" and "due to reasons" and "owing to reasons" obey traditional grammar. "Because reasons" doesn't. Anyway, your point about the "tangentiality" is something separate. Equinox ◑ 02:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The disobedience of grammar is already documented at because so I don't see the point of this. A Westman talk stalk 02:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox: time to take a step back and tone down the snappiness, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you pinged the wrong person... CitationsFreak (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

[1] [2] Word0151 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think this is simply a special use of because. In my experience, it's usually said with a pause between "because" and "reasons", with the "reasons" meant to be a humorous replacement for actual reasons that one does not want to elaborate on (or that don't actually exist). So instead of telling my friend I didn't go to the party "Because I didn't feel like it", I might say "Because, reasons...", which is perhaps a way of verbalizing "Because [reasons]". Which is not an SOP phrase and not dependent on the grammar of either word involved. I'm just speculating here, but this may also be the original phrase which gave rise to the Internet slang sense of because. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve heard “because, NP” (e.g., “because, politicans”) used in conversations. I’m not certain what constitutes Internet slang (Facebook, TAFKAT, neither of which I use?).  --Lambiam 12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly what this is an example of. "Because cozzie livs" is one I've seen/heard a few times recently where it literally just means "because of cost of living pressures". It wouldn't surprise to hear it dropped into conversation but it still originated at net-speak. 49.188.70.132 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, pragmatics with many analogues. In stream-of-conscious-like colloquial language some conventions of grammar are more frequently broken. Fay Freak (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

🐒 Word0151 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: I don’t think the elision of words (“because [of some] reasons”) makes the phrase lexical. Another instance is “I cannot [stand this]”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Compare I can't. J3133 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, we should nuke that one too. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I created it. It is listed as an alternative form of I can’t even at Dictionary.com. See, e.g., “What's the meaning of "I can't (emotes)"” (Reddit: “It means something is extremely funny.”), “What does I can’t. mean? I saw ppl saying that below a meme, is it means laughing out of control?” (HiNative: “In the context of laughing because of a funny meme (I can’t 😭) I can’t means “I can’t with this meme/post” or “this meme/post is way too funny””), “What does I can't with you mean?” (HiNative: ““I can’t with you” in slang terms can mean that dealing with you right now is too much! This may be meant seriously or used sarcastically in a funny way depending on context.”), “What’s with “I can’t with”?” (Reddit: “Yeah, it's a slang phrase. […] It is a shortening of "I can't deal with ... " but it's taken over as a phrase. It is not technically correct usage but it has become very common.”; Grammarphobia: “You won’t find this sense of “I can’t with” in standard references, but it’s definitely out there. And if enough people use it, we may be seeing it in dictionaries someday.”). I believe it is worthy of an entry. J3133 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep but replace with link to "because", it's an example of "because {noun}" which isn't typically grammatical outside internet slang. 49.188.70.132 03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Telegraphese abbreviation with "because" could be anything: "because hungry", "because responsibilities", "because children", etc. Is "because reasons" enough of a distinct set phrase for us to list individually? I'm undecided. Mihia (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

On the fence like Mihia, because while you could extend this use of "because" to almost anything, "because reasons" might be common enough to be recognizable as an idiom for inarticulate explanation. While I think it's transparent because I'm used to seeing it, I imagine a lot of people might be confused on seeing it for the first time, not recognizing it as a set phrase and thinking it to be a mistake, rather than a deliberately ungrammatical and vague collocation. This will only be more so if it fades from use; people will wonder why it was said, and an entry will help. So perhaps lean keep. P Aculeius (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theknightwho, Andrew Sheedy, Mihia, P Aculeius: I looked into this and I think delete because the def “(Internet slang) reasons that are tangential, dubious or unknown” should actually probably be located at reasons (plural-only?) per nom: one can indeed say, using this same sense: “due to reasons”, “for reasons”, “because of reasons”, “as a result of reasons”, “owing to reasons”, etc. (I can verify all of these usages through e.g. Twitter if requested). This would make because reasons SoP; even being ostensibly ungrammatical, one can (and indeed, the netizen does) say 'because X' for virtually anything as Mihia points out. Anyways, with this addition to reasons, this makes because reasons a collocation just like the aforementioned quotations. It can be added as such under a collocation header to reasons I reckon! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that "because reasons" is the original sense though, which would make it keepable under the jiffy test. If it can be shown that this is not the case, then I would concede the point. However, I don't feel strongly either way, as long as it's documented somewhere. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I still think that the meaning is opaque enough to justify an explanation, particularly if, as Andrew Sheedy suggests, this is the original version, of which the others are mere variations. I'm not entirely satisfied by the definition—it seems to me that it should be something more like "for reasons that I'm unable to articulate"—but that can be improved by ordinary editing. If other variations are sufficiently common, perhaps they should redirect to it. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 19:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I get the discussion's been closed, but I'd say keep because reasons it's idiomatic. You can't just say that in other languages — it's an expression I'd deem typical of the English language. It could even serve as a translation hub: in Portuguese, for instance, one would say "porque sim" (literally, "because yes"), while "porque motivos" ou "porque razôes" ("because reasons") are both really weird. MedK1 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

December solstice

SoP. The solstice that's in December * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep as part of a set. The explanation is good enough; from personal experience a December solstice is more preferable in NZ than in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the rest of the set not SoP too? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete SOP. winter solstice might be a set term worth keeping, but this is a clear SOP. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am waiting until December to cast my vote as per tradition. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: It is December. bd2412 T 18:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for reminding me! Definitely voting delete per the RfD for September equinox below. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Failed per votes. Donnanz votes keep for everything, so we can ignore it... Vealhurl (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh no, you can't ignore my vote, that's not the solution to your "problem". DonnanZ (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Failed again, per votes. Donnanz is unignored, whatever. Result sticks Vealhurl (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 23:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

tacit collusion

SOP: a collusion that is tacit. PUC – 11:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Author purposefully misunderstands CFI. As on PUC’s talk page, I’ve investigated and found that there are no legal peculiarities to the term. Fay Freak (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What shall be your view on the creation of tacit consent Word0151 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: ultimately it’s a form of collusion which is tacit, so it’s SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep - specialised term in economics. It refers to cartel-like behaviour where prices are fixed through implicit agreement, as opposed to a formal (hidden) agreement. Theknightwho (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have given this way too much thought, and I think we should keep this as the economic equivalent of seafloor spreading, listed as precedent under WT:PRIOR. I was actually going to vote delete: This is clearly a set term of art in economics, but there is no real additional meaning imbued by the phrase beyond the literal meaning of the two terms (other than that it needs to be for the purposes of maximising profit - but to what other ends do businesses collude?). I searched for a plausible synonym, "unspoken collusion", and most of what I found was articles written for the lay reader, written by authors who clearly understand tacit collusion to be the "real" term. But seeing seafloor spreading convinced me we should keep this too. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

One cannot gather the meaning of seafloor spreading from either seafloor or spreading, so clearly it is not SoP. But tacit collusion is defined as "A form of collusion in which colluding parties do not explicitly share information with one another, achieving a collusive arrangement by an unspoken understanding". In other words, it is a form of collusion that is tacit. The way I see it, defining the term with many words does not in itself make it less SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean it makes senses to write articles about it. But everything interesting on it is encyclopedic information. This, that and the other’s simile goes beyond what my creativity tolerates. Of course there are specialised terms that are SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't one? I can't imagine what else seafloor spreading could refer to other than the expansion (spread verb sense 6) of the seafloor. (Admittedly it could refer to spreading the seafloor with some substance as one spreads bread with peanut butter, but that is rather far-fetched from a practical standpoint.) And yet, it is a term of art in geology, so it seems we are keeping it solely on that basis - to allow our readers to benefit from the additional info and context provided in the definition line. This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: oh, I misunderstood you—I thought you meant seafloor spreading was some sort of economic term. If not it may warrant further examination. But it doesn’t change the point that I think tacit collusion is SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete: not really seeing how this is a specialised term in economics? It is still SoP in its usages. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate on what I said a few days back—at least if WP is to be (cautiously) trusted, its article on it reads “Tacit collusion is a collusion between competitors who do not explicitly exchange information but achieve an agreement about coordination of conduct,” which is of course SoP, followed later by "In both types of tacit collusion, competitors agree to play a certain strategy without explicitly saying so." The article then goes on to list other examples of tacit collusion, most indeed to do with prices, but not all.

Though, I presume Theknighthwo and This, that and the other are seeking a sense that has to do with only tacit price fixing/price mathcing, e.g. perhaps "A form of collusion in which colluding parties do not explicitly share information about prices with one another, achieving a collusive pricing arrangement by an unspoken understanding," which I agree would indeed make this sense not SoP and a specialist term because prices are not mentioned in the term's components; however, this definitely feels like an extension of the SoP sense, generally speaking.

For instance, in A Theory of Tacit Collusion (2011, Johns Hopkins University), it appears that the author defines and references tacit collusion only as having to do with prices, e.g. “In comparing explicit and tacit collusion, I will assume that firms, if they could expressly communicate, would agree to simultaneously raise price to the best equilibrium price of p.” (p. 21), “The economic theory of collusion focuses on what outcomes are sustainable and the strategy profiles that sustain them. What prices and market allocations can be supported?” (p. 2), and “In terms of behavior, it is assumed that a firm is rational, a firm will (at least) match a rival's price as long as price does not exceed the highest sustainable price, and a firm will respond with competitive pricing if any firm should depart from this price matching behavior ... consistent with tacit collusion, I believe this is a plausible amount of mutual understanding that could reasonably be achieved without the express communication associated with explicit collusion.” (pp. 13–14).

Moreover, Winston & Strawn writes in 2022:

Indeed, the Supreme Court has defined “tacit collusion, sometimes called oligopolistic price coordination or conscious parallelism” as “the process, not in itself unlawful, by which firms in a concentrated market might in effect share monopoly power, setting their prices at a profit-maximizing, supracompetitive level by recognizing their shared economic interests and their interdependence with respect to price and output decisions.” Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993)

But most* (from the first journal results taken indiscriminately of a Google search) sources include also production quantities, mandated working hours, marketing limitations, advertising, other forms of competition, etc. (the current SoP sense of this term) in their definition of the word “tacit collusion”, as in A Theory of Dynamic Oligopoly, II: Price Competition, Kinked Demand Curves, and Edgeworth Cycles (1988, Econometrica, p. 573, “Our modeling methodology contrasts sharply with that of the well-established supergame model of tacit collusion [...] Finally, in Section 11, we discuss how our model can be extended to accommodate competition in quantities as well as prices [my italics]”): The Theory of Multimarket Competition (1999, Journal of Marketing); The Economics of Tacit Collusion (2003, Industrial Economics Institute); Explicit vs Tacit Collusion: The Effects of Firm Numbers and Asymmetries (2017, International Journal of Industrial Organization); and Competition Law 11th edition (2024, Oxford University Press: ISBN: 9780198906032).

I was going to originally vote keep per the price sense idea, but I think that from looking at these sources it is clear to me that tacit collusion is just an all-encompassing sense that includes price matching/fixing (prices, generally), and that although price-themed agreements are sometimes called exclusively “tacit collusion” by some sources, it is indeed only an expansion from sense 1—the SoP. Additionally, though less common, many journal articles also used tacit collusion to mean just one other area, e.g. specifically agreeing not to advertise or promote in a competitor's market (this one I saw pop-up quite a few times). Ignoring SoP for a second, if I was creating this entry, I would subconsciously make the sense for this word “a form of collusion in which colluding parties do not explicitly share information with one another, especially prices, thus achieving a collusive arrangement by an unspoken understanding”—but as known from past RfDs, this does not save it from being SoP. The price-only sense I mentioned above I now think after doing this research (very amateur, though!) would low-key be stretching it solely for the purposes of saving this entry from deletion TBH (which indeed was not my original thought!).

Tl;dr I do believe that this term is SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Theknightwho, exactly correct given that (speaking as a sometimes-antitrust lawyer), in professional circles, "tacit collusion" has a meaning for which substitution of synonyms for either component would make the phrase incorrect. bd2412 T 18:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Isotope names

The naming of nuclides is very systematic (element name + mass number, hyphenated), and there is nothing here but borderline WT:SOP mixed with encyclopedic content. The table of nuclides has over 3000 known entries; for example, the known isotopes of uranium range in mass number from 214 to 242 (cf. w:Isotopes of uranium). An entry consisting of chemical symbol + mass number is also included.

90 entries

• aluminium-27
• argon-36
• argon-38
• argon-40
• beryllium-9
• boron-10
• boron-11
• caesium-137
• calcium-40
• calcium-42
• calcium-43
• calcium-44
• calcium-45
• calcium-46
• calcium-48
• californium-252
• carbon-12
• carbon-13
• carbon-14
• chlorine-35
• chlorine-36
• chlorine-37
• chromium-52
• chromium-53
• chromium-54
• fluorine-18
• fluorine-19
• gold-197
• gold-198
• hassium-270
• helium-3
• helium-4
• hydrogen-1
• hydrogen-2
• hydrogen-3
• iodine-125
• iodine-131
• iron-54
• iron-56
• iron-57
• iron-58
• krypton-85
• lithium-6
• lithium-7
• magnesium-24
• magnesium-25
• magnesium-26
• manganese-55
• neon-20
• neon-21
• neon-22
• nitrogen-13
• nitrogen-14
• nitrogen-15
• oxygen-16
• oxygen-17
• oxygen-18
• phosphorus-31
• polonium-210
• potassium-39
• potassium-40
• potassium-42
• potassium-43
• scandium-45
• silicon-28
• silicon-29
• silicon-30
• sodium-23
• strontium-90
• sulfur-32
• sulfur-33
• sulfur-34
• sulfur-35
• sulfur-36
• tellurium-128
• tellurium-130
• thorium-228
• titanium-46
• titanium-47
• titanium-48
• titanium-49
• titanium-50
• uranium-233
• uranium-234
• uranium-235
• uranium-238
• vanadium-50
• vanadium-51
• yttrium-90
• U-235

LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll need help tagging these. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• While these are formulaic, they are not SoP. argon-36 means "argon with a mass number of 36", and the "with a mass number of" meaning is not communicated by any of its parts. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• We should treat these the same way we do chemical formulas like H₂O. This would mean that they must be attested in non-technical contexts, and the meaning of the terms must not be explained. Theoretically this would mean sending them to RFV, but I would be ok with mass deletion of ones that are virtually certain to fail these attestation requirements. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @ExcarnateSojourner. Hftf (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In what sense "non-technical"? The entry for carbon-14 is tagged with the jargon field of physics, but I am certain I could quickly find it in books on biology, chemistry, geology, and paleontology, since it is central to the most common form of radiocarbon dating. If an isotope on the list is being referenced across multiple fields of study, shouldn't that be considered, rather than dismissing the whole body of scientific literature? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

occasional furniture

Apparently I prematurely archived the RFD of this term. It was resolved as far as it concerned occasional table, but not this entry. See Talk:occasional furniture. This, that and the other (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has voted delete so far, may as well keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say keep as this appears to be somewhat idiomatic, at least if the current definition is to be trusted: it claims that items belonging to the “occasional furniture” category are specifically small, versatile and often made to be folded away/hidden. A quick Google search corroborates this with results of small, ergonomic stackable tables, seats, nightstands and a few commodes. A grand piano, sofa, dressing table, bed, etc. can be restricted to occasional (sense 3: “intended for use as the occasion requires”) use, but it does not appear that these items belong to this category, so I do not think this is actually SoP? Like, the occasional furniture label including a guest bed would be SoP but the occasional furniture designation including a pullout sofa / foldable bed whilst excluding (or, just, not including) a guest bed does not seem SoP to me. Tl;dr sense 3 of occasional does not infer smallness nor versatility, which is what occasional furniture (perhaps only ostensibly!) indicates from the brief research I did. @This, that and the other thoughts? I could very easily be misguided here. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna deletion was originally argued for by @PUC. This, that and the other (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you – my bad! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@PUC: Perhaps we are actually missing a sense at occasional that means “(of furniture) lightweight, small, easily portable, storage-efficient [etc]”? Perhaps a modern derivation from—a subsense of—occasional (“intended for use as the occasion requires”)? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: If we needed to add a definition to "occasional" because it came to have that meaning from usage in the phrase "occasional furniture", then that would be a paradigmatic case of passing WT:JIFFY. bd2412 T 18:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

January 2024

freak

Senses 2 and 3: "A hippie" and "a drug addict".

These types of people would have been seen as "freaks" (as in "an oddball") in 1969. As such, this is a dupe of sense 4. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Would labelling them "dated" do the trick? DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, as they would have been seen as "freaks" (as in oddballs) in 1969. (The OED lists this term as being coined in 1890, and these two groups were seen as the counterculture in the late '60s.)

However, the same source does list the hippie sense as its own thing. So, mayyybe it fits in? Feels a bit iffy to say that, since it is based on the same usage as "freak" as our sense 4, and any reclamation would be the same as reclamation of any insult. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I would put "hippie" and "drug addict" as subsenses under sense 4, or perhaps combined into one subsense, possibly with a label such as "now largely historical", or explicit mention of the 1960s, if it's considered that these senses are largely confined to the 1960s or references to the 1960s. Shocking to think of the 1960s as "historical"! Mihia (talk)

Perhaps "especially in reference to 1960s counterculture" would be an appropriate label. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No. These two senses have a different (albeit derivative) meaning from sense 4. (And the notion that these senses were confined to the 1960s is just wrong.) Nurg (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I support turning these senses into subsenses, I'm not sure if that means I should vote 'keep' or 'delete' (I wouldn't want them to be deleted altogether without subsuming them under what is currently sense 4). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Downgrade to subsenses per Mihia and Overlordnat1. MedK1 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

February 2024

hobosexual

Sense 2, defined as "Punning on bum (as a synonym of hobo).". That is not a real definition. The three citations do not appear to have the same meaning. Equinox ◑ 12:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I have encountered this word, it means a person only engaging in relations with a sexual element in order to avoid homelessness. Which for the first quote “a man who can only get excited by women who are real tramps” could mean that you yourself have to be kind of a tramp to accept such a boyfriend, otherwise too unorderly (sense 3) to care for himself; as with most sexualities the term is then used for the other party too, as by its formation the term implies to contain what one is attracted to. The definitions are unchanged since 2011’s creation by Doremítzwr, about whose reliability I have no information. Fay Freak (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sense 1: that also seems to be a pun (on "tramp" meaning a slutty woman) and does not refer to "tramp" in the hobo sense. Equinox ◑ 12:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Also. Where we see again that one can employ a word in multiple of its assumed meanings simultaneously. But only by the peripheral understanding of it that serial monogamy is promiscuity, assuming our definition of tramp correct.

The psychological reality can of course be personality traits of a woman to make her inclined to any described livelihoods but various internalized expectations prevent her. For example if someone is borderliner (almost 2 % of the general population) they seek attachment to other people fast while simultaneously disengaging up to the point of homelessness due to self-devaluation. Or if someone has dependent personality disorder (almost 1 %, especially in women) after a breakup they will enter the next nightclub and anyone hooking up will be the boyfriend henceforth—which should sound ridiculous to sound people; people generally have a vague idea of the prevalent determination of life by irrational behaviours. But punning is of course no clear concept yet and thus the creator likely implemented more ideas in his definitions than users of the word could know or imply about psychological or behavorial reality. Fay Freak (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

👍 Word0151 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Magnificat and Nunc dimittis

SOP. Both the terms Magnificat and Nunc dimittis can refer to the canticle itself or to a musical setting of the canticle. While musical settings of the two canticles are frequently published together, as they are performed together in Anglican evensong (or evening prayer) liturgies, that fact doesn't give the term any meaning beyond its component parts. Graham11 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - this refers to a specific musical setting with two parts, in the same way mass refers to a specific setting in a musical context. What distinguishes it is that they're written as one unit: you can't take a Magnificat from one setting and a Nunc dimittis from another and call them a "Magnificat and Nunc dimittis" with the meaning of "a musical setting of the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis". Theknightwho (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: There was a Tea Room discussion about this last year. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna, in case you're interested in weighing in on this. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per TheKnightWho's comments above. The vast majority (entirety?) of the time the Mag and Nunc are performed together as one unit with an organ accompaniment (so it might be better to slightly generalise our definition to say 'performed' rather than 'sung'). The very fact that it's hard to find 'Mag' meaning 'Magnificat' and 'Nunc' meaning 'Nunc Dimittis' outside of the phrase Mag and Nunc attests to this fact. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 19:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

diriment impediment

SOP? Denazz (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Only if we agree that diriment is an adjective. Doesn't sound like one. Merriam-Webster has an entry for "diriment impediment" but no entry for "diriment" alone. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think diriment would pass RFV as an adjective per se. I found some uses of it in a predicative position: "this affinity is 'diriment' of marriage" and "The impediment is diriment only if...". This, that and the other (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether "diriment impediment" or "diriment" existed first. If the adjective "diriment" is derived from the expression "diriment impediment", then "diriment impediment" should be kept per WT:JIFFY, isn't it? --Saviourofthe (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Adjective added, so this fails - needs deleting Vealhurl (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• As Denazz and Vealhurl are one and the same person, this is a case of marking one's own homework. DonnanZ (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Unstriking as I see no consensus. This wasn’t even discussed after the adjective sense was added, and before that, although Equinox said this would be RfV then, Saviourofthe differed. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

March 2024

takes (something) to

In this form, we probs don't want it. Other cases including placeholder "something" can be found at Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/something. Denazz (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to delete it we should also delete taking (something) to, took (something) to, and taken (something) to, no? Vergencescattered (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, part of me supports having "something"s used as placeholders to be in parentheses, as in "drink (something) like lemonade" or "spring to (someone's) defense". CitationsFreak (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Same. A lot of dictionaries actually have their entries formatted in this way, so I reckon that they would be useful as redirects here on Wikt. Keep, perhaps contentiously. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

May 2024

araneomorph funnel-web spider

Transparent SoP: araneomorph + funnel-web spider. DCDuring (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's SOP, how does araneomorph (“any of the Araneomorphae, a suborder of spiders whose fangs cross with a pinching action”) + funnel-web spider (“any spider of the families Atracidae, Macrothelidae, and Macrothelidae, all of which weave funnel-shaped webs”) give us araneomorph funnel-web spider (“any spider of the family Agelenidae”)? Doesn't seem SOP at all. Theknightwho (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If WP is to be believed (w:Funnel-web spider), we appear to have a simple a set-intersection type scenario here. The funnel-web spiders that are araneomorphs happen to be the Agelenidae. That makes it SOP if you know your taxonomy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning keep, for the masses who don't know their taxonomy. bd2412 T 05:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't mean that literally... I meant "a person who knows their taxonomy would be able to tell that this is SOP". It's still SOP even if you don't know your taxonomy! This, that and the other (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete If you know you're taxonomy then this is SOP. If you don't know then the entry isn't useful anyway as it just equates one technobabble term with another. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

malding

Rfd-sense adjective:

1. (Internet slang, neologism, Twitch-speak) Angry about a game, especially on the part of a man who is a poor loser.
2. (Internet slang, neologism, by extension) Angry or irate.

I'd say both of these are covered as participles of mald:

(slang, video games) To become extremely angry, especially as a result of losing a video game.

Theknightwho (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly "being" in a state is not the same as "becoming" that state. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Isn't this just like raging or fuming? BigDom 13:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way of proving or disproving that the lemma is misdefined and should be "to be extremely angry ..."? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

June 2024

the math ain't mathing

We already have: the math is mathing. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 20:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: So? Purplebackpack89 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Seems to be the canonical version of the phrase, with the ‘is’ version being a humourous inversion. I’d keep this and delete the latter (but mention it in the usage notes or something). Nicodene (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to list this as a negative form, because nobody's going to search for the math is mathing. It should be noted that it's not just ain't though; isn't will also do, and perhaps is not. —Soap— 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep This would be my preference as well. I've heard it said various ways in the negative form owing to regional preferences for those constructions, they don't impact the meaning. Also, like @Nicodene:, I would shift the scrutiny to the positive entry as it strikes me as artificial at first glance. RogueScholar (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect. See Category:English negative polarity items for examples of terms being listed in the positive. @Purplebackpack89, are you going to RFD and RFV all of them? Ioaxxere (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

More likely I'd CREATE the negatives. If a phrase is used mostly in the negative, a definition should exist with the negative phraseology. That shouldn't be controversial. you can't judge a book by its cover, Rome wasn't built in a day, clothes don't make the man and many other phrases containing not, don't, can't, etc already have entries. And, for what it's worth, the negative polarity category seems to be a strange mishmash. Some of the things categorized in it already contain "no", "not", "don't", etc. Some of them are used in both the positive and negative. And one more thing: will your vote change if "the math is mathing" fails RfV? Purplebackpack89 21:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: All those examples are proverbs, which have a fixed wording. On the other hand, the math is mathing doesn't have a fixed wording. The quotes show various variations replacing "is" with "appears to be", "started", "just isn't", etc. If "the math is mathing" is never used in a positive context my vote could change although this isn't the case here. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're sure that isn't the case? Are you prepared to back up your statement by adding enough positive citations for it to pass RFV? Purplebackpack89 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete together with the math is mathing. Both are equally SoP.  --Lambiam 09:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's an SoP per WT:JIFFY. Math as a verb is primarily used in this idiom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep We have different version of terms. It's not a big deal. CheeseyHead (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

the math is mathing

Phrase is more commonly rendered in the negative (the math ain't mathing or the math is not mathing) than in the positive. I'm not even sure "the math is mathing" without the not or ain't even passes RfV. Purplebackpack89 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect one to the other (I don't care which), and add Category:English negative polarity items. PUC – 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Since one can say things like, they didn’t provide enough data for us to say whether the math is mathing, it seems better to use this as the main form. But isn't this SOP, with a verb sense of math (“to add up, compute; (by extension) to make sense”). Note that there is also the entirely positive collocation “the math did math”.  --Lambiam 21:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be a little concerned that that phrase isn't actually cited that way, in the positive? As of now, it doesn't pass RfV. Purplebackpack89 23:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

When you wrote this, there were many positive quotations, including one in precisely this form. I might be concerned for its safety if no quotations had been found after this term had been listed for a considerable time at RfV. Here at RfD we deal with different concerns, such as whether this is merely a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 09:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Those quotes were added between when I wrote that and when you responded, FWIW Purplebackpack89 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep It really dosen't matter if it is more common or not. Any other reasons for it being removed? CheeseyHead (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Ain't version is used more, so redirect to that in my opinion. 76.143.181.203

July 2024

Double antibody suffixes

-zumab

Monoclonal antibodies are assigned names according to a complicated WHO naming sytem. The usual nomenclature is the following: [1] a variable prefix; [2] an infix referring to the medicine's target (target substem"); [3] an infix referring to the source of the antibody ("source substem"; omitted in antibodies named after 2017); [4] a suffix ("stem" = -mab for every antibody named before 2022). (E.g. abciximab: ab- +‎ -ci- (“cardiovascular”) +‎ -xi- (“chimeric”) +‎ -mab (“antibody”).) -zumab, -ximab and -umab were created by JoeyChen in 2020 after removing the entries for the standalone -zu-, -xi- and -u- (I haven't found a relevant discussion prior to the changes). However, these are merely three of the frequently co-occurring combinations of [3] and [4], and semantically are not more closely related to each other than e.g. [2] and [4]. Guidelines also treat source substems and stems as different entities. I find the treatment of these combinations as genuine suffixes misleading, therefore, I think they should be deleted (along with their categories) and removed from the etymology sections of antibody entries, while -zu-, -xi- and -u- should be reinstated as infixes. Einstein2 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. Also, shouldn't these be translingual? 172.97.141.219 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Move to -u-, -xi-, -zu- and convert to Translingual entries, if this reasoning is right. But the revision history at -xi-, which redirects to -ximab (the former was moved to the latter by @JoeyChen), says “xi- is not used without the suffix -mab.” Is this true, and can Joey join this discussion and elaborate? — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:94C1:89B:DC72:27DA 02:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

In theory, the 2022 antibody nomenclature changes allow monoclonal antibodies to end in -bart, -tug, -ment, or -mig as well. While WHO Drug Information 2025 has several examples, none of them contain the -u-, -xi-, or -zu- infixes. So it seems that in practice, these infixes are not used without the suffix mab, unless someone can find evidence otherwise (which there may very well be; I didn't look that hard). Proton donor (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian

Nonstandard use of capitalization. Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an alt form, I would allow it. But transsiberian is much more dubious. DonnanZ (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The prefix trans- is not normally capitalized, nor is the word trans-Siberian a proper adjective. To capitalize the T is nonstandard per capitalization of English words. It is not a valid form of the word, nor is it notable enough as a nonstandard form to merit inclusion, and should be deleted. It appears to be mistakenly reanalysed from Trans-Siberian Railway, which is indeed a proper noun.

On the other hand, transsiberian follows the older tradition of uncapitalizing a proper noun when it comes before a prefix (cf. other examples such as transalpine, transamerican, or transneptunian). This is perfectly standard in the English language, and is highly attested. What exactly do you find to be, “much more dubious”? Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 15:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. A reminder to Donnanz that whether you personally like or loathe a word bears no relevance in our inclusion, and stating your opinions thus can be confusing and misleading in a formal procedure. Inqilābī 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That's hardly necessary, but I did forget about transatlantic. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We keep non-standard spellings too, and this is not a valid ground to rfd an entry. If you doubt its attestation, then go over to WT:RFVE. Inqilābī 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So be it, then. Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 15:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We do delete rare misspellings, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, but possibly RfV I would agree with Inqilābī's assessment that the nominator didn't provide valid grounds for deletion Purplebackpack89 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added a proper noun sense, since "Trans-Siberian" is sometimes used to refer to the Trans-Siberian Railway. Theknightwho (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Funnily enough, I just added a quote for that. DonnanZ (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

August 2024

plasma gemstone

plasma gem

Appears to be SOP, plasma already refers to a mineral. ScribeYearling (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

keep Doesn't the Fried Egg rule apply? Plasma is not always chalcedony. Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

But cat's eye marble and cat's eye gemstone don't exist either, despite the fact that cat's eye can refer to both a gemstone and style of marble as well as a few other senses. ScribeYearling (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The fried egg test would apply if there were other kinds of gemstone that one could reasonably refer to as being plasma gemstone (for examples, if there were also gemstones fashioned from blood plasma), so that someone unfamiliar with he term could not know which sense is meant. An organ is not always a musical instrument, but in organ music it is obvious that this is about the instrument, not about someone’s lungs, so the combination is a transparent sum of its parts. Likewise here.  --Lambiam 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

live under a rock

Rfd-sense "to live in isolation" as distinct from sense 1, "to be isolated from knowledge of current events". Maybe we can reword sense 1, but I disagree that this is a different sense. PUC – 14:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete – I am inclined to agree. This second sense seems very rare, perhaps it might simply be a misinterpretation of the first sense; through some searching I found only a handful of uses for "live under a rock" to mean "living in isolation" (such as being a recluse or extremely introverted) on Reddit and Twitter. IMO not worth combining into the first sense either unless there are some more usage examples to be found that I am missing, otherwise it seems like undue weight to me. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Just saw that a user reworded it a few months back; how does it look, @PUC? I am happy with it myself. Changing to keep. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as revised and per LunaEatsTuna. bd2412 T 18:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

September 2024

door close

Note the buttons on the bottom left and bottom right.

and door open. Dumb. There's a button on my lift reading call in case of emergency Denazz (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The "names of buttons" (on computer keyboards and gamepads) was argued years ago, and in general they were kept... Start, Jump, Fire, etc. I argued against this. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54BC:581B:5785:CEDB 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. In lots of elevators the so called door close button doesn't actually close the door when pushed and is just for show. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:C47:40B8:9E8:5244 12:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Get an account! P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. If there was some evidence of the button being called "the door close", it would be different, but every Google Books hit for "pressed the door close" adds "button" afterwards. SOP. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

True, but nobody says "pressed the start", "pressed the delete" either. What you really should be looking for is "pressed door close" and similar searches. This, that and the other (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Smurrayinchester * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Smurrayinchester. Argument so good they were cited twice. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Talk:Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. In lots of modern elevators the button only closes the door when the elevator is in fire service mode and does nothing during ordinary operation. Marsbar8 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The fact that the door close button is useless (like most crosswalk buttons) is beside the point, in my opinion. ScribeYearling (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep in the elevators I ride in, it is not really a door close button, but more like a push for nothing button. Fish567 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning keep because most of elevators have buttons with symbols on them approximating |>|<| and |<|>|, that do not actually say "door open" and "door close", but nonetheless have the understood name. bd2412 T 17:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note - all hits for "press the door close" were followed by "button", so SOP Vealhurl (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  What about for "press 'door close'", by analogy to "press 'select'" or "press 'tab'"? 47.55.84.56 01:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I sincerely doubt that anyone when on an elevator will pull out their cellphone and look up door close or door open. Nor when looking an image of an elevator control panel. Why are we trying to educate our users to look up SoP things rather than make the inferences that normal people make about the meaning of such things. The closest thing to a good rationale for keeping was what 2600 and Fish567 observed: that most 'door close' buttons seem to only have a placebo function. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for nominator’s reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

October 2024

noradrenenergic

Rare misspelling. Einstein2 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how common it would have to be to warrant inclusion as a misspelling, but a quick Google search (including also using Google Scholar and GBooks) reveals tons of results for this term from several journals and numerous books spanning 1977 to 2022. As such, I am leaning keep. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not convinced it is a misspelling. The form noradrenergic may come by haplology from noradrenenergic = noradren- +‎ energic.  --Lambiam 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I now think it is a misspelling; the suffix is -ergic.  --Lambiam 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Kept. Raare but used Vealhurl (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • It being rare is a reason to delete; we explicitly don't keep rare misspellings. WT:CFI#Misspellings. Reopened because closer should know better This, that and the other (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

    (Actually it seems that it's me that needs to go back to school. The word "rare" was removed in 2022, so CFI is no longer explicit about losing rare misspellings. But it does still say we only keep common misspellings.) This, that and the other (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

even if

RFD-sense, in an unconventional sense (perhaps a more appropriate forum can be found). Rather than deletion, this discussion concerns the repurposing of sense #1 as an {{&lit}}. Sense #2 is also better repurposed as a {{synonym of}}. These two operations are easy to justify and perform; what leads me to bring this to discussion is the translation table, a mess which contains what I suspect is a mix of translations of the unidiomatic sense of the expression and the idiomatic ‘even though’ sense; language-wise, the translations on even if and even though do not overlap well, and importing adequate transitions to the latter will require expert attention. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO it is clearly SOP, so if retained it should be as an {{&lit}} because of sense #2 or as a translation hub. The translations that I am competent to check are also SOP, though; even the Greek translation. (Although we write at ακόμα και αν, ‘(literally: "even and if")’, a better literal translation is “even also if”, which is also used in English. The combination ακόμα και, meaning basically the same as the English adverb “even”, is also used standalone, and although ακόμα και αν (akóma kai an) is far more common, just ακόμα αν (akóma an) is also used.)  --Lambiam 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sense 2, "even though" -- "if" can mean "though" generally, as in e.g. "She is polite, if a little cold". Is there a special idiomaticity about sense 2 that makes it more than "even" + "if" in the sense "though"? Mihia (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, per Lambiam and Mihia, or (if enough translations are idiomatic) retain as an &lit/THUB. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete both per above—in their current definition, at least. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should keep both senses or neither. It would be unhelpful, I believe, to list one but not the other. Despite my earlier comment, I am now thinking keep both as helpful for clearly setting out the difference. (I say "clearly", but I think that sense 2 could be made clearer, which I intend to do.) Mihia (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Sense 1 is clearly SOP, while sense 2 can easily be analyzed as "even" + sense 5 of "if" as mentioned by Mihia in their first comment. I do feel keeping it would make sense for clarity's sake (as Mihia's second comment states), but if we're going off CFI, we should be deleting both imo. MedK1 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I am convinced, albeit reluctantly, that there is a sense of even if that should be kept. At least three reputable lemmings (MWOnline, Longmans DCE, and Cambridge) have it with a non-gloss definition something like: used to emphasize that something will still be true if another thing happens (MWO's wording). I would add or is the case/or is true. A non-gloss definition seems better that one relying on polysemic function words as some of our synonym-cloud definitions do. (Is a synonym cloud to be construed with each and every one of the elements to be substitutable or just one substitutable?)

I am a bit bothered by expressions like They are often cranky, even if (they are) well-rested. Calling even if a conjunction in such usage requires that a second they are be inserted or "understood". I dislike construals that rely on deep structure, even when not really very deep. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

November 2024

Sony

Rfd proper noun sense: “An international electronics and media company based in Tokyo, Japan.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: the names of corporations/companies are not allowed on Wiktionary. However, we are keeping the attested noun sense per WT:BRAND; see, for example, what we already do for entries like Motorola, Android, Hot Wheels, SoundCloud, Nokia, etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Whoever closes this needs to be aware of WT:Grease pit/2024/November#Template:transclude and Template:rfd-sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep. Same reason as in WT:RFD/English#Samsung. It's entered the lexicon per the quote at Samsung: "[Some of] them, potentially, are the Sonys and Samsungs of tomorrow". AG202 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

These are noun senses. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

December 2024

Mars

Etymology 2: brand name that has not entered the general lexicon; does not pass CFI as per WT:BRAND — This unsigned comment was added by Lunabunn (talk • contribs) at 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC).

There is a danger in removing every brand. I think it is wrongly classified as a proper noun; it should be a common noun, as you could say: "Can you buy me a Mars when you're at the shop? Here's the money." Personally I call them Mars bars, but anyway, apart from the vast difference in price, it's no different from buying a Bentley, Porsche, or even a Toyota. A Mars (bar) is different from other chocolate bars, in the same way as a Porsche is unlike a Toyota. DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The definition should be listed as noun instead. Other than that, seems reasonable to me. Polomo47 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a household noun, not a company name that could never meet CFI. And Wiktionary also lists the derivation Mars bar party (today I learned what that was -- I wasn't expecting that to be the definition!) Khemehekis (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

sexism

1. The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to others.

   The notion that either gender is superior is sexism.

2. Discrimination or different treatment based on sex or gender, especially discrimination against women.

   The fact that there is only one woman in a management position in that company makes it easy to believe that sexism runs rampant there.

3. Attitudes or actions that are based on or promote the expectation that people adhere to stereotypical social roles (gender roles) based on sex.

   The sexism of making and promoting violent films for men and romantic comedies for women.

RFD sense 3. I don't understand why we need three definitions for one thing, but for now let's just check whether we really need sense 3 as well as sense 2. Isn't the sense 3 example a case of "different treatment based on sex or gender", i.e. what it says in sense 2? Mihia (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Senses 1 and 2 would be difficult to combine; the belief in the superiority (or inferiority?) of one sex and discrimination in favour of or against persons on the basis of sex should probably be distinguished. Sense 3, however, seems to be a specific subset of both of the first two senses, though the example sentence (fragment) falls more clearly under Sense 2. I'd say that Sense 3 can be deleted, though one could make a case for keeping the example. P Aculeius (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the difference between (1) and (2) is probably that (1) refers to a belief system, while (2) refers to an application of this belief. I agree that there is technically a distinction. On the other hand, we don't distinguish this in, let's say, ageism, which was under discussion earlier, and you could argue indeed that the sense 1 example also fits the sense 2 definition. I'm also not certain myself whether "sexism", as a belief system, refers always to a belief in the superiority of one sex, or could also refer to a belief that the different sexes should be treated or expected of differently. Mihia (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that ageism has ever been treated as a belief or philosophy as opposed to a practice, perhaps because everyone knows everyone will all experience each age if they live long enough. Sure, we have people opining about old fogeys or young whippersnappers, but that doesn't really translate into a philosophy the way that say, male chauvinism can exist entirely as an abstract or attitude with no action or power to discriminate on the basis of sex. Many more people believe in the superiority or inferiority of a particular sex than actually have the opportunity to act in accordance with that belief, or affect others meaningfully in the process.

So in the context of sexism, like racism, there are pervasive beliefs entirely separate from discriminatory actions that may or may not consciously arise from them. For instance, people who believe that women need to be protected or patronized, or that women are the natural caretakers of children or the home, may not believe that acting in accordance with such beliefs would be discriminatory, at least in the sense of holding men to be superior to women. I think that's what you're getting at with your last sentence—but formulating that into a definition could be tricky.

I agree that it can be regarded as sexism, though it might be hard to distinguish from the acknowledgement or accommodation of actual physical differences between the sexes. I suspect that the sharper the distinction is drawn, the more politicized it might become, because people have a wide range of opinions on every minute detail—and most people don't want to be labeled sexist! P Aculeius (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to find references to "ageism" as a "belief", e.g. https://bchumanrights.ca/glossary/ageism/ to give one example. Then again, at anti-Semitism, for example, which I would say also could be either a "belief" or a "practice", if we wanted to split hairs, we only have one sense (in the way relevant to this discussion). Mihia (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem with combining the first two senses—which would make sense 3 redundant, if it isn't already—is that while it's often hard to distinguish between belief and practice, as both example sentences 2 and 3 illustrate, IMO, we often do so in real life. We refer to people as "sexists" because of their attitudes, divorced from any specific actions they might take in conformity with their beliefs, and we refer to certain practices as "sexism" because of their effects and implied motivations, even in the absence of any philosophical basis for them. The two are frequently blended, which argues for consolidating the definitions, but also frequently distinguished, and the distinction is important. If the senses are consolidated, the definition should be worded carefully, and it may be difficult to do so without making such a definition convoluted. P Aculeius (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Sense 3 is for manifestations of sexism which are not explicitly discriminatory in intent or outcome (as in sense 2), nor underpinned by the belief that one sex/gender is inherently superior to another (as in sense 1). It's for cultural stereotypes and "microaggressions", like jokes about women being unfunny, bad drivers, or inordinately fond of shoes. This term has the same range of expressions as racism. If I wanted to map expressions of racism onto the current definitions of sexism, white supremacy reflects sense 1, racial segregation reflects sense 2, and the debate about appropriate Halloween costumes reflects sense 3. These phenomena are obviously different in terms of their scope, impact, and history. We'd be doing a major disservice if we tried to consolidate them all into a single muddled definition. Nuance is a necessity in this case. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that we should improve the definition of sense 1 (to incorporate what sense 3 is getting at, i.e. merge 3 into 1 and 2), in line with how racism does not split "race A is superior to race B"-type racism and "race A inherently likes X, race B inherently likes Y"-type racism into separate definitions but covers both in the same definition(s). At least on first consideration, I'm not seeing why trying to split 'hardcore' discrimination / supremacist attitudes or actions and more microaggressive attitudes or actions into separate senses would be the best way of handling things (we don't seem to split racism, homophobia or other discriminations that way). This does make me notice that some of our other entries' definitions are lacking, though (for example, I've just tweaked transphobia to have a fuller definition like homophobia). - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I expanded sense 1. WAN's sureness that sense 3 needs to be a separate sense gives me pause, but ... it does seem to me that sense 3 is just another way of getting at sense 2, different treatment based on the idea that people of different sexes are (or should be) different. I could maybe see making sense 3 a subsense of sense 2 (revising its wording a bit)...?? Or just deleting it in favour of sense 2 (and sense 1), keeping the usex. As I said above, the phenomenon sense 3 is describing w.r.t. sex also exists for other X-isms w.r.t. X — a while ago Hollywood studio execs were mocked for the racism of only marketing certain kinds of films to Black people and being surprised to learn that "Black people like fun things, too" — but we don't (currently) make that a separate sense of racism or other isms AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

operator

• Sense: A thief or charlatan,
• Sense: A major criminal, and
• Sense: Someone who is successful at pursuing women; a player

all seem to be variations of sense 5: "A person who is adept at making deals or getting results, especially one who uses questionable methods." I think the first two are more obvious than the third, but the sense of "operator" as someone who schemes, connives, convinces, games the system, etc. covers all of them—it's just a specific example, if you look at the quotations—they don't really seem to imply that the successful pursuit of women is the meaning of "operator", but rather that an operator ought to be good at pursuing women. And that's the same as sense 5, IMO. The definition could use some work, and maybe the example sentences could be saved, but I don't think there's a separate meaning here. P Aculeius (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge senses 11–12 with 5 (and keep some of the quotations). I am on the fence about sense 13; the 1974 attest is clearly sense 5 (“great operators ... with the girls”) but I am not really sure of the other two.. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the other two #13 examples as just the same. The context shows that pursuing girls/women is the activity being referred to. Mihia (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

London City

What is the benefit of such an entry? Nobody calls London "London City" as far as I know. I've been there often. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:93E:A84E:6BB:94C 20:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Since "London" can refer to either the city proper or to Greater London, "London City" helps readers identify which is intended, even though it isn't a common way of doing so. The phrase also turns up in collocations such as "London City Airport", where again it distinguishes the city from the larger metropolitan area. The entry's usefulness comes in helping readers who might wonder whether "London City" is synonymous with one of these, or another place called "London", or whether it has some other specific meaning, such as "London Town". P Aculeius (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not parse "London City Airport" as "the airport of London City". I parse it as "the city airport of London" (as opposed to a suburb airport, or whatever). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A4:1965:C286:A290 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Some fun things that crossed my mind: reading about this (not your reply specifically) got the Wings album London Town on my mind. And it's great we have the entry. This line of thought was also how I figured out Kansas City, which I know from Kansas City / Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey, is the actual name for the city — which should've been obvious, since Kansas is a state, lol. Polomo47 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have never heard of "London City" either, not as a thing that people refer to in any significant way, and I lived there for a number of years. "London City Airport" I parse as the "City" airport in London, i.e. serving the City of London, not the airport in "London City". Mihia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Remarkably I just wrote almost exactly the same thing (down to the word "parse"), without having read your comment. So, yes, agreed, very much! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A4:1965:C286:A290 01:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve always parsed it as ‘the airport of the ‘City of London’’, rather than ‘the airport of London, the alleged city’ (unlike the two editors above) but then I do enjoy winding up Cockneys by telling them the fact that London isn’t even a city and Birmingham is the largest city in the UK. There is one Google Books hit which uses ‘London City’ twice in quick succession[3], though it’s not altogether clear which meaning is being referred to. A weak keep from me btw. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The pronunciations I hear on YouGlish YouGlish I support the "London city-airport" argument: they sound as if they're saying London | City Airport. I think you misunderstood what the others said. They haven't said anything about an alleged city: they're talking about parsing the name with a "city-airport" grouping as opposed to a "London City" one. Polomo47 (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, London City only applies to the airport, City of London is the correct title for the city, alias the Square Mile. You could add Category:en:Airports to this one. It's not an important airport, as it has a short runway, and only STOL aircraft can use it. DonnanZ (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right that "London City" could be used as an abbreviation for "London City Airport" (but with a meaning like "London - City" or "London (City)", so still doesn't alter the fact that, in my opinion, "London City Airport" is "City airport of London" not "airport of London City"). Mihia (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A Google search—unfiltered—suggests that "London City Centre" is used by travel and some financial sites to describe central London. There are also the London City Lionesses, a women's soccer team. "London City" also seems to be used to describe things associated with at least two other places called "London": London, Ontario (London City Soccer Club), and London, Ohio (London City Schools). These are probably not the only instances of "London City"; they're just the first ones that turned up in fairly general searches. So clearly there is some use of the phrase, and it is sometimes used to distinguish the City of London from Greater London (I'm not arguing that it's "correct" or the proper name of the corporation), and sometimes used of completely different places. These uses may be a weak argument to keep the entry, but is there a stronger argument to delete than "I haven't heard this used" or "that's not how I personally parse it"? P Aculeius (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

"London City Centre" means the city centre of London, not the centre of "London City". Yes, you can find "London City" used as part of proper names. This does not prove that "London City" exists by itself (I mean, in the case of London, England - I have no idea about other Londons). If you ask "London City Lionesses" where they are located, or originated, would they say "London City"? Mihia (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the IATA code for the airport is LCY, for Heathrow LHR, and Gatwick LGW. DonnanZ (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not contending that "London City" is the correct name of the City of London—I'm saying it's one way that the city can and is referred to in some instances, and therefore readers benefit from having an entry: they may run across the phrase "London City" with or without another word (airport, centre, schools, theatre, football club, etc.), and wonder whether it means the City of London, or just part of London, or some separate entity that may or may not overlap with London—just as Greater London or the Diocese of London do. The entry tells them that the phrase is synonymous with the City of London, and not with some other entity—although if it were also used of another entity, then the entry would also aid readers by informing them of which ones are sometimes referred to this way. Without an entry, someone running across "London City" would be left wondering whether it is or isn't the same entity as the "City of London". P Aculeius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete – Regardless of the above arguments, is “London City” a generally valid entry for us? This might be SOP, just London + City.. we do not have Tokyo City, Los Angeles City, Mumbai City, São Paulo City, Shanghai City, Istanbul City etc, and a lot of these have their own metropolitan areas that could be confused for the city proper or centre or CBD whatever, i.e. Los Angeles County (colloquially Los Angeles) or the Greater Tokyo Area (colloquially Tokyo). London should not get special treatment nor should we create the aforementioned red-linked entries as city is used as a descriptor; by that same logic we might have Kingston City (which can have several senses) and hundreds of others that are not really helpful to readers. Instead, we can just—and indeed, we do—list the various senses at Kingston or London etc. That said, I would not oppose a redirect either. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Most Londoners, if they call themselves that (I don't), live within Greater London, often a long way from the city. DonnanZ (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We have New York City, though. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I always thought that "New York City" had a particular explanation, i.e. to distinguish the city from the state, which, indeed, our entry does mention. Mihia (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna This specifically refers to the City of London, not London. The former is only a tiny part of London, so it's not like the other examples you give, and it's not giving London special treatment. Theknightwho (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that this should have been at WT:RFVE.  --Lambiam 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep - this is obviously a matter for WT:RFVE. It's clearly not SOP, since it refers specifically to the City of London, which is not the same as London, which means it cannot simply be London + city. Theknightwho (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Although "London City" is not in my experience a "regular" term, no doubt someone somewhere has put those two words together, so in that sense it can no doubt be "verified". However, I think it unlikely that it is used only in the sense "City of London". For example, "Things to do in London City" [4] is talking about London as a whole. In the case that it does mean City of London, it could be construed as "London + district of London", i.e. the City district, in the same way as we see e.g. "Places to see in London Kensington" [5]. Mihia (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep but RFV - If this term exists, it's clearly not SOP because it refers to a specific small part of London, not the city as a whole. I find its existence kind of dubious though, since I've only ever heard that phrasing used to refer to London City Airport (which is not itself in the City of London, although it is relatively close). Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• I added the airport to the entry. No doubt someone will want to delete that. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

fourth estate

Rfd-sense "A hypothetical fourth class of civic subjects, or fourth body (in Britain, after the Crown, and the two Houses of Parliament) which governed legislation." This doesn't seem idiomatic to me. These historical 'estates' are covered by the etymology, so we wouldn't be removing any information from the entry. The quote could be moved under 'used other than idiomatically'. Wikiuser815 (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

fall orange

Weird entry. Probs speedy-deleteable P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep because "weird" isn't criteria enough for deletion and the OP doesn't make a tie-in to the CFI at all. If it really IS a color, and an attestable one, it probably should be kept anyway; most colors are (compare jungle green, ocean blue, etc. Purplebackpack89 21:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• @P. Sovjunk rationale? :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The definitions of both this entry and autumn orange are comically lacking (bad labels, bad definitions, ...). If it refers to a specific colour, someone should add that; if not (like "18th century green"), it should be deleted. Possibly a question for RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This does exist as a colour, but it's not an American spelling, it's an American term.  Fixed. Brits don't usually call autumn "fall". Keep somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, because as far as I can tell neither "fall orange" nor "autumn orange" exist as colours (see "summer yellow" below), except to the extent that anyone might happen to associate orange with the season. There seems to be no specific colour that is regularly named this; it is not found in W3, no specific definition is provided, and there are no citations or quotations for any of these. I have no doubt that there are uses of the phrase in some durably archived sources, but I don't know of any that would amount to something less vague than the sum of its parts. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, obvious SOP as written. To keep, some evidence needs to be provided that this is used in a non-SOP way. This, that and the other (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per my rationale at #autumn orange. Alternatively rfv it. Inqilābī 15:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

summer yellow

like autumn orange. Seriously crapP. Sovjunk (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Like RfD rationale for autumn orange, saying "seriously crap" is a seriously crappy rationale that doesn't address CFI Purplebackpack89 00:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  But are these actual colours, or just whatever the creator wants them to mean? I used to write about colours, and list those that occurred in major dictionaries. I can't recall anything called "fall orange" or "summer yellow" referring to a specific colour—as far as I know, these phrases mean nothing more than the definitions say: an orange that reminds one of fall; a yellow reminiscent of summer (but wouldn't a fall yellow be just as valid? Is yellow more associated with summer than fall?). Webster's Third New International Dictionary has "Autumn", "Autumn blond", "Autumn brown", "Autumn glory", "Autumn leaf", and "Autumn oak", four of which are synonyms for colours defined elsewhere, but there's no "Autumn orange" or "Fall orange", and I don't see any "Summer" colours. These seem to be inventions of the editor who created them, and to the extent they have lexical meaning, it's just sum-of-parts, like "grape red" or "wood brown" or "cloud white", none of which refer to a specific colour—though there's a butterfly called "wood brown"—and so are just random and transparent descriptions. P Aculeius (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  That seems more like an RfV question, @P Aculeius Purplebackpack89 01:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how plain RFV would help. No doubt "summer yellow" can very easily be cited, along with virtually unlimited other ad hoc compound colour names. It seems to me that we need citations that consistently use the term more precisely or specifically than as "the colour that the words conjure up in the mind". For example, sunset yellow is a specific dye with a specific chemical composition, which you would not know purely from the name. Or perhaps this is what you meant anyway. Mihia (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete, obvious SOP as written. This, that and the other (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

At least fall orange makes sense. I'm not sure that summer yellow does - I have winter jasmine (what, no entry!) with yellow flowers at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

"Delete' all three of fall orange, summer yellow, autumn orange, as SoP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep per my rationale at #autumn orange. Alternatively rfv it. Inqilābī 15:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

barcode reader and barcode scanner

both clearly violate WT:SOP. Juwan (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. I wanted to see if barcode reader was an official name for that particular plastic handle-shaped handheld device thingy (in which case it would probably not be SOP), but it does not appear so. There are many objects and devices bearing this name. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oof! Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• What? This isn't any more SOP than card reader. Keep Vilipender (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  the entry for card reader is not directly a reason to keep this one. for example, a case for card reader is that it passes the tennis player test of being a name for a profession. Juwan (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hm, this makes me conflicted. I still intuitively think that “barcode reader” is SoP, and so I’d think yhat “card reader” is also SoP, especially because it can mean a bunch of types of cards, and a bunch of types of readers — but I don’t have an intuitive issue with the entry. I’m not sure if I’d want it deleted, or if there’s some change that’d make it more acceptable for me... Polomo47 (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  I actually looked better at the entry now, and the definition A data input device that reads data from a card-shaped storage medium. is just so weak — reader as data-input device is defined at reader, and so is a corresponding sense at card — that I’d have no issues with the entry’s deletion. If someone brings it to RfD, however, it is likely to be kept by WT:COALMINE or WT:THUB. Polomo47 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I think card reader is a hypernym for various particular designs, by dint of which this is not more SOP than letter opener, you just don’t see the technical intricacy. Keep. Fay Freak (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m slightly on the fence here, card reader seems idiomatic as they can read phones and watches (and I even know one person who has a readable ring!), albeit card info contained on phones and watches. Barcode reader/scanner seems less so but they can be a gun-shaped gun/scanner/reader or rectangular and they can be wired to the counter by the till/register or mobile. Also some can read QR codes, do price checks, print price labels or stickers from a mobile printer, and scan a batch of barcodes for printing from a computer later on, as well as scan items for click and collect purposes - the most advanced ones can do all of the above, are mobile and (in my experience) are rectangular and go by the name HHT (handheld terminal). The entire counter of a self-service checkout that you scan items on could even be thought of as a ‘barcode scanner’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep both. DonnanZ (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

lemon yellow

Transparent SOP according to definition provided - doesn't look lexicalized like sky blue (which is probably COALMINEable as well). Svārtava (tɕ) 16:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep, it appears to be a recognised colour. I even found it on a tin of paint. DonnanZ (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Was it a durably archived tin of paint though? Rowjanes (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Will this do? List of RAL colours on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DonnanZ (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I don't care about whether the entry deletes or keeps. I just like the "was it a durably archived X?" joke. Rowjanes (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I dunno... The lemons I buy are not quite as bright in colour as what wikipedia calls Lemon (color) ( ⬬⬬ ), but more like  ⬬⬬  or  ⬬⬬ . When I keep the lemons for too long and they turn the mellow yellow RAL Classic colour "Lemon yellow" ( ⬬⬬ ) shown in the list on Wikipedia, I throw them away. In everyday use, neither lemon nor lemon yellow, used as a colour designation, correspond to a precise standard. IMO these terms refer to the colours of actual lemons, which vary over a considerable range. The use of a fancy name in a particular colour standard does not make it lexical; some other names from this standard are “Pearl blackberry” and “Fibrous green”.  --Lambiam 15:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Donnanz. And I would like the nominator to explain further why they think the word isn't lexicalized...what research led them to that claim? Why is sky blue lexicalized but lemon yellow isn't? Purplebackpack89 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete, transparently SOP. You can find all sorts of crappy names on tins of paint. This, that and the other (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, as a standard description of various bright yellows, even though the colour itself isn't standardized. Other dictionaries consider this to be the name of a colour. W3 defines it first as "a variable color averaging a brilliant greenish yellow", and secondly as a synonym for Cassel yellow or Chinese yellow. It would be silly to delete it simply because it isn't always the same hue, saturation, and value. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  The question is if it means anything more than lemon + yellow. Since the color of lemons is not fixed, "lemon yellow" will obviously refer to a color falling in a particular range of colors and that doesn't make it non-SOP. Svārtava (tɕ) 13:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't make it sum-of-parts either. By that definition, most of the colours defined by other dictionaries shouldn't have definitions either, because they're also variable. Ranges are definable too, and we shouldn't be coming up with excuses to delete entries that other dictionaries consider worthy of inclusion. P Aculeius (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Svārtava, should we then delete green because it refers to a range of colors and not a single hex triplet? Absurd! Purplebackpack89 21:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Noting that literally almost any "thing + colour" combination, where "thing" has a known typical colour, seems to be citable: mushroom brown, pumpkin orange, grapefruit yellow, coal black, broccoli green, moon grey ... etc. etc. Mihia (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  And yet most of these aren't defined as colours in most dictionaries, which do include lemon yellow, either with a separate entry or under "lemon". OED, under "lemon", sense 5, shows "lemon-yellow" in use since at least 1807; Ridgway depicts "Lemon Yellow" on plate IV of Color Standards and Color Nomenclature (1912), which is widely used as a reference in taxonomy and the sciences. Not just anything that typically falls in the range of some general colour gives rise to a distinct name, which is why most of the above examples, except for "coal black", are redlinked: good luck finding them in dictionaries (I might not be surprised by "pumpkin orange") or art supply catalogues. P Aculeius (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am opposed to including or excluding entries simply because other dictionaries include or exclude them. In particular, popular dictionaries almost certainly include certain terms (e.g. "lemon yellow") and exclude others (e.g. "grapefruit yellow") on the basis of how common or familiar they are (which we don't, provided that minimum citation requirements are met), and probably without applying our concept of SoP with any great strictness or consistency. Ideally we should have our own rules for potentially SoP colours -- if indeed we need additional specific rules -- so that different people can apply the rules and arrive at the same answer. Otherwise, it is arbitrary that someone says "I think that X is a 'proper colour' while Y is not", even when Y is as easily citable as X. Of course, if there is a "hard" definition, such as an exact dye or chemical (as in my elsewhere example sunset yellow) then that should be sufficient to keep. If we can't say anything more than, essentially, "colour of the stated thing", as is presently the case with "lemon yellow", then I am unclear what is our valid rationale for keeping the entry. I am also dubious about descriptive definitions such as "a vivid green", "a soft orange" etc. being in themselves sufficient, because these could be created for any "thing + colour" where "thing" has a known typical colour. Mihia (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: lemonyellow is citeable, which COALMINEs this: 1, 2, 3; others: google books:"lemonyellow". - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

co's

For the same reason we deleted bro's. This is just the possessive of co (pronoun). Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dictionaries usually do not list these. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not the normal way that pronouns form possessives; -'s is regularly added to nouns, not pronouns, so pronominal forms like this, one's, and y'all's are unexpected enough to not be considered SOP. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, a more recent discussion removed the pronoun section from bro, leaving it only as a noun (correctly, IMO), which we do regularly delete possessives of. Pronouns, OTOH ... I agree with Mahagaja, keep this; pronominal possessives formed with apostrophes are a small class and one we seem to keep (we also have him's), and which seems reasonable enough to me to keep. - -sche (discuss) 17:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

beard louse

SOP, I guess. Father of minus 2 (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If this referred to a specific genre of lice, say the crab louse, then it could perhaps be kept—however it does not. Notice how we do not have an entry for hair louse despite that word being super common. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Failed - needs deletion Phacromallus (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phacromallus Re-read "closing a request" above. One vote qualifies for "no consensus" if anything. Ultimateria (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Failed striking counts as a fail vote, and 7 others voted fail, but their edits were destroyed somehow Vealhurl (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Pious Eterino (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

TWOW

Definitions:

1. (internet) The online writing competition Ten Words of Wisdom.
2. (internet) A writing competition, usually held online, where participants have to write responses to prompts, typically in 10 words or fewer.

Not sure whether this should be here or RFV, since the second sense, if it exists, might pass. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What about The Winds of Winter? PUC – 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

All the more reason not to have this one. All the Google Books hits are for that one and a few other published works with the same initials. There are also lots of scannos and some kind of (lowercase) term in linguistics or philosophy, but apparently not this.

The fact that this is on a "Battle for Dream Island" fandom wiki doesn't help- that group was so focused on their favorite spot on the internet that they fought for 11 years to get it on Wikipedia in spite of having none of the evidence for notability that Wikipedia requires. I hope this isn't a continuation of that battle. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, while I can understand why you might think TWOW is just "another BFDI thing", I believe that it is seperate and notable enough to warrant its own definition of Wiktionary.

Firstly, on the BFDI Fandom wiki you are talking about, it explicitly states that "Ten Words of Wisdom is not a part of the BFDI franchise". While there are some similarities with TWOW and BFDI (them both having the same creator, many TWOW fans being BFDI fans, and most notably, the contestants are being represented as "booksonas", which are similar to a BFDI character), TWOW is its own thing seperate from BFDI, although the 2 communities do slightly overlap. However, there are many TWOW fans who are not a fan of BFDI, and there will be more fans of that type because of LingoTWOW: a TWOW with over 400 contestants that is hosted and announced by LingoLizard, a linguistics channel of 60000 subscribers, unrelated to BFDI.

Secondly, the TWOW community is quite sizeable, and there are many "TWOW"s. The second official season of Ten Words of Wisdom, "Eleven Words of Wisdom" has over 16,000 contestants, and the official Discord server regarding TWOW has over 5,000 members. There is also a list of TWOWs, which contains a lot of TWOWs. Take note that a lot of those TWOWs are named something along the lines of "[something] TWOW", which denotes that it is a writing competition similar to carykh's Ten Words of Wisdom.

Thirdly, there are already many definitions related to object shows, BFDI, and TWOW on Wiktionary, such as object show, objectsona, and booksona.

Some final notes are that TWOW can also be used as a suffix (-TWOW, e.g. Magnetty TWOW) or more rarely, a prefix (TWOW-, e.g. TWOWlympics), a lot of the TWOW community and TWOWs operate on Discord (but recently, there have been many TWOWs on YouTube) and I will admit that I have a slight conflict of interest with the TWOW and MiniTWOW Wikis on Miraheze, due to me being staff on both wikis. - AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

What is the reason for deletion? The entry is really poorly formatted right now, but I've seen the initalism quite often (i.e., seems attestable) and the content isn't hard to fix. Polomo47 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I added citations. // AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Reason for the delete is Example: Nonsense, Crosswiki trolling. This seems to be an own invention and does not seem to be a verifiable spread. WikiBayer (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, you’re obviously mistaken. The user most definitely did not make up the word, and the entry is not wrong enough that I’d consider it “trolling”. Polomo47 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

be a thing

I do not blame the author for submitting this entry, but I think that sense 8 at thing#Noun already covers it. It would be an acceptable redirect, though. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom—inclined to agree here; a redirect is also going to be helpful! :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

screw

10. (colloquial, transitive, imperative, vulgar) Used to express great displeasure with, or contemptuous dismissal of, someone or something.

Synonyms: bugger, eff, to hell with

Screw those jerks, and screw their stupid rules!

11. (colloquial, transitive) To give up on, to abandon, delay, to not think about someone or something.

Synonyms: (vulgar, slang) fuck, forget, (Australia) sack

Screw the homework for now.

Screw him, let's run.

RFD sense 11. Don't see how the examples are any different from sense 10. Also the definitions of 11 seem too weak for the examples, or not quite to the point. Mihia (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge or otherwise delete one of them per nom. MedK1 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the problem is with the UXs under sense 11: those are wrong and should be under sense 10. Sense 10 ought to be like, "They screwed me [over]". Maybe this could go to RfV to see if it's really used with no "over">

Outside of that, I believe they are indeed separate senses because saying "screw those jerks" is not close to saying "you should screw those jerks". Polomo47 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why #10 ought to be (essentially) any different from what it is at the moment (except possibly if it is to allow non-imperative use). As for "screw = screw over", have you checked the other senses to see whether this is covered elsewhere? To me, "screw over" usually means "cheat", sense 3. "You should screw those jerks", in a sense 10/11-relevant way, could be seen as a non-imperative use of #10. If #11 is supposed to cover this then, to me, the definitions need to be stronger. I can't see "You should screw those jerks" as really meaning e.g. "You should give up on those jerks". Or do you think otherwise? Mihia (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's a mistake to list noun senses 6/7 and verb senses 2/3/10/11, because all of those simply reflect that screw is the minced equivalent of fuck and is therefore substitutable for it in most contexts. You could replace them with one noun entry reading "Equivalent to fuck, but less vulgar", and one verb entry saying the same thing.

With regard to the difference between 10 and 11 here, the overlap occurs only because sense 10 mentions "contemptuous dismissal". Sense 11 is dismissive, but not necessarily contemptuous; you can use the word to dismiss something that you don't necessarily disapprove of. Sense 10 is strongly pejorative, and that feels like a meaningful difference to me. 2601:647:C901:20C0:4131:EB5D:B72B:DB4A 08:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I think they're distinct enough grammatically to list separately, but if one of them must go, I'd prefer to keep 11 and remove 10, since 10 is a specific use of 11 whereas 11 cannot be subsumed into 10. —Soap— 16:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

forward time machine

This is SOP. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Saph Should we bundle backwards time machine into this RfD as well? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, also SOP. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 19:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Assuming that "forward" is an adjective, we do not presently seem to have an adjectival sense that exactly fits. Are there other examples of such an adjectival sense of "forward"? Mihia (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Seems like a valid (if figurative?) use of the word, and I don't think it's exclusive to (or excluded from) an adjective form. The adverb header has quite a few senses that fit. Maybe we're missing a corresponding adjective sense. Polomo47 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  We may be missing a sense, but in envisaging how we would add it, it occurred to me that we would ideally have other examples to show. Or, possibly we could bundle it into an existing sense. Mihia (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  To answer my own question, at least in one instance, another example might be "forward arrow of time". Mihia (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

put

1. (business) A right to sell something at a predetermined price.
2. (finance) Short for put option.

RFD sense 1 unless someone can show how it is different from sense 2. Mihia (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel these could be merged. "{{lb|en|business|finance}} {{n-g|Short for '''[[put option]]'''}} {{gloss|right to sell something at a predetermined price}}". Maybe even use the ellipsis of template instead of n-g. MedK1 (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

typical bandicoot

"Any in the subfamily Peramelinae of bandicoots". All the few uses of this collocation to be found at Google Books are either modifying a noun (eg, 'typical bandicoot nest') or simply typical + bandicoot. I haven't even found evidence that Perameles nasuta, the type species of the genus Perameles, or any other bandicoot species is called a 'typical bandicoot'. There is more chance that there might be a non-SoP term true bandicoot. DCDuring (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Send to RFV, I s'pose ... Mihia (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Some context: taxonomy is based on the concept of types. Any taxonomic group consists of everything that is closer to the type of that group than to the type of another group at the same level a.k.a rank. A typical x is an x that is closer to the type of the group of x's than most x's.

The problem with identifying typical x's with a specific group of x's is that "typical" is relative. That means that if you're talking about something in a different subfamily from the type, then typical members of the family are in the same subfamily as the type. If you're talking about something in the same subfamily, but a different tribe, then typical members of the subfamily are those in the same tribe as the type. You could theoretically follow this trend down to levels such as infrasubspecies or races, but there's probably no practical reason to do so. There are probably only a few plausible interpretations of "typical bandicoot" in the taxonomic sense- but there's no inherent semantic reason for that.

The hard part about verifying usage would be pinning down which level is meant. If "typical bandicoot" refers only to members of the same species, it contrasts not just with different species, but different genera, subtribes, tribes, subfamilies, and perhaps other levels in between. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

To keep, I would be looking for a meaning along the lines of common gull (not a "common" + "gull") -- i.e. one in which the adjective "typical" doesn't just have its ordinary dictionary meaning, irrespective of what is being contrasted with what. To me this seems feasible in principle, but I'm not seeing anything promising in search results. It could also be hard to prove (especially with limited references) if, in fact, a "typical bandicoot" also is a "typical" + "bandicoot". But, as I say, strictly speaking I suppose it is a question for RFV ... Mihia (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

say

Rfd-sense: (impersonal, transitive) To have a common expression; used in singular passive voice or plural active voice to indicate a rumor or well-known fact.. Indeed not a verb, but a phrase, and supposed to be listed at they say (as it already is). Definitely not impersonal either. Shouldn't be a controversial delete, but I'm putting it here just in case.

Arguably, even they say should be deleted. But currently I don't think so. Polomo47 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

they say survived my RFD with one of these increasingly troubling and unsatisfactory outcomes whereby keep and keep as THUB votes are conflated and apparently added together to result in a "full keep". Not that I feel enormously strongly about they say per se, but this issue generally does need looking at. Mihia (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this sense really exclusive to "they"? Can you not write things like "people say 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' ...". I suspect the true lemma here is just "say" and "they say" should be deleted as SoP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That's just sense 3 of say. Any other meaning stems from the subject of the sentence, be it they or people, both of which carry a meaning of undeterminedness. Polomo47 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

click off

RFD sense: "To click outside or next to an element, for instance a window in a graphical user interface."

I'm assuming a technically miswritten transitive definition, which, if I'm visualising it correctly, does not seem sufficiently idiomatic, but simply "click" + "Outside the area or region of" prepositional sense of "off", analogously to "click on (a screen element)". Or can anyone see something else in it? Mihia (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is transitive, actually — it might be ambitransitive. “I opened this window, and now it won't let me click off!”. Means “to exit”, “to close out”. Not sure what this means for idiomaticity, though. Polomo47 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been clicked off about this kind of "phrasal verb" at Wiktionary for about 16 years. There are many true phrasal verbs; there are some that only specialty phrasal verb dictionaries have; and there some that are more than sufficiently transparent, even in novel uses, such as above, to not be worthy of being in the lexicon. DCDuring (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Assuming it's a phrasal verb (i.e. "off" is an adverb, particle, whatever you want to call it, and not a preposition as I originally thought), which sense of "off" do you think is meant? Mihia (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This strongly appears to be an established idiomatic lexical unit, like sign off, in a way that other conceivable word combinations in this context e.g. "tap off" or "point off" or "exit off" aren't. It also gets stressed/intoned as an idiomatic unit, in a consistent way that "get off" is but "jump off" isn't in "Fred, get off/jump off the bed". Hftf (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Lunix

Sense: “A Unix-like operating system, unrelated to Linux, for the Commodore 64 and Commodore 128.” Apparently it is supposed to be LUnix (but presumably added here because this entry already existed). The Wikipedia article was deleted (“I could find no adequate coverage of this operating system in order to justify an article on it. Any mentions found were brief mentions mostly just copied from this article or a deluge of a people misspelling Linux, even in books.”). J3133 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Low-key imagining this entry with the Misspelling of Linux template. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

i changed the definition to

Deliberate misspelling of Linux.

I think i just didnt know at the time that that template existed. —Soap— 01:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: well, it definitely exists, though it seems to have peaked in popularity more than twenty years ago, so even long-time fans of Commodore might not have heard of it. It's still archived and theoretically still being updated here if anyone's curious, so it's citable in the loosest sense through GitHub and its print mentions, but I don't know what to do. Do we file this under WT:BRAND? In which case it would surely not pass. Oh well. —Soap— 01:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

highering

Rfd-sense adjective. Just verb used adjectivally --90.174.3.169 09:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: woah, another gerund that can be used as both a verb and adjective... Purplebackpack89 15:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have added many quotes to gerunds. The quote can be easily moved. DonnanZ (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete: redundant to the participle sense. Svārtava (tɕ) 14:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong keep. Just because it is rarer doesn’t mean it is redundant to keep this, and it indeed looks a pretty valid adjective like its commoner synonyms. OED has an entry for it too. Inqilābī 18:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

without prejudice

Rfd-sense:

4. (formal, procedural) Choosing not to take a stance, at least for now, without binding future decisions.

Seems redundant to sense 3:

3. (law) A term used to allow a statement or proposal in communications, while allowing the party to return to their original position without being impeded by the described statement or proposal.

Added by Jruderman. This, that and the other (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I can see how the relatively opaque definition of 3 would prevent someone who was looking for sense 4 from realizing that it was intended to already be present. If we delete 4 we should try to more intelligibly incorporate its sentiment into 3 (and broaden the label, since this is also used outside of law). - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

How about "Choosing to take a stand without binding future decisions"? CitationsFreak (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I’d say without-prejudice correspondence may not always involve taking a stand. There are discussions on a possible settlement of the dispute, but parties don’t wish to be bound by any factual assertions or settlement proposals if the matter ultimately cannot be settled. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Suits are withdrawn or dismissed with or without prejudice all the time, depending on the circumstances. All that would be necessary would be to indicate that "prejudice" indicates that the issue in dispute is treated as though adjudicated (whether or not it really was), so that it can't be raised again in the same dispute. I'm sure that can be worded more succinctly. Sense 3 is certainly both confusing and redundant. But why wouldn't the legal use of "prejudice" be covered under "prejudice", when "with" and "without" are used in their ordinary senses? "Without prejudice" seems SoP if "prejudice" includes the legal sense. P Aculeius (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I will leave guys to sort this out more intelligently. Without describing what is ordinary and general and intended I cannot include translations just yet.

unbeschadet + genitive is a correct translation, it is used, as without prejudice to, in the context of statutory precepts excluding the derogation of others, or allowing the latter ones being an exception to the rule; the opposite being ungeachtet, notwithstanding, commanding the practitioner to ignore another provision in the given context.

The current definitions about “parties” and “legal interests“ have no meaning to me thus, and are suspect to be wrong as well. Unless the “party” is the legislator, the speaker of the law, himself, which is a twist and probably too much mental gymnastics, and still makes the definition unfortunate.

In English-language trade they as well pay without prejudice, and, now I think about it, whenever I read ohne Präjudiz in attorney letters, they probably learned it in international law firms or abroad. Our country bumpkins with law degrees found it hilarious, and the judge I asked about it esteemed it to mean the same as ohne Anerkennung einer Rechtspflicht (literally “without recognizing an obligation (in case it will be seen differently)”) (which the attorney letter in question thus had in pleonasm with that other anglicism).

They still use this idea of prejudice more broadly however in common law, as in “dismissed without prejudice”. Of course from German, Prussian, understanding the court always is prejudiced in the sense of recognizing his obligation to assess and decide the case. You only condition your declarations in the course of a litigation because you know it will be definite.

Wikipedia has a few ideas without coherence (and prejudice): It “is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law.” As etymologists taking the primary data serious, unlike Wikipedia, we should hypothesize that there are broad common law meanings which may have been restricted in EU English to continental dogmatics. The Wiktionary entry prejudice is a latent stub here and needs a historical investigation, but for now one might start to expand without prejudice. Fay Freak (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I have merged senses 3 and 4 like this, removing the label from the first part of the definition, since the phrase is used this way even outside law (and even in discussions on this wiki). - -sche (discuss) 08:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

assistant field cornet

I think this is more encyclopedic material than dictionary material; even if it isn't, I think it's WT:SOP anyway. Saph (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Have we deleted military ranks as SOP before? If it was indeed an actual, official, specific rank as claimed in the entry, I would be reluctant to view it as SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep, seeing as second lieutenant has an entry. I suppose we keep military titles? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Kept. We do keep military titles Vealhurl (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

object thingy

The definition does not really make sense, but what it's trying to say is that a lot of object show fans include the phrase "the object thingy" in their usernames. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4936:1531:AACE:AD57 19:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more suitable for a RfV instead? Also, looking at site:reddit.com "object thingy", there's 985 results for it. 49.145.100.19 23:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I will send this to RfV instead because it doesn't seem like a RfD at all. Closed. 49.145.100.19 00:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

kept-rfd, This will be sent to RfV instead. 49.145.100.19 00:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Undid the IP's move. This is not an RfV matter at all, it's whether this entry carries any kind of meaning, which doesn't seem to be the case for me. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have read the definition of object show several times on Wiktionary, TV Tropes, Reddit and Urban and I still have absolutely no idea what it means. Could anyone please attempt to explain it to my dumbass? Because I vaguely think this might have a shot at being entry-worthy but I cannot comment here without knowing what it is for. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I want to mention that my interpretation (which is also pretty much what the entry says) is that object show fans make their usernames on social media “X the object thingy” — as in, one of the objects that goes on object shows. Literally a thingy that is an object, thingy is a filler word, yes, but I don’t see relevance in that. If there is nothing more the IP can add (that is relevant), I’ll be saying delete. Polomo47 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

ne'er a

This was RFVed (WT:RFVE#ne'er a) but is clearly attested and Vex's rationale ("does not pass the fried-egg test") suggests RFD was meant, so I moved it here. It's possible to use "never a" in the same places as "ne'er a" (google books:"where never a"), so AFAICT the two must be equally either idiomatic or equally SOP, no? (I don't think the existence of nary has any effect, e.g. COALMINE, any more than onna and i'th' require us to have on a and in the.) Perhaps ne'er a and never a merit inclusion for WT:ONCE reasons? (The part of speech needs to be changed to "Phrase" or something better, I think.) (Edit: to clarify, count me as abstain.) - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; this entry's current definition is SOP as the ety is simply ne'er + a, with no meaning beyond “never a”. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but how do you get from "never" + "a" to "not a single". What sense of "never"? 83.151.229.56 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The same way we get to "not a". "Ne'er" is just a stronger synonym of "not". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Right. (@83:) The examples of "ne'er a" I can find offhand, e.g. (from Google Books) "Where ne'er a plough had dared to go since Time his race begun", seem to use never in an expected meaning ("where never i.e. not ever [not at any time] had a plough dared to go..."), but I'm open to a WT:ONCE argument that the grammar is unusual, if anyone wants to make that argument, and I'm open to being reminded of examples where the meaning is not easy to interpret, if anyone has any. Otherwise, it does seem like the entries ne'er and a cover this adequately. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"You understand me? I, sir? Ne'er a whit" Taming of the Shrew [6] Justin the Just (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I did just notice that we have many a. Maybe ne'er a merits inclusion for similar (ONCE?) reasons? - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

But many a is a determiner of quantity, and would change meaning if converted to many the, and a quick search turns up very few examples of that altered phrase. But by contrast, a Google Books search turns up multiple instances of ne'er the: "Where ne'er the bright and buoyant wave" --Walter Scott; "Where ne'er the Muse's harp had rung"; "Where ne'er the trumpet's sound did swell"; "Where ne'er the placid flock , nor hairy goats"; etc. In these quotes, the meaning is the same despite the change from an indefinite to the definite article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

economic plunder

Tagged in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as RfD is concerned, this should be a clear keep, since plunder does not typically mean embezzlement (although the two share many aspects) and — perhaps more importantly — economic does not typically mean “of public funds”, but rather “of money”... Maybe the definition is wrong, though, and that is a matter for RfV in my opinion. Polomo47 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete – @Polomo47 I think this might not be idiomatic, and the definition looks incorrect. If we consider the etymology being economic (“pertaining to an economy”) + plunder (“to commit robbery or looting”), it ultimately suggests the taking (stealing) of money from the local economy. Embezzlement is one form of this; from a Google search, it seems that similar monetary crimes like the money laundering of public funds can also be called an economic plunder, as can seizing or outright stealing money from the economy. I think keeping this entry would perhaps be like keeping monetary plunder. (Semi-related, but from the search results that came up, the Philippines label looks incorrect as the word is used in many varieties of English). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If the current definition is wrong, and that broader definition is what would be appropriate, then, yes, this is SoP. The first results on Google seem to pertain to “accumulation by dispossession”.Polomo47 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

how dare you

Should redirect to how dare someone. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9158:619F:598F:E1DB 08:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I would have thought Equinox could have done that himself. But how dare someone is a weird construction, created by Equinox. I am inclined to Keep this as my Oxford lists it under dare, "used to express indignation at something: how dare you talk to me like that!" DonnanZ (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - compare with how very dare you. John Cross (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, of course how dare someone is weird; however, on the basis that you can say you, he, she, they, and even common and proper nouns, and given that it would be unreasonable to either redirect those to the “you” form specifically or maintain separate entries for them all, and unless a better general form is found redirect. The “comparison” pointed out above as an argument for keeping makes... no sense? Yes, redirect that one too. Polomo47 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• No redirect is needed, as how dare someone is now shown as a related term. I am not keen on redirects, and Wikipedia is riddled with them. I have had to use hatnotes sometimes to get around them (like today, 9 May). DonnanZ (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Elon

Musk

Rfd-sense: Elon Musk. One of thousands named Elon, and notable in the past, what, <15 years? Of course, names of specific entities is a gray (that is also to say, not green) area in CfI, but this is just so baffling to me that I’d like to see what arguments could be presented in favor of the sense. Polomo47 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

By the way, this Elon time thing seems deserving of RfV... I don’t mess with English RfVs, though. Polomo47 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There are any number of places where the locals are known for being laid back regarding schedules and punctuality. A common metaphor is to refer to them as being "on [x] time" ("Hawaii time" is probably the best known), as if they were in a different time zone. This seems to be an extension of that.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as not being dictionary material. This is just a recipe for accumulating lists of people, especially for common names like John, Susan, or Smith. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Added “Musk” separately. That has more derived terms, which could be an argument for keeping, but it’s not yet CfI–compliant. Polomo47 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Abstain for now, but leaning keep, re Musk: for better or worse, we currently do have a ton of entries for people who can be invoked by last name alone: Bush, Churchill, Clinton, Goebbels, Hitler, Lenin, Marx, Obama, Sunak, ... the only ones I thought to check that we're missing are Engels, Johnson, and Roosevelt.
Abstain for now, but leaning delete, re Elon. On one end of the spectrum, if someone added a sense "Joseph Stalin" to Joseph, the case for deletion would (IMO) be open and shut, because no-one says "Joseph" in isolation without a last name or context and gets understood as meaning "Stalin". On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that we do have a sense "Adolf Hitler" at Hitler seems OK to me, and even having a sense "Adolf Hitler" at Adolf would seem OK to me (though we currently just have a usage note, which also works), because you can respond to something someone said with a sarcastic "OK, Adolf" and be understood as referring to Hitler. That, in turn, probably has to do with the commonness of Joseph vs the rarity of the surname Hitler and the (modern) uncommonness of the given name Adolf. It seems like there are not currently any Elons or Musks who come anywhere close to Elon Musk's prominence, but we may be too "near" to him in time to judge whether the names have become lastingly associated with a specific pol the way Adolf has (and the way Joseph hasn't). - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

For what it means about my consistency, I would want most of these individuals-in-surname-entries deleted, but I don’t care enough about it. I could see value in including names that are all but synonymous with an individual, such as Goebbels and Hitler, but then there’s the problem that it’s only one person (not lexicalized?) and thus more suitable for their Wikipedia biography. On the other side of the issue, names like Clinton and Bush are just regular names! People get referred to by their surnames all the time in academical/journalistic literature... we’re not gonna add senses to the surname of every single historian saying it can be used to refer to them — Hobsbawm! With people like Sunak, this goes doubly. I bet no one outside of the UK will remember them in a few years — as a Brazilian, I do not, but maybe the USAmericans do. Polomo47 (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I admit I was surprised to find, when I checked, that we had Sunak, and I would not object to deleting him. One approach I have seen on a few entries, which might work, would be to reduce "Barack Obama", "Bill Clinton" et al from definition-lines to usexes, linking to their Wikipedia articles (they do, after all, attest the names). - -sche (discuss) 00:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do very much like that approach, actually, and was gonna mention it. The names of these people are great at illustrating the terms, as collocations and usexes should. Polomo47 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

There are many hits for "the Romanian Trump". Now hot, if attestations of this generic use of Trump as a common noun span a sufficient time span, it becomes includable, with some definition like "far-right populist politician espousing conspiracy theories, authoritarianism and pro-Russian views". A similar lot may befall the proper noun Musk, but we aren't there yet.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I should note that we have about ~300 of these on Wiktionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

consenting adult

Tagged in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The question here is whether "who willingly has sex" is actually part of the definition. If it isn't then this is just "an adult who consents" and is SoP. My inclination is that it isn't - context rather than the specific terminology used is what specified what is being consented to, and hence this should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, strong keep: ignore consenting and focus on adult, noun, “a fully grown human or other animal” and “a person who has reached the legal age of majority.” In many contexts in which “consenting adult” is used, it refers to a person who has reached the age of consent, sometimes 14–17 in countries where the legal age of majority is 18, which means the “consenting adults” are not legally adults. Thus, this term is actually entirely idiomatic. This would be unless we add a sense to adult which is “one who has reached the age of consent” (or whatever phrasing we would actually use). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems much more like a sense of adult than anything specific to this construction. Polomo47 (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo47 Do you know of any usage examples wherein adult means “one who has reached the age of consent”? If so, we can add that sense on said entry and delete this one. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I slightly misread your message, so my reply wasn’t too pertinent, but I do wonder if the definition of adult doesn’t mean “above a legal minimum age” in other contexts? I’m actually mostly agreeing with the point you make, I guess. On a side note, I found some uses of consenting adult, which confuse me... consenting adults jump off of cliffs, There are consenting adults trading with their own money. Must be a play on the sexual meaning. Polomo47 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo47: OED has an extended use sense that is “(also in extended and allusive use) a person who is considered old enough to decide whether to engage in a particular activity.” I reckon those attests you linked are uses for this figurative sense that we do not yet have. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I looked for some attests in which adult means “one who has reached the age of consent” but I could not find any, even as as clipping of consenting adult (if there is, ofc, this entry should then be deleted). Furthermore, Merriam-Webster also has a consenting adult entry and defines it as “a person who is legally considered old enough to decide to have sex ...” but their entry for adult (noun) never mentions an AoC sense. OED also has consenting adult and, like Merriam-Webster, their entry for adult (noun) lacks any age of consent sense. Longman has consenting adult as “someone who is considered to be old enough to decide whether they want to have sex”. @Zacwill, Fay Freak: In conclusion, consenting adult is definitely idiomatic and should be kept. :3 I am definitely on yet another watchlist for those Google searches. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: In conclusion, it is a tautological expression. Naturally you won't find legal systems where adulthood is not linked with nubility and hence effective sexual consent, while sexual maturity is a tad earlier than cognitive maturity, in humans. Fay Freak (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete, per above. Zacwill (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The sexual nature depends on context, yes, delete. It’s worth noting that “above the age of consent” and “in adulthood” don’t always go together, but I attribute that to a fault in the definition, rather — as far as I can tell, anyone who says “consenting adult” should always mean “adult”, regardless of legislation. Polomo47 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Ironically, WF nominated this, and was the entry's creator. It seems to be a legal term, and both my Oxford and Collins dictionaries include it. It's a shame that the delete voters apparently didn't do any homework. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete, the clue lies in consenting meaning “capable of consent”. Legal dictionaries contain loads of uncreative and unintelligent combinations. Fay Freak (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The word adult is very important, as if a person is under the age of consent they are a juvenile.

In the Oxford Dictionary of English: "an adult who willingly agrees to engage in a sexual act"

In Collins English Dictionary: "(British) a person over the age of sixteen who willingly engages in a sexual activity"

In Merriam-Webster Online: "a person who is legally considered old enough to decide to have sex: an adult who has consented to have sex"

All the above concentrate on sexual activity. It's also worth reading Consent (criminal law) in Wikipedia, which covers other aspects. DonnanZ (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Luna. Juwan (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Kept per Lemmings. Vealhurl (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

thunder fire

Entering this as a verb seems to have been a misparse. The phrase "thunder fire you!" seems to be of the same kind as "God damn you!", i.e. "(may) X do Y". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B9E2:37CF:57AE:AA62 06:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hm, indeed. But a “thunder fire you” could be made. Or maybe “may thunder fire you”? Move there and keep only the interjection sense. Polomo47 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

blonde joke

Newfie joke

All SOP phrases. A joke about a blonde, a Kerryman and a Newfie. The only extra detail is that it's usually a joke about them being stupid, but I think it's safe to assume that a joke will always cast someone in a negative light (and aren't there also blonde jokes also be about blondes being stereotypically promiscuous?) Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Re: "I think it's safe to assume that a joke will always cast someone in a negative light", I don't think that's true. Consider Chuck Norris jokes, which assume absurd ability on the part of the subject (e.g., "When Chuck Norris jumps in the water, he doesn't get wet. The water gets Chuck Norris"). bd2412 T 04:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Irish joke

This one I think also belongs to this group, but I admit it's slightly different in that it's a joke about an Irishman, not "Irish" in general - although we do also have Irish as meaning "Irish people" ("many Irish..."). Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Eh, the WT:LIGHTBULB test is based on this specifically. It also aligns with how I perceive idiomaticity: you wouldn't call a joke whose focus happens to be blonde a "blonde joke" — and, for that matter, very few jokes would specify a woman's hair color if not to make fun of it, so it's WT:FRIED insofar as blonde jokes always have one or two themes. Keep that one for that reason, but the definition is very bad.

I haven’t ever heard of Kerryman joke, Newfie joke, or Irish joke. The first has a pretty bad definition that would make it SoP; the second would be idiomatic if the definition is accurate, but it likely is not; the third is probably idiomatic if the usage note is correct (though I suspect all jokes about Irishmen call them idiots), and that should get a new sense. Polomo47 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the difference is that a lightbulb joke is a specific structure of joke: "How many X does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A blonde joke is just any joke relying on stereotypes of blondes. Similarly, I'd differentiate an Irish joke - any joke relying on Irish stereotypes - from, say, "An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman", a specific tripartite joke structure. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

friends

Rfd adjective sense. Looks dubious Vilipender (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a noun to me: "He is my friend" + "I am his friend"= "we are friends". As for modifiers: "he is a close friend","we are close friends", not "we are closely friends" nor "we are very friends". The same kind of construction can be used with any name of a reciprocal relationship: enemy, acquaintance, classmate, neighbor, rival, stranger, lover, etc. I would contend that "person who shares the same taste in music"/"two people who share the same taste in music" is more of the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The author did not understand English grammar. Some of our editors formulate many of our etymologies like this: Cognates with … Fay Freak (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also citeable stuff like "I've been neighbours with" (Pete since 2020) Vilipender (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The RFD'd sense isn't "We are friends" (clear SOP) but "I am friends" (not grammatical on a naive reading). A few hits that do modify it like an adjective:

• 1883 January 1, Grace Denio Litchfield, Only an Incident, Library of Alexandria, →ISBN:

  "But you will not be less friends with me because I like you best?"
  " I will not ever be less friends with you," Phebe replied, soberly.

• 1893, Frances E. Crompton, The Gentle Heritage, page 70:

  But still I do not like to say anything against him , for I think I am most friends with Bobby, but I think I love Paul most.

• 1985, Richard Hough, Mountbatten: Hero of Our Time, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, →ISBN:

  This was well known among all the party at Heiligenberg , as was the story about Lord Derby approaching the King and asking him if he could not be more friends with his children and make them less afraid of him.

• 2012 November 28, Bruce Christianson, James Malcolm, Frank Stajano, Jonathan Anderson, Security Protocols XX: 20th International Workshop, Cambridge, UK, April 12-13, 2012, Revised Selected Papers, Springer, →ISBN, page 122:

  If we are going back to the example you had earlier with us, if you are to trust my recommendation of Matt, then you have to be more friends with me than I am friends with Matt, because otherwise I could be playing a game on you.

• 2024 September 24, Noel Fielding, quotee, “Noel Fielding — things you didn't know about the Great British Bake Off presenter”, in Yahoo News‎^[7]:

  Now I'm slightly friends with Kate Bush which is more than I could have hoped for. She's a genius.

friends seems to be reasonably unique. The others Chuck lists mostly exist but are very rare and possibly non-native. A few hits on Google Books for "I've been neighbo(u)rs with", only a single one for "I've been colleagues with" (by a non-native speaker), a handful for "I've been enemies with" (mostly again self-published romances by non-native speakers), and some are clearly not grammatical (I was going to say "I am lovers with him" is clearly ungrammatical but bizarrely "I am lovers with..." and "I was lovers with..." finds hits exclusively from LGBT writing - mostly lesbians. Is it a special term only used in the gay community?). I wonder if we should also have a sense at -s: "When appended to a noun defining a relationship, creates a pseudo-adjective referring to the state of being in that relationship." or similar. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: I support the creation of this particle. Not to be confused with another adjective formans in colloquial British English which is rarely covered by the dictionary, found in butters, lengers etc. Many of these -ers formations fly under the radar, and do not make it into books.

Both constructions could be argued to be arbitrary rather than lexicalized, as shown by your preconception that this would be ungrammatical. There is just no as close and general relationship as friendship, so people get away with comparing it while still remaining comprehensible, evoking a frequent collocation. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Move to be friends (and move lovers to be lovers) - happy with that solution. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously still a noun, not an adjective. Collocation with 'more' is to be compared with 'He is more a lover than a fighter', 'I am more a gentleman than a scholar'. Does not pass any serious adjective tests (*'very friends'). If you want to treat it as a peculiar idiom because of its grammar, instead of the obvious solution of just noting this idiom under the head noun 'friend', then it should be 'be friends with' (and the numbers enthusiasts can then create all their 'will have been being friends with' entries). -- Hiztegilari (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hiztegilari "more a lover" is not analogous to "more friends", and any uncomparable adjective would fail "very X", so that's a poor test. Your "obvious solution" amounts to brushing the issue under the rug, and I can't support it. Theknightwho (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, while I can't find "very friends", I can find "slightly friends" (see above), "somewhat friends", "kind of friends" etc

• 2012 April 9, Katie Efird, My Perfect Life, Author House, →ISBN, page 66:

  After Jenna leaves a girl in my class named Rebecca, who is somewhat friends with Adriana, sits down beside me.

• 2019, Titan Frey, Delivery at Zombie Lane, page back cover:

  Molly is somewhat friends with Josh and she's Kenny's school crush.

• 2024, Reba Bale, My Kind of Girl: A Second Chance Lesbian Romance, Reba Bale:

  “Hi, I'm Kathy. I'm kind of friends with Ava's mother."

Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep based on these citations. Theknightwho (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I do like the idea of making a be friends with. Any reasons not to? Polomo47 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I note we also have make friends (see Talk:make friends); I wonder how much sense it makes to view be friends as friends#Adjective, but make friends as make friends. Would it solve the POS issue to view be friends as be friends, deleting this sense of friends? Conversely, if you want to treat this as friends#Adjective, should we also view make friends as using an adjective sense of friends, and if not, why not? Aren't we obliged to also have enemies#Adjective and/or be enemies, make enemies; rivals#Adjective; etc? If not, why not?
PS I notice we had a translation table at enemies, added earlier this year and listing a translation of "mortal enemies", which I removed. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete the doubtful "adjective" friends, in favour of be friends. - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer creating be friends (and redirect be friends with, as make friends with redirects to make friends). bd2412 T 04:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete for idiom be friends.

The strongest point favoring the preservation of the adjective sense of friends is the fact that sentences with friends, as @Smurrayinchester suggests, permit a singular noun / pronoun as the subject (e.g. John is friends with Alex). If friends were a predicative noun, you'd expect it to agree in number with the subject (only John is a friend of Alex should be grammatical). The fact that it is able to not agree but still be grammatical suggests that friend with -s is functioning uniquely as an adjective. Like @Theknightwho says, trying to use comparable adjective tests for this word in the case that it's not a comparable adjective would of course reap failure; that is, very friends would fail in the same way that very daily would fail (and we can all agree that daily is an adjective).

I think a better counter to friends being an adjective is determining whether it sounds grammatical when used attributively. For me, postpositively, it sounds a bit weird, and prepositively, it's definitely ungrammatical. Compare a married person (prepos. attr.) and a person married to their spouse (postpos. attr.) with a friends person (prepos. attr.) and a person friends with another (postpos. attr.). To be fair, I wouldn't say either form—I'd just use the predicative form, i.e. the he is friends with (...) form—but I wonder what others think about the grammaticality of attributive friends.

Just like what @bd2412, @-sche and @Polomo47 think, maybe the most sound solution for this would be to create the entry be friends as an idiom or some phrase, just like make friends is, and then assume that this adjective-seeming, plural form of friend is not an individual adjective but instead just a part of this idiom / phrase. Should the adjective sense still be kept, I think it'd be better to keep the sense at friends instead of entering a sense at -s that defines -s as an adjective-forming suffix. I'm not aware of many adjectives formed by a noun + -s, so I'm playing it safe and assuming that -s as an adjective-forming suffix is not (very) productive.

Notes

Languagelover3000 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 @-sche @Hiztegilari Counterpoint: you can't be "very friends", but you can be "potentially friends", "possibly friends" or "kinda friends" with someone - in other words, it can be modified by degree. We wouldn't have an entry for be running, for instance, which has similar semantics.

It possibly suggests friends behaves more like a participle, though it isn't derived from a verb, so I'd have to think more on that. Theknightwho (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that's actually just another argument that supports the fact it's a verb, so I agree: move to be friends. Theknightwho (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Another thing now making me think the best option would be to make the entry be friends is the fact that I've just realised all the grammatical sentences that have been given above can have their "adverbs" postposed without sounding too ungrammatical. Below are some excerpts of quotes or example sentences from above exemplifying this. The theoretical idiom "be friends" and the adverb modifying it are bolded.

• You will not be less friends with me → You will not be friends less with me
• I am most friends with Bobby → I am friends most with Bobby
• If he could not be more friends with his children → If he could not be friends more with his children
• Now I'm slightly friends with Kate Bush → Now I'm friends slightly with Kate Bush
• I'm kind of friends with Ava's mother → I'm friends kind of with Ava's mother
• Molly is somewhat friends with Josh → Molly is friends somewhat with Josh

For the above sentences, you could even put the word at the end of the sentence (e.g. Molly is friends with Josh somewhat).

Under the assumption that adverbs usually precede their head adjective but are not as restricted in position for their head verbs,¹ I think this may seal the deal on the idea of this being an idiom / verb.

1. Compare he is very happy and he is happy very* vs. he drove home quickly; quickly, he drove home and he quickly drove home.

Languagelover3000 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Or maybe it's a plurale tantum sense of friends, meaning "in a state of friendship (with someone)"? [Languagelover3000 (talk)] 16:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted: will move to be friends unless someone else gets to it first. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

love away

This is the sense of away meaning "from a state or condition of being; out of existence". That entry has the much more common example of "I'll sleep the rest of the day away", and we don't have an entry for sleep away, for instance. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A818:1F7A:7CB0:A6F9 21:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess this is away sense 7? Most of the senses in that entry seem like the same thing, though... I’d like some more examples before committing to a "delete". Polomo47 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

disinformation drive, misinformation drive

Sum of Parts? Means essentially, disinformation campaign, misinformation campaign. drive means campaign. Although blood drive, food drive, and toy drive exist. Though vaccination drive isn't existing 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes – I am inclined to opine that we should delete these as SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Greek alphabet

Proto-Canaanite alphabet

Alphabets used to write Greek, Zhuyin, Glagolitic, Proto-Canaanite. The last three have already been nominated some 13 years ago and had consensus to delete, but somehow remain as entries. Note that alphabets have been nominated for deletion time and time again, but the archives of these discussions are seldom linked to from their talk pages... Dutch alphabet and Hungarian alphabet seem to have a few.

I am nominating Greek alphabet for the same reason the other ones ("alphabet used to write Greek"), but I cannot in good faith do the same to, e.g., Latin alphabet (What's a Latin? Is it something you eat?). Polomo47 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Or be a cannibal and eat a Greek? DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thought about it; clear case of SoP, and we could have this for every language. Delete. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo47 I don't see how Latin is different - the Latin alphabet is the alphabet used to write Latin. The Greek alphabet is the alphabet used to write Greek. If anything, Cyrillic is different because the Cyrillic alphabet isn't even named after a language that it's used to write, but after its author, and is also a very common and useful collocation. In my opinion, deleting these would make navigating these terms more complicated (despite being more "normalized" and inclusion-criteria-friendly), because now you have to go to "Latin" and interpret what the "Latin alphabet" is supposed to be, or "Cyrillic" and figure out that "Cyrillic" also refers to the alphabet (noun), as well as being an adjective. Having a separate entry for the alphabet is good because it very clearly distinguishes how to use those base terms in the collocation, which I think is inclusion-worthy/lexically significant. However, it's true that they are basically sum of parts, and it is generally possible to understand the meaning without them, just harder to separate the senses / concepts. I would vote to keep but weakly. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 00:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hm, it’s true that we sense 2 of Latin makes this sum-of-parts. I believe my original reasoning here was that Cyrillic is synonymous with Cyrillic alphabet, but adjective senses are also indicative of sum-of-parts. Maybe I should include it in this RfD... @LunaEatsTuna, the only other who has said anything. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 00:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Except that the "Latin" script and alphabet includes letters and symbols not present in the Latin language, such as those in Scandinavia, in Slavic languages, and even in German, French, and Spanish (ß ç ñ). --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Although Greek alphabet is an alphabet used to write Greek, and though is the one used today, it is not the only alphabet used to write Greek. Older Greek was written using Linear B, which was replaced by the Phoenician alphabet, before the script now known as the Greek alphabet was recorded. So the construction is not mere sum of parts, but refers to a specific alphabet among several used to write Greek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

IMO that is very weak and tendentious reasoning, and arguing based on a technicality. This is similar to reasoning that because a given word has more than one possible meaning, any expression involving it cannot be SOP. Or saying that coffee maker is not SOP because you could also use it to bash someone's head in rather than make coffee. Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not see it that way. I see it the same as Venetian blinds, which are not the only kind of blinds used in Venice, but are a specific sort of blinds with particular and unique characteristics identified and distinguished through combination with a proper descriptor to mean a specific object or set. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

beard bug

As per beard louse Phacromallus (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know. Is a beard bug any bug found in the beard? If bug had a “louse” sense, then I’d understand... Hm, is there such a thing as, say, a pubic bug? Polomo47 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems dumb. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Calling a louse a bug is definitely informal. No beard, no lice or bugs. Send to RfV. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep, subject to RfV. We have head louse and body louse (considered different subspecies), and we have Morning Star and Evening Star, same underlying entity. DCDuring (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

0 GBooks hits for "a beard bug". But should properly be RFVed, I suppose. The "beard louse" entry is so silly that I can only assume this one is also a joke. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3047:5F1F:BE0D:3B50 21:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should RfV it. Polomo47 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Move to RfV per above—I am the fourth editor to suggest this but I want to obtain a higher edit count. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: Am open to decent crypto offers for my old account. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E554:283:652D:79BD 23:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Heh, I think those 893,801 edits might be non-negotiable. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

nonstandard method

"(mathematics, sciences) A method that is beyond the range of standard or traditional approaches, often involving introducing new concepts like infinitesimals or hyperreal numbers in order to solve difficult problems."

From the citations, this seems to be just non-standard + method used in a mathematical context. DCDuring (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It can be argued that nonstandard is a non-standard spelling in Br. Eng. There is no entry for non-standard method, nor for standard method. I am not offering a lifeline to this, but I note that it was sent to RfV first. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

nonstandard variety might need a look too. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3047:5F1F:BE0D:3B50 21:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I've RFDed it below. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep (or possibly add a new sense at nonstandard) Seems to be a specific concept - not just any method that is not standard, but a method that uses infinitesimals and infinities in rigorous ways as pioneered by Abraham Robinson (see Nonstandard analysis). The definition should be tightened up to focus on the second clause, but e.g. the textbook Nonstandard Methods in Ramsey Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory is specifically about the application of Robinson's methods to a type of mathematics. The book also uses "nonstandard analysis" (the technique of applying nonstandard methods) and "nonstandard universe" (the set of mathematical objects including infinitesimals and infinities), so maybe the key term is "nonstandard" however. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

(We also have nonstandard number, which is also a related concept) Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. In general, a nonstandard method can be any method that is not one of the standard methods of addressing some problem. As such it is SOP. In the book Nonstandard Methods in Ramsey Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory it is used as a mathematical term of art, in a non-{{&lit}} sense, derived from the term of art nonstandard analysis, and then means, “A method based on nonstandard analysis”. This abuse of terminology is probably due to nonstandard-analysis method being a bit too much of a mouthful.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 09:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

nonstandard variety

SOP? Cf. #nonstandard method by the same user. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It is an excellently phrased definition but yeah smells very SoP to me. One only has to know what a variety is, and given a linguistics context, the sense marked linguistics would be a safe bet. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3047:5F1F:BE0D:3B50 22:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do we have standard language, standard dialect, standard variety? Let's answer this first, for the creator could not omit one while upholding the other, without being left with cognitive dissonance; I can't tell since due to field independence I always situate myself in schizoglossia; for average readers, having these linguistic terms does not cast bad light upon the dictionary, at least. Fay Freak (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

In that respect, @Hftf’s helpful keywording of my above post has raised my attention about us man missing bare standards and averages supported by lemmings. In a marketing dictionary, wholly downloadable for our permanent editors, indeed we have average reader, average costs defined as “the total cost divided by the related quantity” (whatever that means), average discount, average circulation, etc., in sum surprisingly sundry terms that are only divisible into parts by consumer atomism but not business administration, often seemingly requiring definition in spite of being superficially SOP. It’s like the difference as between prime costs and marginal costs. Fay Freak (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Fay Freak, thank you for the feedback. I added several cites to indicate its concrete usage, antonymous to standard variety. mysteryroom (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

FD&C Red No. 3,FD&C Red No. 40

My deletionist tendencies are on overdrive here... Phacromallus (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no inclinations for these to be deleted. Fay Freak (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep: I think these can be kept because, even though they are code designations, they have entered the general lexicon and are used like regular words, e.g. “Color additive mixtures for food use (including dietary supplements) made with FD&C Red No. 40 may contain only those diluents that are suitable and that are listed in part 73 of this chapter as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring foods”. We include European food additive numbers (like E422, E926, E150b etc.) for this same reason. I would certainly be against including any ISBNs, but these are fine IMO. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I would definitely want an entry for red 40, and that appears to be an ellipsis of this, so I want this by proxy. This nomination is, of course, not questioning idiomaticity, but rather lexicality. Polomo (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Having an entry for red 40 (which I agree we should have) does not necessarily imply that FD&C Red No. 40 is a part of the language's lexicon nor that it should have an entry. Many of our (indeed lexical) shortened form entries, in a definition, do simply link to the associated encyclopedia article with the canonical name, which seems like an appropriate status quo. Delete. Hftf (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Holocast

This seems like too rare of a misspelling to include...? (By the same user as the verb mothe, and various dubious pronunciations of Chicanx et al which I have now removed. The lowercase form holocast seems to be somewhat less rare, per Ngrams. - -sche (discuss) 16:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these two misspellings or typos? Polomo47 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete as typographical errors, which I suspect to be the case; surely if this term had a misspelling it would be, based on its pronunciation, Holocost / holocost (which both incidentally exist as misspellings for this term). Where does cast come from? However, if there is an accent that pronounces it this was, rendering this a misspelling and not a typographical error, I might vote keep because this term (perhaps depressingly) actually has quite a lot of hits (47K) on Google. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

campfire cookie

Not a specific type of cookie. Just any cookie at a campfire. SoP. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BCAE:C553:6E63:139D 12:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The definition as written is impressively stupid (one would almost think it was WF-style trolling), so delete that, but googling around, it does seem like this might actually be the name of a specific (chocolate-chip-s'mores-y?) type of cookie you could make in your oven with no campfire involved, if anyone wants to attest and define that, a la birthday cake sometimes being a very specific flavour. - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@-sche That def can be technically deleted but the page can be repurposed into a new entry (technically a different sense) for a cookie that has the ingredients of a s'more. I found some recipes for a campfire cookie that is a type of cookie that tastes like/imitates the ingredients of a s'more: graham crackers, marshmallows and chocolate (most common foodstuffs to put inside). The campfire would make this word idiomatic (unlike, say, chocolate cookie, s'more cookie and others), so we can keep it. Here are some attests from those Wordpress-esque “momblog” recipe websites (which I proudly browse from time to time):

4 Dec 2014, Cookies and Cups

Campfire Cookies^[sic] are my new favorite cookie recipe! These have all the flavors of s’mores cookies made with marshmallows, chocolate, honey, and graham crackers, these cookies are the essence of a summer campfire!

22 Jun 2015, Glorified Hobby

There was a time when graham crackers were a mandatory part of s’mores. Since replacing them with freshly-baked chocolate chip cookies, there is no turning back. I made Campfire Cookies^[sic] as a surprise-treat for my sweethearts.

26 Sep 2016, Creole Contessa

The Campfire Cookie^[sic] is the ultimate Smores turned into a cookie with Peanut Butter folks! [recipe explained at the bottom]

30 Jan 2024, Some Kinda Good

These campfire cookies are reminiscent of a warm fire, roasting marshmallows and eating sticky s’mores but without all the mess! With crushed graham crackers, toasted mini-marshmallows, and slightly melted chocolate, this may be my new favorite cookie of all time.

17 Apr 2025, Seriously Eats

These chunky campfire cookies include all your summer s'mores ingredients: chopped up Hershey's bars, graham crackers, and marshmallows.

Now I am insanely hungry. Might make these at some point, take a pic and upload it to Commons for use on this entry. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about how blatantly SOP (and dissimilar to the actual, idiomatic definition) the definition Mysteryroom entered was, and how plainly the first cite he added doesn't use the term—he even quoted the preceding sentence, "A meeting of all Campfire guardians will be held at the "Y" at 7 o'clock on Monday evening, March 24.", to make clear that in "Final arrangements for the Campfire cookie sale will be made at this time.", "Campfire" was the name of the group hosting the "cookie sale", the sentence was not using a term "Campfire cookie"—I cannot help but think: c'mon, Mysteryroom, are you trolling (or, depending on how people want to view it, earnestly using judgement this poor and sloppy) again already after you were just blocked? (Compare some of the cites offered for ace bare, discussed at WT:RFVE#ace_bare.) Another admin assessed back in April 2024, and it has also seemed to me, that this user learned Wiktionary's rules to waste people's time because they have to follow him around if they want to catch the (depending on how one wants to view it) trolling or problematic entries a competent editor would know better by now than to create, and put them through time-consuming RFDs and RFVs. I know a few editors have opined that the not-incorrect edits the user intermixes the trolling / bad edits into are worth it, but my inclination is to block and be done with it, given the number of times the user has been warned and even blocked already. In line with the block summary of the last block, I am blocking Mysteryroom for 3 months. To be clear, this block is not for this one entry, it is for a long history of such conduct as noted in prior blocks' summaries and discussed in prior RFVs, RFDs, and elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The definition is impressive as you say, but less so than the community’s commerce with the author is disappointing. His competence is demonstrated in the very locating problematic entries and putting them up for further input, even though this talent appears to entail unsatisfyingly explicit communication of the same, since it is driven by procedural memory more than declarative logics, which shows slow bettering only because of collective failure in psychoeducation. You are unacceptably stretching the definition of trolling. The procedure sanctifies the above entry, which is not going to be deleted on the whole anymore, and this was the point, not the – overtly – imperfect definition. If one writes a type of … it is told that the editor did not understand to describe the concept further, in so far as not described further, but the existence of an idiom is indicated. Fay Freak (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

bird

Rfd-sense: "A chicken or turkey used as food."

Feels overly specific (I can find lots and lots of uses of "stuff the bird" used to refer to duck, quail, pigeon, partridge, grouse, pheasant, etc and frankly I suspect every single bird that we eat is in fact a bird) and redundant to sense 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete as redundant to sense 1. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As written, so narrowly scoped to just chicken and turkey, it's wrong, yes. I could see generalizing this to "The meat of such an animal [bird sense 1], used as food" and keeping that, in line with how we have the bird and the meat as separate senses at chicken and turkey and pig and cow; the senses (in all these entries) are labelled as differing in countability. (I see the counter-argument that this is a general phenomenon—any edible animal's meat can be referred to: I saw an alligator but ate some alligator—but the translations may differ.) - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I did consider that, but I couldn't find any evidence of uncountable "bird" (no sign of people eating "bird sandwiches", and all the hits for "ate bird" seem to be part of noun phrases like "ate bird seed" or bad hyphenations like "frig-ate bird"). I don't think we'd have a sense at hamster for "a hamster used as food", even though there are lots of hits for "ate a hamster" (the classic being "Freddie Starr ate my hamster"), because I couldn't find any "ate hamster". If you think it's salvageable, I could broaden the sense and move to RFV Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Three uses of uncountable bird:

• We almost had bird for dinner that night.^[8]
• While this is a rather revolting thought, it still fails to convey the hideous disgust one feels upon biting into undercooked bird.^[9]
• She served “bird and a bottle....”^[10]

 ​‑‑Lambiam 15:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Except those don't all refer to chicken or turkey. The first quote refers to peacock, which reinforces the notion that the definition is too narrowly scoped and is redundant to the sense referring to use as a food. The difference is a grammatical change, not a lexical one. We ate bird / chicken / duck versus We ate a bird / chicken / duck. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Smurrayinchester's appreciatively thorough explanation; I also did some of my own searches but mostly found stuff like “I forget what we ate,” Bird said in an interview. There are some attests for “ate bird” (as a food) on Twitter but very few, e.g. [11], not enough to justify its own entry in my view. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Protestant work ethic

SOP, Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. this includes also the synonym Puritan work ethic. Juwan (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The def says that this is a Calvinist thing, and Protestantism is more than just Calvinism. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The work ethic of the Protestants / Puritans is indeed an SoP construction. The minutia is interesting, of course, but it’s not dictionary material. This reminds me of English whiskey and how w:Brazilian wine definitely deserves a Wikipedia article explaining its characteristics, but the term itself is SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If there are figurative uses, like “Abby the atheist has a Protestant work ethic when it comes to knitting because she knits for twelve hours a day woah woah aahahdhrirururururururTHE FOG IS COMING THE FOG IS” then I reckon it could be kept. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I found some quotations on Gbooks and Twitter of figurative usage to mean general hard-work regardless of religion. So, delete this sense and replace it with the figurative one I added (technically speaking, a new word). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep - this refers to a phenomenon associated with Calvinism. Theknightwho (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Seeing that this is an rfd-sense, I'm leaning toward delete it. Maybe we could reference that in the etymology session, explaining why a Protestant/Puritan work ethic is a good thing if that makes sense. MedK1 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a sociological term of art that does not actually refer to a general Protestant characteristic, but to a theorized consequence of one very particular branch and interpretation of Protestantism. bd2412 T 19:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

goofy ahh

SOP, seperate sense for ahh should be made though ScribeYearling (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SOP (the ahh sense is at -ahh). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s a funny thing, this -ahh particle. An adverb written with a space... hooray, internet slang. Polomo47 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

say yes

SOP ScribeYearling (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Svārtava (tɕ) 18:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@ScribeYearling thoughts on say no? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'd expect the idiomatic meaning "to accept a marriage proposal", like I will (should add?) to will you marry me Lfellet (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Neither audible nor internal speech is required, nor is the word "yes". Of course, the use of "say" in relation to speech acts muddies things up a bit: if you ask someone to "say hello" when you introduce them to someone else, it's okay if they merely shake hands or say "I'm pleased to meet you". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This uses yes noun sense 1. The problem, however — and I didn’t expect this — is that we don’t have an adequate sense at say to call this SoP. Are there other examples of saying something that need not be verbal nor written and also not verbatim? Polomo47 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment. We have an entry say no. How is this different in terms of our CFI? I’m leaning towards the includability of say hello and say farewell (= say goodbye) in the figurative senses of “to witness an arrival” or “a departure”. ( 'Sentimental': Residents say hello to new, farewell to old at Hamilton Elementary;^[12] Review: Say hello to comedic drama 'The Farewell' ;^[13] Say hello to ‘Trolls,’ farewell to ‘Modern Family’ this week.^[14])  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I will say yes and vote keep. It's worth noting that Merriam-Webster has it, not that this fact makes any difference to the more doubting users. Some quotes would be welcome though. DonnanZ (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

ol' reliable

Some clown put in a particular spelling of "old reliable" they saw on SpongeBob when they were a kid. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SOP; I think the term is from ol' (“old”) → old (“a grammatical intensifier, often used in describing something positive, and combined with another adjective”) + reliable (“something or someone reliable or dependable”). good ol' reliable, good old reliable, ol' reliable and old reliable are very common collocations but they are just that; non-idiomatic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, no need to call this poor Wiktionarian a “clown”. 😭😭 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sorry. I took offence to the lack of thought put into the article. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

"Ol'" dates back far, far before "Spongebob Squarepants" and, while it is certainly a reference to the show, it is closely related to "Old Faithful and leads to a natural derivative of "Ol' Faithful," which should be a redirect to the former. Therefore, and due to its cultural significance, I consider it a valid inclusion or, at the least, a redirection to "ol' reliable" or "old reliable." --2600:1700:45DF:10:A917:B1D:E291:6173 19:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the speedy request, but now I do agree with deleting, yes, per Ms. Luna–Tuna’s interpretation. Polomo47 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep: As the creator, I apologize for not making the etymology clear; hopefully now it's clear to our audience. Also, to clear up a misconception: I'm not a fan of SpongeBob in the slightest, I simply found that this term is specifically a SpongeBob meme that gets used in the two specific contexts defined on the entry. And while not conclusive, a Google search confirms it. ToThAc (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You have not shown how this differs from or expands on the sense listed at reliable: “something or someone reliable or dependable”. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 17:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

who's your daddy

Rfd-sense: “BDSM”. I know this is a subsense, but exactly how is this different from the primary sense? Is BDSM usage notable enough to deserve distinction into a subsense? The definition also seems pretty bad. Polomo47 (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo47 The definition is indeed bad. I wonder if we should split the sexual and non-sexual senses and rm the “(often sexual)” line from the first, slightly altering and improving upon the second (currently jarringly worded) sense. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

sum of parts

Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see sum,‎ of,‎ parts.

"sum of parts" is a sum of parts.

Sense added yesterday by 36.85.217.221. This seems to be covered by sense 2 (“sum of its parts”). J3133 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and thanks for the laugh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  The creator, SnowyCinema, added the sense and removed it. 36.85.217.221 13:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, I never added that insane usex for it. That might have been vandalism or a joke? keep the &lit sense itself but reinstate the old usex, which I'm pretty sure was something like " 'brown leaf' is a sum of parts" or something, idk don't have time to look right now. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It was

The expression "green leaf" is a sum of parts, since it has no idiomatic meaning: no meaning beyond "green" + "leaf".

I would accept that, bearing in mind usexes are created by users. I have done a few. DonnanZ (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• I assume the RFD applies only to the usex, which is quite unusual and stating the bleedin' obvious. DonnanZ (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's for the entire sense; the argument it claiming (and I agree) that the meaning of "sum of parts" that we use in WT:NISOP is already covered by "sum of its parts" so the &lit sense isn't needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete the sense, yes, as it is perfectly defined as an alternative form. However, the RfD discussion at Talk:sum of its parts really did not convince me of the expression’s idiomaticity — all the keepers were feelskeeping, which reminds me we do not have feelscrafting —, so we could perhaps revive that. Polomo (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the sense and reinstate the old usex. It is not idiomatic. 180.251.202.31 15:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not figurative. It is also not defined as an alternative form. ~2025-32810-16 (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep It is used other than idiomatically. ~2025-33243-26 (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  The last 3 votes are by the same /16 range and do not present any reasoning. Of course we would only keep this if it were a different sense, but just saying it is doesn’t help prove it. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 10:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  My vote presents reasoning. ~2025-32810-16 (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  (you just added it) That’s circular reasoning once again. Saying it is independently defined currently doesn’t prove anything when the entire premise of this discussion is that the current definition is wrong. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 13:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Used other than figuratively. It is a quantity obtained by addition/aggregation of a portion/component. ~2025-33567-74 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

    Once again no reason. This vote appears to be by the user who added the sense, and their messages notably resemble those of the sock-puppet temp accounts above. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 13:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

    • I added reason. ~2025-33567-74 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

      Does WT:CFI say anything about terms that are a quantitity obtained by addition/aggregation of a portion/component? You need to connect your argument to policy. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 13:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

      • A sum is a quantity obtained by addition or aggregation. A part is a portion or a component. ~2025-33567-74 (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

        How does the meaning you describe differ from sum of its parts in order to justify the creation of a separate sense? Or even the existence of sum of its parts at all? — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 13:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

        • The meaning has no "which can be seen". ~2025-33567-74 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Struck out the repeat votes by who is obviously the same person - the next time will be a block. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

woke supremacy, woke supremacist

SoP Inpacod2 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Why is it any more SoP than white supremacy? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 19:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

woke supremacy isn't supremacy that is woke. We also have white supremacy, black supremacy, straight supremacy... Leasnam (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry... im slow. Could you explain to me in further detail? Thanks. Inpacod2 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

No worries...but I'm slower (esp today :) - is there a reason why you haven't applied a similar tag to white supremacy for being SoP ? Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Inpacod2: White supremacy is the supremacy of the white (people). Black supremacy is the supremacy of the black (people). And so on. We have white supremacy and black supremacy; so I don't see why you are only challenging the "woke" one, since it's no better or worse than those (and IMO might even gain a little strength from the fact that it's probably a sort of pun/blend on the pre-existing whole phrase "white supremacy"). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 20:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Because white also refers to a colour, and it's not about that. Theknightwho (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I think these all are not SoP because they are circumscriptions for the ideologies people hold, who connect by some critical mass of association. Fay Freak (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I reckon this as well. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Should we, then, formalise this in policy? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 23:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

P.S. If this does "fail" RFD I shall certainly be RFDing white and black supremacies, from beyond the grave. lol. It's difficult in culture-war times but we must be fair. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 23:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete both, along with almost all the other "X supremacy(ist)" entries (except quantum supremacy and air supremacy), per sense 3 of supremacy and 1 of supremacist, from which we can understand all such words. (Sidenote: delete papal supremacy too but per senses 1 and 2.) Sense 3, in particular, talks about "groups", therefore, when paired with it, "black" and "white" are groups, not colors, and "woke" is even more obvious there. Thence comes their unidiomaticity. We need only those two entries and senses alone to understand what such terms mean.

With that said, though, could this turn out to be one of those useful "rare cases" mentioned in the forelast paragraph of the policy? Who knows‽ Consensus would be needed. Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 22:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Bytekast. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm really unconvinced by Theknightwho's reasoning as to why white/black supremacies are different from this term. "Well, it refers to a specific sense of the word" has never ever been used to justify keeping an entry, and I'd go as far as saying that what normally happens is the exact contrary of that. "It's just sense X of <word 1> + <word 2>" as a delete reason is very common in RfD. That said, while I believe it's the exact same as the other supremacies and that they're all technically SoP, I like Fay Freak's analysis of these — I don't think we should be deleting white/black supremacies and this entry is useful too because I didn't know people actually said "woke supremacy". MedK1 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

from dawn to dusk

from dusk to dawn

It was argued at WT:RFVE#from dawn to dusk that this seems SOP. Any equivalent set of words has an equivalent meaning (including the definition "all day"), e.g. "they toiled away from dawn till dusk", "they were at it from dawn until dusk", "from sunup to sundown", "from dawn til dark", "from morning till evening", "from morn to even", etc. Iff there are interesting translations I suggest picking the most common form (of the aforementioned phrases, this one is most common), reducing the definition to {{translation only}} to solve the problem that prompted the RFV, and redirecting the other forms (with "till", "until", etc) to there. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m thinking it just might be best to list these translations at all day. If the idiomatic translations were at all similar to the English phrase, I’d support a separate THUB, but Catalan, Portuguese and Spanish de sol a sol (literally, “from sun to sun”) has nothing to do with it. I am not convinced any other blue translations (can’t easily verify red ones) are idiomatic either — the French one is definitely SoP. Polomo (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Reasonable. No objection to just deleting, then. - -sche (discuss) 07:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

(For completeness, I have added from dusk to dawn to this RFD.) - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep both. These are legitimate terms. I am not amongst the most ruthless of users. DonnanZ (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

hoo man

"(Geordie) An attention grabber." This is redundant to hoo: "(Geordie) Used to attract the attention of others." Similar to "hey, man" or "what's up, man"? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9848:FEF4:B25:3C6E 17:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know cats speak Geordie.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Lambiam: We have hooman. J3133 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Geordie and cat meows are very similar in that I can understand neither (which is totally on me). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

So for you, Geordie is the cat's meow? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP per nom; this is indeed already defined at hoo (interjection: sense 2) “(Geordie) Used to attract the attention of others.” LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I suspect it's pronounced run together, not as "hoo, man", and to me that merits a separate entry. Quotes or even audio clips would be nice.Lollipop (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Baker Street

You might upset Sherlock Holmes fans, better keep the London street. I'm not sure about the Hong Kong street, though. DonnanZ (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz: that's not an adequate reason for keeping the entry (which currently has no figurative or other sense apart from the road name sense), but I think you are well aware of that. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Another editor thought it quote-worthy (and I don't need to tell you that WOTD thrives on quotes) so there is something idiomatic about the street. I have now added the Underground station in the street, and named after it. Wheels within wheels? DonnanZ (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this but I do feel that a phrase that has spawned sub-phrases (Baker Street Irregular) may have "keepability" beyond one that has not. (That phrase actually came from the books, though, and wasn't created separately by readers or fans, so I know it's tenuous.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3156:1DC4:AF14:D226 19:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Still not a reason for ignoring the CFI, I believe. The connection to the street should simply be mentioned in the etymology section of Baker Street Irregular. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right: I should have said, I mentioned this because "some dictionaries" (which ones? can't remember, but I know it's true) do include this kind of thing iff (math sense: IF AND ONLY IF) there are derived terms also in the same dictionary. Selah. (I think it's good policy, actually. Although not sure when it gets into multiple words. I thought we had "Elvis Presley glasses" but I must have dreamed it.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3156:1DC4:AF14:D226 20:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Bishopsgate

As far as London is concerned, it's also a ward in the City of London, and I provided a reference to insure against deletion. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, "Delete the road name senses [...] as these do not comply with WT:CFI". Of course other place name senses that comply with WT:CFI are not being challenged here. However, just because a term has one or more qualifying senses does not mean the non-qualifying sense gets "saved" thereby. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

From what I can gather, the old Bishops Gate came first, followed by the street name, then the ward. Ward boundaries have changed over time, currently it contains about two-thirds of the street. So it's difficult to separate the ward from the street. DonnanZ (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz: with respect, it's not. We delete the words "street and" from the definition so that it refers only to the ward. The fact that the ward gets its name from the street is already explained in the etymology section. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are being more hardline than is necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Bow Street

The entry would remain as it's also a place name. The derived term Bow Street Runner would be left hanging if the street is deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Cheapside

Delete the road name senses (or the entry, if it only consists of road name senses) as these do not comply with WT:CFI. Any useful information about the origin of the names should be relocated into the "Etymology" sections, where applicable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It concerns me that certain editors are still trying to empty Category:en:Named roads. I have stopped using it as it is far too toxic, and feel it might be better to delete the category itself, as it has proved to be nothing but trouble. DonnanZ (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz: it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that if you disagree with WT:CFI it is open to you to start a fresh discussion about it. If you opt not to do so, then you can hardly complain if the policy (to me eminently sensible) is enforced. Also, your remark that "I have stopped using it" suggests you are continuing to create street-name entries that do not comply with the CFI and intentionally making them difficult to find. This is not behaviour we would expect of an experienced editor. I hope I'm wrong about this. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete all per nom: there are millions of roads and streets that would easily satisfy the CFI's attestation policy if we were to include these—but we do not. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That has never happened, probably because of CFI. But some of these may have been created before CFI banned them. Cheapside was created in 2005, and Baker Street in 2007. Both were thought to be includable at the time. DonnanZ (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The relevant change to CFI occurred on 21 March 2021. That was when the rot set in. DonnanZ (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This is mixing up quite a few types of entries. Keep Cheapside - it's a neighbourhood and the definition is compliant. Ditto keep Bishopsgate. Merge the senses at Canal Street (so instead we have "A street and surrounding neighbourhood in New York City" and "A street and surrounding neighbourhood in Manchester"). Reformat Bay Street to match Wall Street. Delete Baker Street (unless there's some kind of metaphorical "Sherlock Holmes fandom" sense). Delete Burmah Road. Merge senses at Cable Street. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: as mentioned above, no sense which isn't a road name is being challenged here. Thus, for Cheapside, the district definition is fine. However, sense 1 "Any of several streets in English towns and cities that were originally marketplaces" isn't, and I think that in sense 2 the mention of the street in London should be relocated to the etymology section. I don't think the CFI allows any road sense to be retained in a definition simply because the word also applies to some other geographical location such as a neighbourhood or a village. Thus, I don't think the "street and surrounding neighbourhood" formulation is permitted without changing the CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think there is danger of our entries becoming misleading if we're so dogmatic as to forbid the mention of streets even in CFI-compliant definitions. It's why we have the {{&lit}} template after all. Sometimes things are outside the scope of the dictionary, but if not mentioned suggest misleading things about the usage of terms within our scope. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: the information is not deleted; it is merely put in the "Etymology" section so I'd say there is no concern about entries being misleading. I don't buy the argument that if there are some qualifying senses in an entry, then non-qualifying senses related to the qualifying senses should be allowed. This would allow the circumvention of the whole of CFI—WT:BRAND, WT:COMPANY, and so on. This is a dangerous path to be on. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to look in every British street atlas for Cheapside, but there are eight in West Yorkshire, and three others in Greater London. As for neighbourhoods named after streets, it is better to omit the street category now following the CFI change, it's not compulsory. DonnanZ (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

From the CFI: "All place names not listed above shall be included if they have three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements. Most manmade structures, including buildings, airports, ports, bridges, canals, dams, tunnels, individual roads and streets, as well as gardens, parks, and beaches may only be attested through figurative use."

I think only streets and roads have been "picked on", nothing else, even though entries for other structures exist. I believe there are manmade beaches, but they must be the exception rather than the rule, and we don't make a habit of including them anyway, unless it's in the name of a settlement. DonnanZ (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz: in that case, please help to nominate other place names or structures which do not comply with CFI if you come across them. Obviously it would be impossible for a single editor to locate and nominate all of them. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not in the habit of RFDing anything. Most, if not all, of the manmade structures that I have seen included are famous enough, notable enough or important enough to keep without attestation requirements. I don't think there are excesses in any field; we don't make a point of including ruined castles, for example, except in place names like Corfe Castle and Tintagel. DonnanZ (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Alligator Alcatraz

Fails the CFI as the (official) name of an individual building—a detention centre. Note that this is not a nickname/unofficial name, like the entry's categories suggest. Per the CFI: “Most manmade structures, including buildings [...] may only be attested through figurative use,” thus excluding detention centres. Not to mention, there are 39 such centres in the United States with Wikipedia articles that would be eligible for entries here under our attestation requirements if we allowed this entry to remain. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's called a hot word for a start. The WP article was started on 23 June, and Wiktionary hot on its heels. Apparently it is now open, though all and sundry are criticising it, and a certain Mr. Trump has paid a visit. With an area of 39 square miles, it can't be just one building. It could be classified as a populated place - hopefully the inmates outnumber the alligators. DonnanZ (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Would it be keepable if it was a nickname? That seems a bit off. Justin the Just (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Apparently it started as a nickname, which was officially adopted. It can only happen in America... DonnanZ (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Justin the Just: Can't be bothered to check policy (though I believe it is in there, after discussions about Trump) but yes, we do tend to keep nicknames for people and places. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:EC5C:27F2:F52C:93D2 21:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:JIFFY, since the name was in use before it became official. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts I cannot seem to verify this myself; do you have a source/attest for this? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  The first public use was in a video published by Uthmeyer on June 19, 2025. In the video he is heard saying, ”The governor tasked state leaders to identify places for new temporary detention facilities. I think this is the best one, as I call it, ‘Alligator Alcatraz’.”^[15] Later that day, he explained the name for Fox Business: “If somebody were to get out, there’s nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, only the alligators and pythons are waiting. That’s why I like to call it ‘Alligator Alcatraz’.”^[16] At the time, there was no site, only a proposal for a site, so the name can hardly have been official. When The New York Times reported, on June 23, 2025, on the fact that construction had started, they still called it “a detention facility for migrants nicknamed ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ ”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Lambiam: It sounds to me like that name was perhaps a proposal for a then-unnamed site, especially due to its use by a involved party. If we require all names to immediately be official upon their coinage, then tens of thousands of buildings (think construction sites) would suddenly become eligible for inclusion. It is not really a 'nickname' if the area had no name and it was put forward (perhaps officially) as a proposed name; he was the one to propose the detention centre and name it, so I fail to see how it could really be a nickname? Also, relatedly, the earliest use of this name by him that I could find is on 17 June. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't read the WP article, I recommend you should do so; especially reference 10. There I found a photo of a road sign lettered "Alligator Alcatraz". The place was built with indecent haste. DonnanZ (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The area had and has a name, Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport. "Alligator Alcatraz" is a prison hastily built in that area. Looking at the names in List of immigrant detention sites in the United States, we see that most, especially the larger ones, have names that end with “Detention” or “Correctional” followed by “Center” or “Facility”. Not a single one has a frivolous fantasy name, as if it were an adventure game or Disney World attraction.

Here is another indicator, from a news article reporting on a press conference on June 25, 2025, in Tampa:

“We had a request from the federal government to (create the facility), and so ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ it is,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said at an earlier news conference, adopting the nickname coined by his attorney general for the Everglades facility.^[17]

 ​‑‑Lambiam 07:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Although the name is definitely comical (albeit offensively so), this is unfortunately not a reason to actually keep it as an entry on Wiktionary. Not to mention, it is somewhat jarring for a detention facility that was built last month to already have an entry in an online dictionary that excludes all other detentions centres, bridges, dams, etc. no matter how popular those are. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We have not come to a conclusion on including universities yet. Though prisons are institutions closer to schools than to colleges, even some schools will be defended, I suspect. It's a bit like the nicknames of individuals like Donald Trump himself, who has a whole category, though not his actual name included. Fay Freak (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that this is not a nickname. Its first attested use is in official capacity. I am sure most if not all names for buildings were nicknames before they were formalised. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the other detention centres don't have bizarre names that attract attention. I have seen mention of a couple of prisons where they're place names as well. I haven't noticed any dam entries, but there's a few for bridges. DonnanZ (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping to find an image of an official nameboard but failed. Added an image nevertheless. DonnanZ (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

retinaculum

Rfd-sense connecting band. It seems poorly defined, and/or underspecific --212.219.142.254 07:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Rather than deleting this verifiable sense, it should be defined more precisely. In this dissertation, on p. 10, the term is used for ridges that continue a pair of semilunar folds that form the ileocaecal valve.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Yunan

Rfd-sense I have concluded that this probably fails WT:TYPO, and I would delete it myself but I just want someone else to check over and make sure you agree. This typo has a multi-century pedigree. There may be some works where it is used consistently by error, but those would not be common. It is true that major China geography terms often have a common misspelled form. But it's clear that at least in many cases this one is a pure typo. It is a common typo, and maybe a rare non-typo misspelling, neither of which is allowed I think. But what really convinces me is that it is unjustifiable: there's no way you could believe that it "should" be Yunan. The best justification I can think of is back-formation from inexact pronunciation, so it could be an eye-spelling in that sense, I guess. Use of Template:resembles seems amply justified, so I have added it at Yunan and Yunnan instead. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reviewed this again, I'm still thinking yeah, this deserves to be deleted, maybe. I can't really tell, but I'm leaning toward delete. I need the experts on Wiktionary policy rules to decide, I don't have enough experience with RFDs to understand the situation in the context of other RFDs. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is a good point, and am leaning towards the deletion of this entry. As you mention, there are tons of similar (almost certainly unintentional) misspellings for Chinese settlements; should Wikt really document them all? Probably not. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Mary Celeste

Rfd-sense: “American sailing ship”. I’m not that thrilled about including a definition for a specific entity, even though there is another sense derived from it. Let it stay in the Etymology section, shall we? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 18:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

We have a few entries for individual ships, e.g. Bismarck, Mayflower, Titanic, but I want to say delete here as the Mary Celeste is nowhere near as iconic or historically significant as the aforementioned (though I would—perhaps contentiously—support deleting them as well, but I know they would not make it through an RfD). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s extremely widely used as a metaphor, so keep. Have you not heard people say “It’s like the Mary Celeste in here”? Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, fair point, and I can also find phrasings like "as empty as the Mary Celeste"... OTOH, similes and metaphors don't necessary mean something should be included, e.g. I can also find people saying something is "as successful as Stephen King", "scarier than Stephen King", etc. If the common noun weren't attested and this were a choice between having the proper noun or no entry at all, I'd be on the fence because of the metaphors, but if the common noun is attested, I am inclined to agree with OP that the specific ship belongs in the etymology section. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Rocky

Rfd-sense: “Rocky Balboa”. WT:FICTION? WT:NSE? I’m also suspicious of the sense below it (referring to a show), but I think it might just qualify for inclusion. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 18:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last saw the film but, according to Wikipedia, Sly Stallone's character is formally called 'Robert' with 'Rocky' being a nickname. The quote for sense 1 of Rocky mentions that it appears in a Patricia Cornwell book as a nickname for 'Richard' too, so both of these names could be added to the list of names that appears in sense 1 and the fictional boxer sense could be deleted (unless metaphorical uses can be found). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This feels like a RfV rather and an RfD matter. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep redefined, nickname for a boxxer, like Elvis or Fred Astaire Vealhurl (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

touch of the 'tism

SOP — This unsigned comment was added by 2a06:c701:4ec1:8500:7006:a90:6e5c:dc77 (talk).

'tism appears to mostly be used in the case of "touch of the 'tism". The example sentence on 'tism itself says "touch of the 'tism". People don't often say that their child has 'tism or has been diagnosed with 'tism for instance. Fish567 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed—this could be WT:JIFFY or a set phrase. I would need to find some quotations to verify this, though, just to be sure. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Nor do people say "the autism". So the word "the" makes it a set phrase too. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7489:D339:A3D0:2F3A 20:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, this is a good point. I will vote keep. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Changing to delete. @Fish567, -sche, Pppery: Know Your Meme dates the first attested usage to 29 April 2007, but this is actually incorrect. The image the user is commenting on was uploaded on 29 April 2007, but the comment itself was posted on 23 February 2019 (if you wish to verify just follow the link on the KYM page, but be warned that it is an NSFW image site filled with gross adware). The earliest tweet for “touch of the 'tism” is 18 March 2010; the earliest tweet for “the 'tism” is 24 April 2009. So, this term no longer satisfies WT:JIFFY, nor is it a set phrase because “the 'tism” exists and is attested earlier. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like a combination of "a touch of" as in "a touch of the flu" and "autism", with "autism" altered to make it alliterate (it makes it more informal, too). The first is generally used to refer to some superficial and temporary affliction, which contrasts with the apparently hard-wired and permanent nature of autism. I haven't seen it in use, but this contradiction seems to be the whole point of the phrase. Definitely not SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: We can also attest “a touch of ADHD”, “a touch of schizophrenia”, “a touch of OCD”, “a touch of bipolar” etc. on Google with the same meaning. There are some hyperbolic results but there are also ones referring to having permanent, mild manifests of said disorders. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Re Fish567, with "the" I can find things like google:"has the 'tism", google:"with the 'tism". Re Chuck, "a touch of madness" comes to mind as one which does not (AFAICT) imply it is temporary. (This is not a keep or delete vote; I'm on the fence about that.) - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Subjectively, this feels somewhat "set-phrase-ish", but objectively I can also find google:"bit of 'tism", google:"bit of the 'tism", google:"little of the 'tism", etc with much the same denotation. And as Luna points out, one can have "a touch of" ADHD, bipolar, etc. So, objectively this does seem to be SOP. Weak delete. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

money

Rfd-sense “A legally or socially binding conceptual contract of entitlement to wealth, void of intrinsic value, payable for all debts and taxes, and regulated in supply” – I don't see the point in this definition. Social contract, right? You know this is a theological fiction, right? Or maybe it does not bother you since it still expresses you money is ordained from above, less concerned by the distinction of acta iure imperii and private declarations of will. Or does it use some even obscurer sense of contract? Whether it entitles you to wealth is also debatable, beyond its now missing intrinsic value. Certainly you cannot perform on all debts with it—though payment presupposes money, so there is a petitio principii included—, and at least historically it is also wrong to claim that all taxes can be paid by it. A separate translation table from “A generally accepted means of exchange and measure of value” is neither maintainable.

I am also inclined towards the deletion of sense 3 “A currency maintained by a state or other entity which can guarantee its value (such as a monetary union”, defined redundantly as currency, but let's see what anybody is going to produce in its defence. The reason why a money is generally accepted is trust in the state or monetary union regulating its supply, behaving predictably in providing services—to guarantee its value—, unlike the users of Dunning-Krugerrands, the value of which solely depends on the speculation that an even greater fool buys them off with regard to their limitation, and which are therefore only on the periphery of the sense of the word money, being generally unfit for exchange (so close that they are as easily devised as non-fungible tokens). Fay Freak (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree to delete both senses as ultimately redundant to sense 2; we can add/merge the mention of currency to (what is presently) sense 4. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m yet undecided as to what we should do with sense 1, I like what it’s getting at but money doesn’t exactly entitle you to ‘wealth’ as such - consider someone paying for a haircut who’s paying for a service not a physical good, or someone buying a pint in the pub who’s paying an expense but not really receiving an asset in exchange (I suppose it could be thought of as a perishable asset with immediate 100 percent depreciation as, in the moment you drink it, it basically fails to exist or to be worth anything as you can’t sell the drunk pint to someone else). Also, the barman can refuse to serve you even if you have the money (and, even if he does serve you, there’s no signed contract involved). Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Definitely delete sense 1 as not distinct from Sense 2 and also wrong; the attributes described aren't fundamental attributes of money in sense and product that lack one or more of them could still be money. And I think we don't need both Sense 2 and 3 as they're getting at the same thing, but neither definition feels quite right (but I can't think of a better definition; it seems to be an I know it when I see it concept). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, sense 1 ought to be deleted. Money can absolutely have intrinsic value, such as the metallic content of gold or silver money, or even in an extremely strict sense, the paper of the fiat currency. It is also not necessary to be able to pay taxes in a certain currency. In Zimbabwe many people use the US dollar for almost every exchange, yet the government does not accept them as tax, only Zimbabwean dollars. Also, unregulated money is still money. In the free banking systems of the 18th and early 19th century in many parts of the world it was up to private companies to issue currency, yet everyone understood those currencies as money.

I believe sense 2 would be sufficient but it should be changed. I propose to omit "and measure of value" from sense 2. The economic literature is clear that money does not measure value in any strict sense, nothing can measure subjective value. The accurate way to say it would be that prices are given in amounts of money. They simply state that a certain good or service has historically been exchanged for a certain amount of money. It does not mean that either the buyer or the seller values that good or service at exactly that amount of money (which would be the only situation where we could say that value is measured by money). Since the exchange took place, it is almost certain that the seller values the amount of money more, than the good (hence he is willing to sell it), and the buyer values the good more then the amount of money (hence she is willing to buy it).

Therefore I propose that the primary sense of money be: "A generally accepted means of exchange".

--OberleutnantMarton (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I would be in favour of this. @Fay Freak: thoughts? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

He is right. If there is some correlation with value, I do not know how to express it, and it well relates to currency more. Fay Freak (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted sense 1 to start, not seeing a consensus yet on sense 3. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Engram

Rfd-senses 2 and 3. Although these were added all the way back in 2007, they are clearly not proper nouns. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 17:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't they just be moved to a different part of speech? BirchTainer (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s the wrong capitalization also. I mean, ee could move these senses to engram and then RfV both instead, but I figure it can't hurt to bring it up here beforehand. As I see it, this is just a silly 18-year-old IP mistake, but I definitely need consensus to change an 18-year-old status quo. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 03:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

we have company

Both senses as SOP, though both are indeed common collocations. The first is SOP with company (“social visitors or companions”, sense 5); the second is SOP with company (“a group of adversaries or enemies; unwanted company”, sense 1.6). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

buttbuttin

clbuttic

From the RfD of &amp; and ¯_(ツ)_/¯:

@Polomo: Should sense 1 of buttbuttin (“(ghost word) Erroneous, computer-generated form of assassin.”) also be deleted? J3133 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO, probably. That part could well be said in the etymology section. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Sense 2 (not nominated) is “Deliberate misspelling of assassin.” @Polomo J3133 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep the entry, for the same reasons as medireview, especially since people have !voted to keep entries like Talk:grasively. Unlike medireview, we've split this entry into two senses. I'm not sure how maintainable that split is (sometimes it is clear whether a use of the word is intentional, but other times I imagine it is unclear); it might be better to have a combiend sense, or it might not; but I suppose as long as we keep sense 2, it's OK to relegate sense 1 to the etymology. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Right, this is supposed to be an RfD-sense. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 19:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I encourage everyone to check the Translingual RfD for WT:RFDN#&amp;, ¯_(ツ)_/¯ for another relevant RfD as well as some of my reasoning. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 19:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not what I would classify as either a typo or a misspelling, so I'm not buying the reasoning to delete per TYPO. Hftf (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s not a typo, no, but it’s an unintentional mistake in text formatting which no one thinks is correct (unless used deliberately). In this sense, it seems comparable to a typo. As I see it, computer misencodings are the modern typesetting mistakes, what with mojibake and stuff. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The function of a dictionary is to be useful to people when things that look like words, and have etymologies, definitions, quotations, and so on, have be looked up for understanding. I am not convinced that this is in a similar category to typos, typesetting mistakes, or mojibake whatsoever. Hftf (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It's really difficult to meaningfully comment without citations; currently the entry has none at all. In what contexts is this term found? This, that and the other (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Send to RfV. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Also added sense 1 of clbuttic (“classic”), which similarly has two senses (one for the computer-generated form and another for the deliberate misspelling). J3133 (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd be fine with deleting sense 1 of clbuttic, given that the same content will already be in the etymology. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

equal to

Well-written entry, but likely SOP equal + to. We had similar discussions recently, things like fond of, able to, want to or something. Plenty can be merged into [[equal]]...Vealhurl (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete or redirect per nom. - -sche (discuss) 08:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken it's a PP, not an adj. My Oxford lists it, and I would like to keep this, and keep my eyeballs peeled for quotes. DonnanZ (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

snap at

Verb + adj, SOP? See yell at, recently RFD'd Vealhurl (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Verb + preposition Leasnam (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure "at" is and adjective... Vealhurl (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Nope. DonnanZ (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

footgun

Rfd-sense 2 as redundant to sense 1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Makes no sense, delete. Jberkel 21:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not redundant. Sense 1 refers to a software feature (e.g. a complexity of the C++ programming language). Sense 2 can be anything: a broader sense. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4DD7:133:70FE:E0AE 21:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The sense is just (kinda) poorly written. But, skimming Gbooks I only see programming-related results; perhaps send to RfV? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep; clearly has non-programming usage, possibly as a verb by extension too.

Could you provide some examples of non-programming use? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

face cheek

Sum-of-parts; no results for facecheek on GBooks. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 17:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep (just barely)—it is definitely rare, but it exists; I get three hits on Usenet (1999, another 1999, 2000), 24 on Bluesky (2024–2025) and over about 200 on Twitter / X (2009–2025). There is a 1990 adult book on the Internet Archive that uses facecheeks (I will not link it but one may locate it via typing “facecheeks” {plural} into the search bar). A Google search also reveals further attests (excluding hashtags, of course) from various blogs as well as comments/posts on Reddit, Facebook, Tumblr, DeviantArt, AO3, Fur Affinity, TV Tropes, e621, and (forgive my foul language) Threads. It would seem that this alt form is associated largely with fetishistic content, often to distinguish buttcheek from facecheek (certainly by analogy with; both of which are stimulating body parts). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Orkxit

Does not seem to have been used after a brief period in 2023, failing the one-year rule. MSG17 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Appears so. Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This is for WT:RFV. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 22:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

non-Englishness

As non-English was deleted. J3133 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• There is a feasible alternative: nonEnglishness, which might be acceptable to Americans. There is a precedent: nonCanadian. Keep anyway, because nonenglishness shouldn't be used, that shouldn't make this SoP. This is standard in Br Eng at least, because all non- forms usually have hyphens, whether a capital letter is included or not. DonnanZ (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Keep per WT:COALMINE (sadly) and send nonEnglishness to WT:RFV instead. Surely if that is attestable, nonEnglish also is? — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Is this RfD also going to be open for two and a half years? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

tune

Rfd-sense #11 of tune: to adjust the parameters of singing voice synthesis software such as VOCALOID (in order to achieve certain singing techniques, increase the human quality of the voice, etc.). This is just a particular use of the more general meaning of "tune" = "adjust". I don't think this meaning is distinctive enough to merit its own definition. Benwing2 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; I would definitely expect to see something like this in a VOCALOID terminology glossary, but as a whole it is definitely just sense 5 “to make more precise, intense, or effective; to put into a proper state or disposition.” LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This could perhaps be converted into a subsense of a different meaning. SVG-image-maker (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

deliver over into

SOP. Like deliver over to Vealhurl (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Vealhurl Which sense of into is this SoP with? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Kept.Dumb nomination. Sorry Vealhurl (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

No, this should be deleted. It's not a synonym: to deliver a culprit over to the police is not to deliver them into the police. It doesn't even really make sense. (The user Mazzlebury made a lot of dubious phrasal-verb entries, by the way.) ~2025-34453-07 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

lip piercing

SOP, compare the RfD for nose piercing above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

could do

Not convincced. Vealhurl (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Not seeing a reason for deletion here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep; rationale? :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Kept. Bad nom Vealhurl (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The definition is phrased wrongly. Look: "(UK, Ireland) To be capable of. Will you be at the garden party? Could do." Not at all substitutable into the sentence. I think it's SoP too. ~2025-37660-57 (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

chalk something up to experience

SOP. This is simply chalk up to + experience. One can chalk up to + x, chalk up to + y, chalk up to + z, etc. mysteryroom (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per below. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Pppery as idiomatic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

put something down to experience

SOP. Same as above. One can put down to + (x,y,z) mysteryroom (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep both as neither seems SOP to me on second thought. I would interpret "put something down to experience" without this entry as meaning that experience caused (or allowed you to solve, or whatever) the something, whereas this entry defines it the other way around and makes an idiom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Pppery; it indeed appears to be idiomatic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

supposed to

While presented as an adjective, these two words do not by themselves constitute a lexical term to which we can assign a “part of speech”. Rather than being an adjective, this is the past participle of the verb suppose used catenatively, adjacent to the particle to introducing an infinitive clause. Compare

• The participants are supposed to follow the rules.

with

• This therapy is thought to have contributed to his demise.
• The suspect is believed to have sought revenge.
• The package is expected to arrive next week.
• This experiment is hoped to lead to a new insight.

Note further that the words can be separated by a by clause indicating the supposer, who would be the subject of the sentence in the active voice:

• a weird gong that is supposed by the natives to evidence the displeasure of the god^[18]
• Azazael, who is supposed by some to be a demon.^[19]
• the “Tsuchigumo” who are supposed by him to belong to the Malay race.^[20]

Other adverbial interpositions are also possible:

• Two slabs ... are supposed without any positive evidence to have come from the ancient Saxon cathedral at Selsey.^[21]
• “Music and painting” are supposed, on this theory, to be as it were pre-linguistic languages^[22]
• tax-cut proposals that are supposed, in some inexplicable way, to stimulate the economy without adding to the deficit.^[23]

 ​‑‑Lambiam 15:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Surely cannot be an adjective. If kept, change to Phrase probably. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F083:2938:80A2:54FD 13:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not an adjective. Looking at the refs in the entry, Cambridge calls it a phrase, MW an idiom (doubtful), I wonder if it's a preposition. But no RFD was actually added, so this discussion might be better off in the Tea Room. DonnanZ (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Now fixed. If this is kept, isn't that an argument for adding the equally attestable believed to, expected to, hoped to and thought to?  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

We also need to look at the adjective supposed, especially the 2nd one. DonnanZ (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The idiom "supposed (to) is called an adjective by The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Admittedly, Chapter 16 underlines "supposed" only, whereas Chapter 18 cites the word using the phonological form "səpoʊstə" and discusses it as a case where "to" is "morphologically incorporated into the preceding head word". Chapter 18 says such incorporation is limited to seven words: going to/gonna, got to/gotta, have to/hafta, ought to/oughta, supposed to/supposta, used to/usta, and want to/wanna, all of which have entries already. The supposed slippery slope of adding entries for "thought to", "believed to" etc. is invalid.

The entry supposed to is only for the inseparable idiom, not for cases where the participle or adjective "supposed" is followed by a grammatically separable word "to". Accordingly, the examples "a weird gong that is supposed by the natives to evidence the displeasure of the god", "Azazael, who is supposed by some to be a demon", and "the “Tsuchigumo” who are supposed by him to belong to the Malay race" are irrelevant because they do not display the meaning "expected to" that is characteristic of the fused form "səpoʊstə".--Urszag (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Bizarre. When else can an adjective ever precede a verb like this? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BC64:8015:2323:FCAA 06:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Your first example is a different sense and a different pronunciation (in GA English, at least) from all the others. Can you find any evidence that a single one of the non-literal senses listed at supposed to can be separated in the way the literal ones can? I do agree that it's probably not an adjective, but you're comparing apples and oranges in your argument that it doesn't deserve a separate entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

To me, all senses listed are literal, defined by literal synonyms: expected to, required to, obliged to, supposed to, permitted to, believed to, considered to, intended to. At least, I would not be able to tell what makes the term being defined less literal than the definitions. You are not supposed to do that = They do not suppose you to do that, which is a euphemism (compare It is not done) for They do not permit you to do that = You are not permitted to do that. How is the pronunciation different? The devoicing of -ed before /t/ is regular, as is the pronunciation /tə/ of unstressed to before a consonant. Take, for example, the sentence Israeli soldiers ... opened fire on a group of PNA police, who they supposed to be the snipers.^[24] Is the pronunciation of the words supposed to here different from that in The PNA police were supposed to be the snipers.?  ​‑‑Lambiam 17:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

"Supposed to" in the senses listed in the entry ends with /-oʊstu/, whereas in the literal sense it ends with /oʊzd tu/. In both the examples you give (about the snipers), the pronunciation is with /zd/. In "You are not supposed to do that" it is with /st/. There is a clear qualitative difference between those two uses of the word for me as a native speaker who has always made the distinction which it is hard to explain. However, I'll attempt to explain the difference with a usex in the entry, which I just added to the literal sense:

"The movie is supposed to be good." (with /zd/) means that the movie is believed/thought to be good (with an implication/connotation that the speaker disagrees)

"The movie is supposed to be good." (with /st/) means that the movie is expected to be good (based on what one has heard from others)

None of the senses at suppose can be used with the /st/ pronunciation. The senses at supposed to are exclusive to this form of the word (they wouldn't be found without "to"). The same cannot be said of the other verbs you cite. Your analysis of "You are not supposed to do that" as a euphemism deriving from "They do not suppose you to do that" is plausible, but I would need to see some evidence for it. "They do not suppose you to do that" means something completely different and I would assume someone was not a native English speaker if they used it as if it meant the same thing. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: if this entry is deleted, we should preserve the information regarding the pronunciation in supposed (and/or suppose?). But I notice that for has to and used to, which have similar pronunciation differences ("he has to get there" /s/ vs "he's using everything he has to get there" with /z/; "the key used to open the door (but now doesn't)" with /s/ vs "the key used to open the door (is now missing)" with /z/), we not only note the pronunciation difference at has and used, we also have separate entries for has to and used to, which keeping this entry would be consistent with. Senses that are just "supposed" /zd/ + "to" could be moved to an &lit sense. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "has to get there" can take /s/ in British English. Never heard of this in my life and am surprised to see it! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:80E6:5DEE:F74A:DD80 07:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve certainly heard it said like that, on occasion, here in Britain. I’d say that in a sentence like ‘it doesn’t work as supposed to’ the phrase ‘supposed to’ is adjectival but it seems more adverbial in ‘you’re not supposed to do that’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I think 2A is talking about has to, whereas you are talking about supposed to.
That said, our entries currently suggest the use of /f/ in have to and /s/ in has to does also exist in Britain, albeit the circumstances are a bit different than in the US. (If there is, or might be, anything incorrect about that, that's probably something worth starting a Tea Room discussion about.) - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

A hypothetical sentence to show the difference between the SOP and idiomatic senses: "In the minds of prescriptivists there are a number of perfectly normal constructions that are supposed to be not supposed to be ever used." Then there are written representations of colloquial speech that you can find easily enough, like: "You're not 'sposta do that!", "But I gotta!" ("They got to the same place you gotta get to" shows a similar distinction) Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know what part of speech it is, but it's different from hoped to, expected to etc, because you can't make an active sentence (and keep the same meaning). Sting Kipu (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems parallel in form to the verb ought to. If something is supposed to do something, then it ought to do that thing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Word

Blender

Rfd-sense: software program. Being an industry leader in the field of text processors/3D modeling applications is no reason for inclusion. WT:BRAND or something? Such a vague policy. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 01:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say WT:BRAND is far from vague; it's actually pretty well fleshed out, and even comes with a useful page of examples.

Anyway, given Word's ubiquity I would be surprised if it didn't pass this criterion, although this is a question for RFV, as it involves cite-finding. I highly doubt the same goes for Blender. This, that and the other (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that Google's projects Docs, Drive and potentially(!) Maps could be entryworthy as well. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete Blender, and send Word to RfV. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete both as failing WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

119

Rfd-sense "telephone number for COVID-19 emergencies in the United Kingdom". Hot sense from 2020.

The number is apparently still in use as the single non-emergency number to book a COVID-19 vaccination with NHS, but as other non-emergency numbers are not included in Wiktionary (nor, in my opinion, do they need to be) I don't know that this should be listed. The other senses for this number are emergency services phone numbers in various countries. This sense is, by the way, a bit hard to search for online as the 2025 US Senate bill S. 119 is a proposal for a pandemic memorial, and 2025 US Congress bill H.R. 119 is a resolution against employers requiring COVID-19 vaccines. The uses I found were in UK government web pages, but I didn't look very hard for other uses e.g. in the press or social media. Cnilep (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if we should even have phone numbers as entries on Wiktionary; I imagine them the equivalent of an e-mail address or website URL (e.g., not lexical). Police is one thing, but ambulance services, firefighting services and even the “antiterrorist services” of Afghanistan? Not entirely sure what to make of these. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete, but I think we should also get rid of all other phone numbers (for the record). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete: not lexical. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Crow Agency

RfD noun sense: “an agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs that interacts with the Crow tribe.” This is actually supposed to be listed as a proper noun; fails WT:COMPANY. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has several agencies, including the Olympic Peninsula Agency, Puget Sound Agency, Spokane Agency, etc.—these do not need entries in a dictionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP, and not dictionary material. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

diaper stuffing

I created this entry two years ago when I first joined Wikt; in actuality, every sense listed here is SoP, and we do not allow SoP entries just because they have multiple SoP senses: I believe 1 and 3 are most likely SoP with stuffing (“the matter used to stuff hollow objects such as pillows and saddles”, sense 1, noun); 2, 4, 5 and 6 are SoP with stuffing (“to fill by packing or crowding something into; to cram with something; to load to excess”, sense 1, verb). Perhaps the sheer number of senses listed further exemplify its SoP nature. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I labelled it American English, as I had never heard of this. A diaper is a nappy. DonnanZ (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This entry is useful, in serving valuable disambiguation, saving people from investing their imagination in the topic of diapers. I commend you for it. Keep. Fay Freak (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

crisp sandwich

OK, this has cute synonyms. Still just as SOP as sausage sandwichVealhurl (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete all three. It’s true that crisp, sarnie, butty are regional, but that means nothing for compounds with them (regarding WT:INHOSPITAL). Polysemy cannot conceivably be a reason for keeping entries, seeing as the large majority of words have more than one sense, and they can form compounds with many of these senses or just one. Would we keep crisp sandwich (“sandwich that is crisp”) on the basis that it could mean a sandwich made of chips? — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 01:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Agree that this belongs on Wikipedia. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

+crisp sarnie, crisp butty Vealhurl (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As an American, if I heard someone say "crisp sandwich", I would think that it was one cooked in such a way as to be crispy, so a definition has utility due to that. I assume that chip sandwich would apply in the inverse to a lot of Britons. Whatever the outcome of the discussion, please remove incoming redlinks and convert a remaining synonym to the main definition. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason Brits and Americans would understand different things by "chip sandwich" is that "chip" (alone) has different food-related meanings in those cultures. The same would apply to something like "chips on toast". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:40AC:CBD6:D751:777D 06:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. It's still meaningful to a reader who would not be able to glean the meaning from the sum of parts and, in fact, would probably think it's something entirely different from the sum of its parts. Keep. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It is gross enough – by globally normalized and scientifically informed nutrition standards – that one is surprised to find out its being a regular for swathes of Anglos, rather than an eccentric summation of components. Due to the cultural info keep. Fay Freak (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there must be many fascinating things to learn about the origin of this weird sandwich. However, that appears to me like something someone would want to consult an encyclopedia for. In this aspect, this is not different from w:New Zealand wine (see Talk:English whisky, which I’ve been bringing up tons) — a sum-of-parts term with nuances to be discussed in an encyclopedia. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 01:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete all as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Should spleef/Spleef (game sense) be undeleted?

Equinox wrote in the RfD, “Maybe some day it will become a generic name for a type of game, like capture the flag. Today it ain't.” See Citations:spleef: has it become generic? J3133 (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support undeletion based on the evidence provided. This, that and the other (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I reckon so! Support undeletion per the citations. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

love someone like a brother

Utterly SOP entry. One could construct love someone like a brother/sister/mother/father/etc.. @Equinox's creation. box16 (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Not SoP at all. Some people hate their brothers (like the biblical Cain and Abel); also this is used with "brother" but not with "aunt", "stepbrother", "niece", etc. It's a common set phrase in English. (What's your first language, by the way, Box16/Mysteryroom? It might help us to help you improve.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:40AC:CBD6:D751:777D 06:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

plz show me a single dictionary from any time period that even remotely has an entry like this box16 (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

like a brother is in Reverso. Perhaps that's the headword we should be using. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm not sure if I think so. As IP (Equinox) points out, not all brothers indeed love each other, but can one also not say “you're like a brother to me”, “you are my brother” (to a non-sibling), “treat [someone] like a brother”, “see each other as brothers”, “the brother I never had” (this one is particularly common) etc.? I can find quotations for each of these that carry the same meaning of brother being used to mean someone they deeply care about. How are these different from this entry? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Cf. “you are like a son to me”.

We have a trivial – SoP – specification here, since one can love in various senses. If native speakers feel different about its “idiomatic” nature, they can easily save the entry, but I doubt there is enough truth towards it for this investment. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll vote delete based on this. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

middle school student

THUB; the translations here should probably be moved to middle schooler with this entry subsequently deleted. There is no reason for this to be a separate entry, unless I am missing something? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: We also have high school student. J3133 (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, we should delete this too. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect middle school student to middle schooler and high school student to high schooler and move the translations. Fish567 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree this is not a necessary THUB. This is not because of commonality, seeing as high school student is about 5 times as common as high schooler, but because the translations found in those entries are idiomatic (and idiomatic translations are required for the THUB to even exist), so they correspond more closely to high schooler. Also pointless as a redirect: delete. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 20:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Dignitas

Fails WT:COMPANY. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. It's a non-profit organisation that provides for assisted dying, which is legal in Switzerland. Quite a few Brits with terminal illnesses have gone there to die. There are moves in the UK Parliament to legalise it here, I'm not sure how it's progressing. I am inclined to keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete for nominator’s reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

One case where “notability” is actually a somewhat valid criterion for inclusion is WT:NSE; or rather, the converse is true there: lack of notability should mean lack of inclusion. This certainly fails WT:COMPANY, which is associated with its lack of notability (at least for a dictionary). — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Failed Vealhurl (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Porsche

RfD sense: “The German sports car manufacturer founded in 1931 and based in Stuttgart. Full name: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.” Just the name of a car manufacturing corporation, of which there are multiple hundreds around the world; fails WT:COMPANY. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the proper noun for the manufacturer can be merged with the noun entry for the cars themselves, incorporating the name of the manufacturer in it. DonnanZ (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems fitting! I'll note this in the etymology also. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna @Donnanz I just wanted to point out that this situation is quite common (e.g. on entries such as Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz or BMW). In these cases, the company name is used as a regular noun (either as a genericized trademark or as an informal name for products of that company), and the entry doesn't just include the product sense but also the company sense as a proper noun. When I look at WT:COMPANY, it doesn't seem clear to me whether or not this is allowed. It just talks about the "inclusion" of a company name, without actually specifing what senses are allowed and which aren't. In my opinion, the company sense should be allowed if there is at least one product sense, but others might disagree. A broader discussion might be needed. Regardless of the result, I think that WT:COMPANY should be rewitten more clearly. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I mainly do not see the need for corporations in a dictionary of all things, and per precedent (at RfDs) we normally exclude the company names when including the brand sense, as in Coca-Cola, Red Bull, Uber, Pinterest, etc. I think a fair-ish argument for keeping corporation names is if they have some derived terms, thus being for etymological purposes, like an “etymology hub” of sorts. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

There are many government departments in every country and they need not all have individual entries in a dictionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Not dictionary material. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: SoP, and not dictionary material. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as done time and time again with these. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 20:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Tralalero Tralala

As the name of a specific fictional character this seems out of scope. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C824:6325:6E3:4B2A 17:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I think so too. We have no, e.g., Nyan Cat / nyan cat, Pepe the Frog (we only have a noun sense, at Pepe), ISIS-chan or even Slenderman or Herobrine. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The phrase "Tralalero Tralala" has been used outside of the context of that character, https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/trallallero-trallal%C3%A0.96982/ Thegoofhere (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That's an Italian usage, as a nonsense space-filler in nursery rhymes. Not something for an English entry. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jberkel 08:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per LunaEatsTuna. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 20:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

MLP fan

Probably SOP. D&D fan, GOT fan, HIMYM fan. Vealhurl (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom, SoP. The entry that it is a synonym of, pony fan, is fine as it is idiomatic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as sum-of-parts. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 20:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese

Brand name (and name of mascot) with no idiomatic senses or anything of that sort. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as sense 1 fails WT:BRAND and as for sense 2 we do not include mascots on Wikt; compare Ronald McDonald, Colonel Sanders (no sense for the mascot), Jack Box, Grimace, etc. This entry has somehow survived since 2007! Wow! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as failing WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Failed Vealhurl (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"homework" folder

Luna announced "Watch this entry start a six-month–long BP discussion". I think we can cut the discussion down to 2 weeks... Vealhurl (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I cautiously think this is fine as an alt form as I do not see any reason for its deletion (does it break any rules or guidelines by including punctuation in it?). Also, quotation marks like this indicate irony or sarcasm such as e.g. the opposite of what the word is: “justice” = injustice; “work” = not work; “necessary” = unnecessary, etc; homework is not slang for pornography (which is why homework folder is idiomatic) and, indeed, if only "homework" (with the quotation marks) is attested to mean pornography (but the word homework itself is not) then I would theoretically argue for its inclusion because its meaning cannot be known just from reading that (hence it is definitely not SoP). This is partly why I think "homework" folder is a valid alternative form. It is also quite popular; because of the quotation marks, it is hard to search for this word online, but if one types homework folder into the Twitter search bar (rest your soul for clicking on that website) then this alt form can indeed be attested as fairly common. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, what is everyone here's thoughts on the terms in Category:English censored spellings which use asterisks, which are all SoP with our definition at * (“used to censor sections of obscene or profane words”). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying my keep vote as this is a valid alternative form that meets CFI in my opinion. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

One could argue that, in the absence of context, pornography would be the only imaginable reason someone would lie about the contents of a folder, and that the meaning could be deduced from that. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This seems nothing more than senses 2 or 3 of " ", and hence SOP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

No real conclusion from me. One thing that I question is whether, were this the only attested spelling of the phrase, we would include it — if yes, then it is just as valid an alt form; if not, then I don’t think so. The part of CfI relevant to this is #Sarcastic usage, which we seldom bring up. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 18:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This was my line of thinking. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Per my interpretation this is—in principle at least—allowed, but only with proper typography (“”) to which this is auto-redirected. Compare German Merkels Fachkräfte, which began with quotation marks more often than not, but there may be concerns about lexicalization of the quotation marks in other contexts, since individual writers can put them on anything generally accepted in a language community, to voice their respective opinions on the instance level. Fay Freak (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary lemmatizes with straight quotation marks; curly ones are the redirects. This common practice is documented at WT:REDIR. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 01:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

But it does not say that straight quotation marks are [cannot be] the alternative ones to curly ones. There are various kinds of relations in set theory, which you seem to be fond of, to the detriment of cultural understanding. I find the interpretation that the relation is invertible more likely because otherwise WT:REDIR is Anglocentrist there. Fay Freak (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This is foolery. All non-curly quotation marks in normal English are straight ones. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7082:78C2:9876:E5CA 13:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure how to interpret your message, but normal English printing is curly. If on typewriters and default keyboard layouts people perform it otherwise, it is a lamentable limitation, of signal width. And your programming language context is a completely different issue: of course talking about “quotation marks” means the straight ones, but this may not even be necessarily true in all programming languages. Fay Freak (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

WT:REDIR says the following:

These uses of redirects are also de facto acceptable: [...]
Entries using alternative punctuation marks, such as curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (“, ”, ‘, and ’).

What I assume this means is that the straight quotes are to be presented as normal, and that the usage of curly quotes should be a hard redirect. (It also seems to apply to all languages, which feels off to me. Probably gonna take to BP later.) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Pppery's point. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that this is SOP. I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone who sees "homework" folder will think I should look that up as " " + homework folder — somewhat like I don't expect someone who sees the word What at the start of CitationsFreak's comment above to think I should look that up as W + what, per se (I don't think What is "SOP": I don't think "SOP" is the reason we don't have that entry). It's possible that in the same way we expect people to uncapitalize things like What before looking them up (→what), it might be reasonable to expect people to delete quotation marks before looking things up. OTOH, I find myself agreeing with Polomo's comment that if this were the only attested spelling of the term, we'd include it... and maybe that means it's a valid alt form; we do have other entries that contain quotation marks like this, e.g. machine that goes "ping" (lemma) and there is no "there" there (alt form of a quotation-mark-less lemma). OTOH, there are probably a lot of multi-word entries where one word is enclosed in quotation marks, e.g. all of the x-word words, and I don't know if I really want to include all of them. I'll say weak keep or redirect it to homework folder. - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

California Republic

Comes across as rather encyclopedic to me. I also deleted some senses that were clearly not dictionary material (we don't document names of musical albums). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we include these (for some reason!) as long as they meet the CFI, e.g. the erstwhile United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, Kingdom of Kakheti, Tsardom of Bulgaria, etc.; unrecognised states are kept too, like Bophuthatswana, the Republic of Indian Stream and Austenasia (a micronation..), but good on removing the other senses. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep (clarifying my vote). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, keep. It was a very brief but significant part of the history of California, then known as Alta California by Mexico. The republic was dissolved when it was claimed for the United States, and it became a state of the union in 1850. Interestingly, the republican flag was the basis of the state flag. DonnanZ (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Bad senses were removed, I think the best is to keep. As the creator of the entry: QwertyZ34 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I also added a quotation QwertyZ34 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep, meets CFI from what I see. Fay Freak (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz @Fay Freak @LunaEatsTuna @Surjection: What are we doing now? QwertyZ34 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Entries at RfD generally sit for a period of thirty days before being either kept or deleted (if consensus is reached in that time). This one can probably be closed as kept though due to the overwhelming consensus, which we allow for entries that have a clear consensus in one direction. (I presume this was your question?). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Thanks QwertyZ34 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• KeptVealhurl (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks 👍 QwertyZ34 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

pussy torture

This one is just SoP. See torture sense 1, infliction of pain as punishment. The existence of a BDSM context doesn't save it, I think. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9102:826E:CDC4:95F7 14:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as only fit for porn sites, SoP or not. DonnanZ (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as sum-of-parts. A shame that, in one of the only times DonnanZ votes “delete”, it’s for reasons against policy (actually not dissimilar to his keep votes in that regard). — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 18:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Lolz! Vealhurl (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Polomo is not my master (or mistress if that's applicable). DonnanZ (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom as SoP; this is the same as the fetishes tickle torture, penis torture (and synonyms), electric torture (an uncommon synonym for electrosex), etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna So cock and ball torture is only saved because of the "and ball" part? Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tc14Hd: I would actually be Inclined to delete that as well, and breast torture which I just found; neither have ever been sent to RfD. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Same here. Though, I remember, earlier this year, discussing something vaguely similar, !voting delete, and then being convinced it was actually fit for inclusion, but I can't recall what it was... — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 20:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: Damn it, I shouldn't mention new terms in RfD discussions so that they don't get deleted too. I'm actually leaning to keep because torture doesn't include the specific sense of "consensual infliction of pain for the purpose of sexual gratification", so you could argue that these terms are not completely SoP by WT:FRIEDEGG. Though we could just add the BDSM sense to torture. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tc14Hd: I think I would be okay with Wikt adding a sexuality/BDSM sense or subsense to it, considering how many variations there are. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna Sounds like a plan. How about:

1. (BDSM, in combination) Sexual activity involving the infliction of pain to a certain body part or in a certain manner.

   cock and ball torture

   breast torture

   tickle torture

Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tc14Hd: That looks great to me! Nice work on it. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

"Infliction of pain ON", not "to". ~2025-34774-23 (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete, SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

cock and ball torture

Adding the other two that were mentioned above. I agree with the original nominator that these all seem SOP, and vote to delete all three. - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@-sche: I guess you could argue that cock and ball torture is a set phrase (and therefore allowed) since ball and cock torture is basically non-existent. However, the other two probably have to go. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

AFAICT the only other entry we have with "torture" as a separate word in its title which refers to something like this (as opposed to Chinese water torture) is C and B torture: does abbreviatedness save that one, or should it too be RFDed? - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that’s idiomatic, unless C and B means “cock and balls” by itself, or if C means “cock” or B means “balls” by itself. We currently have many vulgar meanings for those, but not these specific ones.

Regardless, delete the nominated terms. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 15:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

oyster omelette

Sum-of-parts. Quoting the Wikipedia article: The dish consists of an omelette with a filling primarily composed of small Pacific oysters. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 18:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain the cultural reason why Wikipedia has an article on it? Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

“Cultural relevance” is not a criterion for inclusion. Please develop your reasoning. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 01:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo: It is, since this is what outlines idiomaticity. It is not actually mathematics of senses even though we abuse the term “sum” for it. That circumstance can cause that “the full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components.” Fay Freak (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo Do you think we should delete oyster cake too? Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see a corresponding sense at cake — and this indeed matches my intuition —, so no. And there’s no shame in that... although the argument “keep as a synonym” is (was?) sometimes brought up in RfD, it’s never been backed by policy. So many unidiomatic phrases with idiomatic synonyms! — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 05:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I see a corresponding sense of “cake” since the thing that is called Pfannkuchen (“pancake”) in my ends is also called an Omelett and is also called an Eierkuchen, so I a priori suppose that “cake” also covers the same sense, but your mileage may vary. The definitions of English omelette, the gloss of the German Omelett, its inclusion in the translation table, and the correspondence of the English Wikipedia article to the German under the same word must be mistaken if we have correctly defined omelette. So to date I must cast doubt on the supposition that either omelette or cake is currently correctly defined. Either entry needs a statement on whether and where it can have and must have flour and sugar or not. Fay Freak (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo what's the difference with this and say strawberry shortcake? isn't there like some special cooking style involved that differentiates these terms from what the component parts describe? and the association with the dish coming from Hokkien or Teochew-speaking culture. like if someone just randomly made a normal omelette then put a bunch of oysters in it. As someone from ph, I don't think we'd automatically call it an oyster cake, which I bet the folks from Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia wouldn't call it an oyster omelette too, cuz it's like a specific dish item just conveniently described by the name. I don't normally cook so I'm not sure if I wrote the definitions well for entries about food, but from what I read online now, it seems this dish involves tapioca or sweet potato starch and this dish is supposed to be specifically pan-fried or deep-fried depending on if following the Hokkien or Teochew way of cooking it. Mlgc1998 (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Mlgc1998. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea about strawberry shortcake, but maybe yes, sure. The questions I usually ask for determining idiomaticity are these:

Q: Are all “oyster omelettes” “omelettes made with oysters”?

A: I’m inclined to think so, yes. I do not understand that the addition of starch disqualifies it from being an omelet — though I’m sure they’re a minority, I see a bunch of omelette recipes in English that use flour and proudly call it the same name, so adding a type of starch isn’t ruled out from omelettes.

Q: Are all “omelettes made with oysters” “oyster omelettes”?

A: Well, yes, of course, 1 2 3. We should include this as an {{&lit}} sense even if the entry is kept. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 15:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

It depends on what exactly is an "omelette". For this dish, people (the ones running Chinese restaurants) who thought of these terms seem to wonder if the proper English term is to call it an omelette or some sort of pancake or cake, which people in various countries seem to loosely consider as either one of them, hence the English names of oyster omelette and oyster cake. In Hokkien, it's just called 蚵仔煎 (ô-á-chian, literally “pan-fried little oyster”) / 蚵煎 (ô-chian, literally “pan-fried oyster”), then in Teochew, it's also just called 蠔烙 / 蚝烙 (o⁵ luah⁴, literally “pan-fried oyster”), cuz the oyster is what is definitely present.

Also, it didn't cross my mind before that in western countries there are omelettes with oysters too, which I recently saw in Gbooks some western recipes about different types of omelettes, but the oyster cake I grew up seeing and eating seems like a specific dish which various cooks also prepare with some level of variety, which other surrounding countries seem to label instead as "oyster omelette". I'm not sure if the average folks in my country who know of "oyster cake" and the neighboring countries around using "oyster omelette" are fully aware that there are western omelettes too with oysters in them. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Just to annoy Polomo, who needs annoyance, I will vote keep. You lot are unable to delete oysters and chips (fried in batter), a delicacy in NZ. AFAIK it has never been entered. DonnanZ (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

My local chippie offers hake and chips, pineapple fritter and chips, and cod and chips with salt and vinegar. Please rectify this great wrong by creating them all. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7082:78C2:9876:E5CA 09:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

LOL! Don't forget the salt and vinegar. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

RIP salt and vinegar. You will always be remembered since you were ruthlessly deleted back then in 2008. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that. The SoP evil has been plaguing Wiktionary since before DonnanZ. DonnanZ (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The def has now been edited to be really long and probably over-detailed, as though we were to keep "hake and chips" by adding lots of notes about how it may be consumed on a plate with ketchup. This seems a disingenous tactic. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7082:78C2:9876:E5CA 11:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be more sophisticated than eating straight out of a paper bag. DonnanZ (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Right, DonnanZ, the dictionary is there to make people more sophisticated. Fay Freak (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Under the provision that it works briefly, in contrast with an encyclopedia, and not as well with the component definitions, that is. Fay Freak (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. If a particular dish is an omelette containing oysters, the term is no less sum-of-parts if its ingredients, cooking method, serving method, etc., differs from a dish made with the same ingredients in different places. Otherwise, this will justify senses like this: "pumpkin soup: 1. A soup made with pureed pumpkin. 2. A soup of Chinese origin made with cubes of pumpkin. 3. A soup of French origin made with Rouge Vif d'Etampes pumpkins [etc.]". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per the above. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Donnanz votes keep every time, LET comments on hunger every time, WF probably says something dumb every time. It's like Groundhog Day. Vealhurl (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

We saw a spin on that in the discussion above. DonnanZ actually voted keep, and, given the term in question, it would’ve been pretty weird for LunaEatsTuna (hm!) to have said they were hungry... — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 20:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

As a genuine Wiktionary lover (I know you hate IPs and the new IP-replacing things, what is the racist term we're gonna use for those? TILDES?) I am really annoying about Wonderfool finding time to talk about these RFD discussions while firing off about ten RFVs per day when he is too lazy to check proper sources (e.g. Scots dictionaries). There should be a minimum entry requirement for RFV and RFD, just like how you can't get into the Purple Turtle on Gun Street in Reading unless you are dressed properly. TY. ~2025-33037-05 (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the Purple Turtle has a dress code, when it has such a lurid purple frontage. Is everyone at Reading Council on LSD? DonnanZ (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

bottom for

Redundant to bottom sense: "(intransitive, especially LGBTQ slang) To take on the receptive role during intercourse." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7082:78C2:9876:E5CA 08:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree; delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

crisp butty

SOP crisp sandwich Vealhurl (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Already nominated and voted on at #crisp sandwich above, although maybe it wasn’t tagged, nor does it appear in a heading. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 15:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

remock

From the citation, this is clearly a joky or dialect misspelling of remark: not at all "to mock again". User:Sham124 you also created "reparty" with the totally wrong meaning "to party again", and "repursuit" as a verb despite three obviously nounal citations. So please be careful! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7082:78C2:9876:E5CA 20:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, fare enough, I am pretty darn careless. the only remock citations i found was apart of you're or they're. delete Sham124 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

actually send it to rfv, there could be some cites. Sham124 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This is outrageous when it's your own entry you created by mistake. ~2025-33037-05 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

September equinox

Per December solstice, failed RFD. + June solstice, March equinox Vealhurl (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

December solstice hasn't failed, it had one vote "keep", and one "delete". I very much doubt that WF has the authority to disallow "keep" votes, mine in particular. Because of that, this whole RFD should be disallowed. DonnanZ (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If you count the nominator as a delete, and the closer, it's 3 against 1. Vealhurl (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Vealhurl: Ah, before you close a nom (even during the same edit) you should add a delete vote yourself so as to make your vote clear! Not all closers will necessarily support the outcome of an RfD, as has been the case also for myself on numerous occasions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think nominations count as votes. DonnanZ (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This is interesting (@LunaEatsTuna: @Donnanz:): I think noms should count as votes implicitly. If you purely wanted to discuss something without nominating it, you would do it at WT:TR. No? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7082:78C2:9876:E5CA 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I am of that opinion as well; it makes sense to me. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what happens to RFD noms like fourth estate which don't even attract a comment. Do they sit there forever? DonnanZ (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't trust any kind of equinox. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7082:78C2:9876:E5CA 23:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I know this is apparently struck, but delete as meaning nothing more than "the equinox in September". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

No, keep as it is unambiguous - if you lived in the southern hemisphere, as I used to, the September equinox would be the spring equinox, which would be the March equinox in the northern hemisphere. DonnanZ (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete especially because it is unambiguous; thus, transparently sum-of-parts as an equinox that happens in September. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. Polomo loves to delete almost anything SoP, irregardless. DonnanZ (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

spring equinox is also SoP in my opinion, meaning nothing more than "the equinox that's in the spring". Delete that too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Deletionists can't have everything their own way. They run the risk of emptying the dictionary for no good reason. And they all congregate here like vultures. DonnanZ (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

There are 1,662,743 English entries, so this is not really a problem. 😅 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe one day the deletionists will claim that almost every entry is "just the sum of its letters" (SoL) and we will be left with exactly 26 English entries after a short but violent deletion spree. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I t d o e s ' n t b e a r t h i n k i n g a b o u t. DonnanZ (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP—it is the equinox that occurs in September. Whether it happens in the spring or autumn depending on which part of the world one is in is immaterial for present purposes, and is adequately covered at Wikipedia. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are playing into WF's hands. DonnanZ (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP.--Urszag (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

strawberry shortcake

This was brought up at #oyster omelette above. It may just be that strawberry shortcake is only one of multiple variations of shortcake, most of which are served with fruit and cream, though also [o]ne of the most popular, as per w:Shortcake. I do not expect WT:JIFFY to apply here. Some other reasoning may justify the phrase’s inclusion nevertheless. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 15:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

My only thought here is that strawberry shortcake is shortcake topped with strawberries, while strawberry ice-cream is flavoured with strawberries. Cheesecake could be either! ~2025-32954-51 (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

How will we identify 2A00 now... — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 10:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo: By sass and panache, my friend, sass and panache. ~2025-33037-05 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep it it's different from other strawberry desserts ~2025-39267-89 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, of course it’s different, insofar as it’s a shortcake and no other dessert is a shortcake other than a shortcake. But this says nothing about WT:CFI compliance. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, regarding this, that’s just how each dessert is made. “strawberry” here does mean “strawberry-flavored”, it’s just that shortcakes get flavored with toppings and fillings. The image at Wikipedia shows a strawberry filling. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

According to WP, Strawberry Shortcake is also a media franchise, which we ignore, of course. Keep per the IP's comment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You’re not funny. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I already knew that. DonnanZ (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. Hythonia (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep, I think. A strawberry shortcake is a standard item in commerce in the US that necessarily has layers of shortcake, some kind of filling between the layers, some kind of white frosting(?) covering the outside top and sides, and some number of whole strawberries on top. It is also generally a short cylinder and may have some decoration, but these seem more optional. One could order a strawberry shortcake sight unseen and expect the standard-item-in-commerce. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I looked at Commons’s c:Category:Strawberry shortcake, and I think the whipped cream/frosting is the only aspect found in all of those. Wikipedia includes pictures of a shortcake shaped like a scone as well as one that has many cake cylinders (and no layers). While these general elements you mentioned are common, they’re not essential, so I think they don’t point to idiomaticity. These unidiomatic food terms are a much better fit for an encyclopedia, where their characteristics and variations can be more extensively and precisely explained. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 15:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the somewhat idiosyncratic selection of photos at Commons is very dispositive. Unusual configurations would tend to be oversampled, much as unusual words not part of normal vocabulary are over-sampled here and as Murray found his volunteers provided insufficient evidence for common senses of common terms. OTOH, I don't really know how to support my characterization of the item-in-commerce. Recipe evidence wouldn't do.

Most prepared foods, whether named with a single word or more than one, have a typical composition, with variations. I don't think any strawberry shortcake dispenses with both cream topping and cream filling, which is not strawberry + shortcake. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The definition as written is unsatisfactory if it is to communicate to US English users.

"A dessert made using a sweet biscuit-like cake and topped with strawberries and/or a strawberry-flavored sauce." It is not necessarily eaten as a dessert ("last course of a meal"); none of our definitions of biscuit fit, especially not the Canada, US one; I've never seen a strawberry shortcake with sauce ("A liquid (often thickened) condiment or accompaniment to food"). The definition seems written in individual's idiolect, not from a defining vocabulary suited for both sides of the pond, let alone other varieties of English. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

gory details

clear-cut SOP, from where I'm kneeling Riptyçç (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm kinda questioning the second sense of gory. When does gory mean "unpleasant" outside of gory details? Can you say "a gory smell" instead of "an unpleasant smell" with no change in meaning? Can you describe a bus ride as gory when you just want to say that it was unpleasant? I'd say we should delete the second sense of gory and keep gory details. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep but remove the second sense of gory. BirchTainer (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I  Support removing the 2nd sense of gory. I would RFD it, but my RFDs usually backfire. DonnanZ (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Your RFDs usually backfire! "My houses keep catching fire," said the arsonist. ~2025-33037-05 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP (sense 2 of gory is "(informal) Unpleasant"). The OED has a corresponding sense "Of information: explicit; shocking, sensational", with quotations evidencing uses such as "gory news" and "gory truth", not just "gory details". Add gory details as a collocation under that sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep, this is not gory at all, but correctly labelled figurative and idiomatic. I added a couple of refs, and my Oxford says it is humorous: the explicit details of something. DonnanZ (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I would lean keep because this is really a strong set phrase: I've heard it hundreds of times, but probably never "these details are gory" or "how gory were the details?". Also I would dispute that it's covered by gory, which only says "unpleasant": I could easily tell you about the "gory details" of the Intel 64-bit chipset or something, but they aren't unpleasant, it's just a joky way to say that it's going to get very detailed. ~2025-33037-05 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

We need to determine what senses gory can be used in (outside of this phrase, gory details), in order to know what to do. Sgconlaw / the OED has evidence that gory can be used to mean ~"unpleasant, shocking, or sensational" outside of of the phrase gory details, in gory news and gory truth; that makes the second half of our definition SOP. The use of gory details to mean "All of the small facts or pieces of information about something" (the first part of our definition), where that information might be boring and not shocking or sensational at all, is a separate matter, as Equinox says. (I think the two halves of our definition are separate senses that should be split apart if kept, and considered separately in any case: "excessively detailed, often boringly so" vs "sensational, shocking"). I can find a few uses of google books:"gory speech" which at first glance seemed like they might be using gory in the same way gory details does ("excessively detailed, often boringly so"), but on closer inspection context reveals they actually mean the other definition of gory, "shocking" (or even "marked by gore"): see e.g. this one. So as things stand, I'd say split gory details into two senses, and keep "1. All of the small facts or pieces of information about something" (the first part of our definition). Sense 2 (the second half of the current definition), where gory = "sensational, shocking", could be an &lit because of Sgconlaw / the OED's evidence that that is a sense of gory that exists outside of this phrase gory details. - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep and split, per -sche. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Update: digging around some more, I can even find (and have added to gory) a few uses of gory in other phrases where it seems to mean "excessively detailed, boring information", which would seem to mean sense 1 of gory details (excessively detailed, boring details) is also SOP. Maybe we just redirect gory details to gory#Adjective? I have tentatively set up "Scandalous, and often unpleasant." and "Excessively detailed, often boringly so." as separate senses of gory, but there may be an even better solution (e.g. making both of those subsenses of one 'combined' sense that covers the various cites in which those two meanings overlap). - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If gory details is deleted or changed to a redirect, citations for it should be added under "gory" to illustrate that it is the most common form. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Those all seem relatively recent compare to "gory details". Is it possible that it was generalized from that phrase? If so, maybe WT:JIFFY applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, evidence supports the likelihood that gory was only used in its main sense even up to the first uses of gory details. (It is necessary to include "all the gory" to exclude many of the irrelevant uses of "the gory".) Gory, in collocation with details seems to have added to its main sense "sensational" around 1900, "criminal"/"scandalous" a bit later, gaining the "boring, excessive, complicated" sense in the 20s seemingly at first only in business contexts, but extending to other non-blood-and-guts contexts by the 1950s.

There seem to be relatively few uses of "all the gory" with words other than detail(s) until after 2000, but still usually with the main sense of gory

I find that the inclusion of "all the gory details/the gory details/gory details" in several OneLook dictionaries (ie, "lemmings") to be additional evidence that the term is idiomatic. DCDuring (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that the term passes the "in a jiffy" test of idiomaticity for the "boring, excessive complicated" sense of gory in the collocation. DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

That's plausible, that it passes JIFFY. And you are right some LEMMINGs also have it. Maybe it is fine that we have both gory details, and also senses at gory for use without details. Count me as abstain, I guess (re gory details; obviously we have to keep gory given the non-details uses). - -sche (discuss) 04:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

pharmaceutical industry

SOP. Though we do have film industry...Riptyçç (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I reckon that you can skibidi film industry as well, as it does not appear to be idiomatic either. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete this (and film industry, if added to this nomination) as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete both. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 19:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Coulda sworn that film industry had passed RFD but apparently not; at least there's no Talk page. Anyway, this entry strikes me as another Mysteryroom bum note because it's defined as "big pharma" but that's not at all synonymous: a small homegrown pharma company is not big pharma but is certainly part of the industry... ~2025-33037-05 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

made friends with Box so yeah I think it's still wrong but I want to see the definition fixed before we get RFD on it. I do believe it is SoP though. ~2025-33037-05 (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

A lovely editor TBF. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete both. Ultimateria (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Luna, how do you feel about deionized water that I created? It was nominated by Polomo for RFD below. box16 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

gory

Sense 2, unpleasant, as discussed in the RFD for gory details above. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The "scandalous" part of the definition is citable in use other than the gory details collocation. DCDuring (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@User:Donnanz Is that supposed to be part of this RfD, too. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring: The discussion at gory details took a new turn after I added this RFD. I'm not sure whether to withdraw the RFD; I would prefer to keep "gory details" whatever happens. DonnanZ (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Gory is sometimes used to mean "scandalous", both modifying details and modifying other words not synonyms of details. "Unpleasant" seems a bit of a stretch. DCDuring (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

bitter cold

I would say almost a purely SOP entry. box16 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

So this is how Shakespeare is credited with creating so many words.. all of them are actually SoP! Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Citations:bittercold Keep, passes coalmine Sham124 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Woah, how silly! Sad keep per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Coalmine saves the day again. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that this is the adjective ("a bitter cold night"), not the noun I was expecting to see ("she stepped out of the house into the bitter cold"). The expected adjectival form would be bitterly cold, unless we're missing an adverb POS at bitter. So keep per WT:ONCE in addition to COALMINE. This, that and the other (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

What about mighty fine (= mightily fine) or bitter sweet (= bitterly sweet)? PUC – 16:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like COALMINE has come to this one's rescue, but in any case I don't think it's right to say this was coined by Shakespeare; like PUC's examples above, the quote from Hamlet is just a flat adverb, which were so common in English until a century or so ago. There's no way in my mind that original quote was meant to be taken as one lexical item. BigDom 17:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

See bitter#Adverb. DCDuring (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

have no sympathy

SOP. Zacwill (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for this entry. Delete per non, unless a truly idiomatic sense can be located. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Entirely transparent meaning. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

singular noun and plural noun

Question of consistency. singular noun was deleted in 2012, reason given is just a link to Sysop deleted. Maybe deleted as SOP. However an entry for plural noun exists.

No strong opinion on whether plural noun is SOP, but favour classing as one of the useful exceptions that we keep if so.

We should either have both singular noun and plural noun or neither. If deleted, translations of plural noun should also be reviewed - looks like only Tamil is not SOP if plural noun doesn't pass. Arafsymudwr (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Consistency is not an consideration of great force for or against inclusion of a term, though it may generate ideas about missing terms or definitions. Real languages seem to be chock full of inconsistencies and asymmetries. DCDuring (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Arafsymudwr: singular noun was deleted because it was nothing but a couple of unformatted sentences explaining the concept and a handful of random examples. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: in that case, I'm offering to re-create singular noun, probably at the weekend if nobody objects. Arafsymudwr (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Objections, if any, will be surfaced after the entry is created. Be mindful of WT:CFI. DCDuring (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Arafsymudwr SOPness and undeletion of SOP entries is all a matter for WT:RFDE; I suggest you take it there instead. There's no question of whether these terms exist, after all. This, that and the other (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably delete? Sense 1 is definitely unidiomatic, and sense 3 is probably as well; I might be convinced that sense 2 is idiomatic (if it’s even correct...), though I don’t think so right now. Translations can go at plural#Noun. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Vealhurl (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Where is the above taken from? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

A good question @Vealhurl. DonnanZ (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz, LunaEatsTuna: This section was moved from WT:RFVE. J3133 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Sinkiang-Tibet Time Zone

@Geographyinitiative originally listed this at RfV on 16 November 2025. I have converted it to an RfD as I think the term is sum-of-parts. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw, do you wish for Changpai Time Zone, Chungyuan Standard Time Zone, Kansu-Szechuan Time Zone and Kunlun Time Zone to be included in this RfD? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: yes, it would make sense to. — Sgconlaw (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep: I would argue this has some idiomatic-ness to it because (according to Wikipedia, at least, take with a bucket of salt) the Sinkiang-Tibet Time Zone actually covered only the eastern parts of both Sinkiang and Tibet; the western parts of both aforementioned administrative divisions were part of the Kunlun Time Zone. Additionally, part of western Outer Mongolia, Tsinghai and Sikang were also part of the Sinkiang-Tibet Time Zone, hence it cannot be SoP; if it was SoP, only (and perhaps the entirety of) Sinkiang and Tibet would have beared this time zone. Compare the present-day South African Standard Time, which is the official time zone of Eswatini, Lesotho and South Africa—three different countries. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Time in Ireland was 25 minutes behind GMT until it was sorted out in 1916 (Time in the Republic of Ireland). DonnanZ (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

worsted

Adjective sense, "the army was worsted in battle" looks like a past participle to me. Sting Kipu (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Can uses in the form "a worsted army" be found? — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes they can :) I guess I will withdraw this nomination and change the usex. Sting Kipu (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

radical left

Nominator alleges SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think delete: IMO this is SoP unless we can find unique, distinctive / characteristic features for this, like e.g. radical centrist or radical feminist (radical centrism and radical feminism are both established ideologies/philosophies). In this context, at least, “radical left” just means someone who is on the left (“(politics) left-wing; pertaining to the political left”, adjective, sense 4) and radical (“favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter”, noun, sense 1). We can just as well have radical right, radical communist, radical conservative, radical liberal, radical anarchist, radical Wikipedian, etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Indeed radical feminism and radical centrism are not simply feminism / centrism that is radical, unlike this term.

— Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

anhemitonic pentatonic scale

SoP "anhemitonic" + "pentatonic scale". ~2025-35917-66 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom as SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

id like to nominate hemitonic pentatonic scale

aswell. Sham124 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Did “aswell” and your signature fall off a cliff? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe......... Sham124 (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Only thing that crossed my mind is WT:JIFFY, but I don’t see a scenario where that could apply. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

anti-foaming agent

Sum of parts: anti-foaming + agent. ~2025-35917-66 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; quite a clear case here. In any case, I do believe that we have already an adequate synonym for this term as an entry, which is not SoP: defoamer. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Benwing2 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete as sum-of-parts. WT:THUB concerns are resolved by the existence of defoamer (moved the translation there). — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

artificial florist

Virtually SOP. Any thoughts? box16 (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not SoP because the florist is not artificial: the flowers are. This is quite a strange phrase and worth keeping. ~2025-35917-66 (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep, it checks out OK. Unfortunately, artificial flower would fall foul of the SoP-hunters if it was created. DonnanZ (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Not unfortunate at all. Sensible. ~2025-36551-27 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

"Unfortunately" because it's a related term. But I won't be creating it. DonnanZ (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, artificial flower is SOP like artificial tree and artificial Cheistmas tree. Keep artificial florist. It's not a robot that makes or sells flowers. Marsbar8 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I think EquIPnox makes an interesting point; normally, “artificial [occupation]” would mean that it is either (1) an AI version of said job, or (2) a fake/imitator/unofficial. E.g. an “artificial doctor” would be an AI doctor chatbot or something. I cannot think of any other (actual) occupation that includes artificial in its name, but I'll have to keep looking for a bit to make sure before I cast a vote. :) LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna artificial inseminator (may be an Aus/NZ regionalism: [25] [26])? This, that and the other (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

So what would that be derived from? artificial insemination, or artificially inseminate? DonnanZ (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Presumably from artificial insemination by analogy with creation/creator, pollination/pollinator etc.

I asked ChatGPT to suggest other cases like this and it came up with plastic surgeon - the surgeon is, of course, not themselves plastic - as well a few others like environmental lawyer. This, that and the other (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I reached that conclusion too in the end, artificial insemination, so artificial inseminator could be worth an entry. And plastic surgeon is a good example. DonnanZ (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this info! I think we can keep this. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I also think keep {{m|en|artificial florist]}: it’s an unusual formation that uses artificial with a unique meaning, if you interpret it as modifying florist. And, while we have artificial insemination (should we, though?), we probably should have artificial inseminator as well. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

artificial insemination probably meets THUB: the Maori and Swedish terms would do it. This, that and the other (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

coercive control

Also SOP. Any thoughts? box16 (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it; delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Something of a "set phrase". I think it may even be a legal term. ~2025-35917-66 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Autopoint

I believe this fails Fails WT:COMPANY. JimboGimmeJoe (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it mostly depends on whether the noun has been sufficiently genericized. Cf Bic. I've never heard of Autopoint pencils so it's probably not genericized but we could look for citations of that sort. Benwing2 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Per the recently RfD'd Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office above. Non-dictionary material. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

-quake

Not sure this is suffix. Words listed are just blends using quake. Vealhurl (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of -quake in other dictionaries (Oxford, Collins, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster). DonnanZ (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

(All are compounds, or prefixings e.g. mega-, not blends.) The only applicable sense of quake is "(figurative) something devastating, like a strong earthquake", which does probably suffice for these. ~2025-37467-56 (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you recommending "delete"? DonnanZ (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)"

December 2025

brotherly love

Sense 2: "A kindly and lenient attitude towards others." Per recent RFD-deletion of love someone like a brother. All the same rationale applies. ~2025-37467-56 (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

This one might be more idiomatic in that I am not sure if e.g. sisterly love exists. For the other entry which failed at RfD, we could attest usages for other family members (“she was like a sister to me”, “we were as close as cousins” [cousins not inherently being close of course], etc.). This might still be SoP, but I do not believe the same rationale for that entry applies to this one. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

average handle time

I've created handle time, so this "average handle time" is now SoP. ~2025-37467-56 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, clearly SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Average handle time, also known as AHT, is widely used in many fields and endeavors, primarily in customer serice and also in retail, e-commerce, banking/finances, telecommunications, and tech support. box16 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Box16 I don't think you understand what SOP means. It doesn't matter if it's widely used; if it's a transparent compound of "average" + "handle time", it's SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Since Equinox created handle time, can we list this as a synonym then? box16 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Potentially a derived term, written [[average]] [[handle time]], or a ==See also== link to the Wikipedia entry? "handle time" and "average handle time" aren't synonyms. Benwing2 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. [a customer’s] average + handle time. Listing this under derived terms would be inappropriate IMO seeing as it cannot exist as an entry, but I agree with "see also". — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Collocation header: “am I a joke to you?” it utters with teary eyes. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I forgot about collocations; this would be a good collocation IMO. Benwing2 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

But we need a better template for lists of simple collocations (typically of 5 words or less). If we templatize and MWE as a collocation, then it should be unlinked by default, so that no one feels compelled to blue a red link of an SoP term. The documentation for {{collocation}} shows AFAICT that it is just a modification of {{ux}} to handle translations, transliterations, etc. Could it or another template handle multiples as {{syn}}, {{hypo}}, and {{hyper}} do (but not {{tl}}!)? The display would be better with columns rather than a horizontal list. Perhaps one or more of the "column" family could be without links by default, at least for the headword. BTW, shouldn't we have a short name for {{collocation}} like, say, {{collo}}. DCDuring (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring {{collocation}} uses {{co}} as the shortcut. Benwing2 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that co wouldn't be excluded because it was a lang code. It doesn't really matter: I don't think {{co}} produces what we would need for typical shortm unlinked collocations to thereby reduce the number of SoP redlinks in derived (and related?) terms. DCDuring (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

If you take a look e.g. at alibi under Polish, you can see how long lists of collocations are handled typically. We could definitely make something like {{col}} that doesn't link the terms, for use with collocations. We could add a |nolink= param that disables linking, and a |type= param with the same shortcuts as are found in {{col-top}} but which categorizes appropriately and disables linking if |type=co is given. Then you could write {{col|en|type=co|...|...|...}} and it would disable linking by default and categorize into Category:English terms with collocations. Benwing2 (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping for. It's not too hard to do, is it? Does any aspect need a vote for wide deployment? DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom, would make for a great collocation on handle time. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

1

Sense: “(Internet slang, leetspeak, sarcastic) Deliberate misspelling of !, imitating someone who is too excited to consistently press the shift key while typing exclamation marks.” Is this in fact English or instead translingual, considering that we also have this sense for Swedish 1? J3133 (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree that this is best placed under Translingual. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Mandalorian

Term for a fictional race in the Star Wars universe. I doubt there are any iconic characteristics that would lead to idiomatic usage as a figure of speech. See WT:FICTION. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Presumably for RfV, then? Though I myself don’t draw the line very strictly. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis

I have no idea of medical jargon, but it seems like this term could very well be sum-of-parts. Can anyone weigh in? — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 19:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I am no doctor but from reading the Wikipedia pages, they look not to be SOP in the same way that blackbird and blackboard and non-SOP (besides being written as closed compounds): i.e. while diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis are generally accurate descriptors of the conditions, they appear to refer to specific conditions that have other characteristics as well, and I imagine it's possible to have these conditions without presenting the characteristics specified in the name. Similarly to how not all black boards (i.e. boards that are black) are blackboards (and not all blackboards are black), I imagine not all lymphomas that are diffuse and involve abnormally large B-cells are diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, and similarly I imagine it's possible to have diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and not present with abnormally large B-cells or cancer spread over a diffuse area. Benwing2 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I could see that for the first entry (though I’m not sure it if it really is that way). For the second one, though, it is by my lay understanding simply a description of the disease’s presentation, as the cause is unknown (“idiopathic”). If my understanding is correct, all cases of skeletal hyperostosis that is diffuse and of unknown cause can be called this, and for similar reasons you would not call a condition that presents differently by this name.

It sucks that I don’t have the medical knowledge to really affirm anything about these terms, while, at the same time, IP editors could create entries for them with presumably just as little knowledge. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the second one is borderline, and I definitely concur with your frustration about IP's (and some editors with accounts) creating lots of SOP technical terms. There are a ton in Indonesian, for example. Benwing2 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

lockdown drill

Utterly SOP entry, with a pretty amateurish definition. box16 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

fatal system error

Techies will realise this is SoP. See fatal. There are "fatal errors" and "system errors" (both also SoP IMO); and this is a system error that is also fatal. ~2025-38202-52 (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Is its synonym, bug check, also SoP? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, as "bug check" is not a passive check for bugs (programming errors), but actually halts the system (perhaps the idea is that this gives an opportunity to study its state and thereby "check" if there is a bug). Other means of checking for bugs (e.g. manual testing, or code-correctness proofs) are not the same thing at all. Side note: I have only heard "bug check" in the Windows world, but apparently it may have originated in DEC VMS. ~2025-38083-82 (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

P.S. A closer synonym of bug check might be kernel panic — but that's the Unix term. ~2025-38083-82 (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete as sum-of-parts. I do believe the synonym bug check is idiomatic, as a particular type of “check” that cannot be deduced from the sum of its parts – “check” does not usually mean halting all activity, and I understand this is an essential part of the phrase’s meaning. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

colorless green ideas sleep furiously

colourless green ideas sleep furiously

Defined as "(linguistics) An example of a sentence that is grammatically well-formed, but is semantically nonsensical". This doesn't make it lexical—compare the previous RFD discussion of the cellar door sense "In phonaesthetics, a quintessential example of an inherently pleasant-sounding phrase irrespective of its meaning". — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, I don't see any reason for keeping this deliberate nonsense. But a cellar can have a door. DonnanZ (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think apparent nonsensicality of the surface reading is the issue. For example please excuse my dear Aunt Sally is pretty meaningless but we keep it as a mnemonic. ~2025-38083-82 (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog is much more useful. I think I learnt that at school, a long time ago. DonnanZ (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Added the "colourless" version. DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Not saying that I think we should keep this per se, but I do think that this entry is different than cellar door and the same deletion rationale does not really apply. cellar door is a real word that happens to be used in examples. Its now-deleted definition was basically the equivalent to having a hypothetical sense for language that says “a quintessential example for a listing in a dictionary” (because in a lot of English courses teaching students how to use a dictionary, they will tell them to look up this word); or if antidisestablishmentarianism had a sense which was “a quintessential example of a long word in English, irrespective of its meaning.” colourless green ideas sleep furiously, on the other hand, is a hypothetical/notional sentence, much like the one Donnanz mentions. This is not a mnemonic, but I would say that if we keep the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog, then it should probably be fair game to keep this entry as well, as long as it meets CFI. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Different from cellar door, yes. I think the quick brown fox... and colorless green ideas... are very common sentences of this type, which makes me initially lenient. We already have a few mnemonics in the dictionary, and I do believe they are useful and should be included. So keep. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Mnemonics seem to be in a different category. I don't think phrases which are known merely for some quality—for example, cellar door being a term that many people apparently find pleasant-sounding, and the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog containing all the letters of the alphabet—are lexical. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I agree that these are different from mnemonics, and I probably don’t want to see the full list of English pangrams being created on Wikt. I’m saving my vote for later, then. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

deionized water

Sum-of-parts by @Box16 a.k.a. @Mysteryroom a.k.a. @Mynewfiles. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 00:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

We have distilled water, soft water, hard water, etc. box16 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

distilled water was kept as a WT:THUB. No idea about the other two... they might be sum-of-parts, and they don’t appear to qualify for THUB right now, so they may be worth nominating as well. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 00:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to mention and list my old usernames? box16 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You have a history of making sum-of-parts entries (which led to your previous blocks). I thought it could be useful for remembering who you are, for anyone confused by your new username, like I was. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 02:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, we also have dead water, crazy water, city water, chlorine water, and dozens of other compounds with the term water. In this case, I bet to differ on its SOPness. Literally, it could be interpreted as water from which ions have been removed. However, in practice it denotes water produced by a specific ion-exchange or related process and with particular purity characteristics, in the vein of soft water, which is a conventional, domain-specific meaning. box16 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

crazy water is "an Italian dish of poached whitefish and tomatoes": it's not water and it's not crazy. This has no relevance at all to the sum-of-parts issue. ~2025-38083-82 (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. In the field of chemistry, we have light water (¹H₂O); semi-heavy water (¹H-²H-O), deuterated water (¹H-²H-O sense); super-heavy water (³H₂O), tritiated water (³H₂O), and of course heavy water itself. Do we regard these as SOP as well? box16 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep. In German not only deionisiertes Wasser and entmineralisiertes Wasser, but even vollentsalztes wasser and VE-Wasser. And chemicists speak about it in the same fashion as about distilled water, from which this needs to be contrasted by its manner of production. Indeed we need to create the hypernym purified water or aqua purificata and highly purified water: see ultrapure water. I see tables of various qualities by some kinds of regulations. Fay Freak (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

distilled water was kept by WT:THUB. I understand the second of your translations (and perhaps even the third) correspond with demineralized water. Do you believe translations that are word-for-word translations of a synonymous term should qualify to support a THUB? This practice seems to me like it would do way more harm than good.

Either way, a German translation by itself does not satisfy the THUB policy.

And time and time again we have removed legal, technical definitions from Wiktionary entries, because really everything is regulated, and that doesn’t mean anything for how the word is actually used. From what I can tell, “ultrapure water” is water that is ultrapure, with what is considered “ultrapure” varying from place to place and person to person, just like, say, the semantic space of blue and green. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 01:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how this could mean anything but “water which has undergone the deionization process”. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep. For the simple reason that this is a scientific term that requires a definition. I agree with box16. — This unsigned comment was added by LeastConcern (talk • contribs) at 20:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC).

still

Noun: still water. Would you like sparkling or still? I think this is the adjective. Compare: (paint) would you like yellow or red? (partners) do you prefer feisty or shy? ~2025-38651-03 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

My line of thinking is that if this was indeed a noun, we could surely attest a plural form, right? I could not seem to locate any, so I will say delete. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete for nominator’s reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete DCDuring (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

zhangheotherium

Translingual genus with capital Z, incorrectly added as an English common noun with small z and plural. ~2025-38624-76 (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

See Zhangheotherium. DCDuring (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, delete per nom; perhaps move the etymology from here to the target entry, assuming it can be verified of course. :) LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

this morning

SOP. box16 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

this evening

SOP. box16 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

this afternoon

SOP. box16 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The behavior of "this" in such expressions seems far from straightforward: "this day" doesn't quite mean the same kind of thing as these expressions- we use "today" instead. Collocations like "this midday" or "this night" used in a similar way also sound wrong to me. When you use "this" for time outside the current day it gets more obviously SOP and it seems to behave differently. I don't know if that makes these phrases idiomatic or not, but it's not as simple as it looks. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. But one can also asily construct that afternoon, these afternoons, those afternoons, etc., creating a consistent stream of SOP usage. box16 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but those are parallel to a different sense of "this": "there's something odd about this afternoon- it's different from most afternoons". There's "She said 'I'll see you this afternoon', but that afternoon,, she was nowhere to be seen", though "She said 'I'll see you this afternoon', but when [the] afternoon came, she was nowhere to be seen" seems a closer parallel to the rfded phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If such is the case, why was my creation deionized water, which is cited widely in chemistry textbooks, nominated for RFD? It appears on the surface to be SOP, but is not at all. After all, we have light water (¹H₂O); semi-heavy water (¹H-²H-O), deuterated water (¹H-²H-O sense); super-heavy water (³H₂O), tritiated water (³H₂O), and of course heavy water itself. box16 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It's true that this day and this night sound a bit weird, but I think that's only because they're displaced by today and tonight. In the right context they can be made to sound (not great but) ok:

I stayed at home last night but this night I'm going wild.

I didn't make any progress the other day, but I'll do better this day.

Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The idiomatic translations are difficult to guess. In German it is not this / diesen but heute, in Russian you have a tautology сего́дня днём (sevódnja dnjom) – not many native dictionaries cover it, but this is remarkable and tells something about the work ethics of the post-Soviet, and Russkis don't have a single word for “afternoon” even: “in the afternoon” is по́сле обе́да (pósle obéda) or пополу́дни (popolúdni). So, keep. Fay Freak (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that these are SOP.

• The meaning of “this afternoon” can be easily derived from this (designates the current or next instance) + afternoon (“time of day between noon and evening”).
• Any instance of this/that + point/period in time forms such a temporal adverbial phrase in English.

They shouldn't be deleted though, but rather turned into WT:THUBs. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Had a brief look at this morning and it does seem to satisfy WT:THUB. I’m also thinking it’s SoP, so keep as such. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 04:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep them all. There is no entry for this night, probably because tonight is used. DonnanZ (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Keep them all. LeastConcern (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep for the translations. PUC – 16:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Do we also need this noon, this dawn, this sunset, this moonrise, this vespers, this e'en, this week, this Monday, this December, this Christmas, this MLK day, this decade,? Or do we need an appropriate sense (or senses?) of this (ie, (of a time reference) Designates the current or next instance., as pointed out above)? That there may be some time references (two cases) for which another expression has reduced the frequency of the "this" expression seems immaterial. DCDuring (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If this MLK day has idiomatic translations like Greek απόψε (apópse) and Irish tráthnóna, then we do need it, yes. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 18:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

And all the others, too, right? DCDuring (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. If they somehow satisfied WT:THUB, they must be included.

This doesn’t mean we can’t also have a definition at this – we already do, and that makes these terms are sum-of-parts, I agree. This also means most of the examples you give could not be created as THUBs just because, say, that language’s productive particle is not a literal translation of this. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 18:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I note that at this#Determiner the translation header ("which is current") seems to refer to an older definition (changed in April 2020) not the current definition 5. Am I correct in expecting that all of the translations there need to be checked. DCDuring (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  They don't all start with this, e.g. sod this for a game of soldiers is a "keep". DonnanZ (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Hunh? I am only talking about definition 5 of this#Determiner. That expression does not use the time-reference sense. DCDuring (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

drive someone crazy, drive someone mad, drive someone nuts, drive someone up the wall, drive to distraction, etc.

They are all SOP. See drive, specifically:

5. To compel to undergo a non-physical change:

4. (transitive) To cause to become.

— Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 20:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems like this use of "drive" meaning "cause to become" is only used with "insane" and "crazy" and related adjectives. Something cannot drive someone lazy for example. Marsbar8 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Semantically, "drive" involves forcing someone to go somewhere, so it seems to carry the connotation of the one driven losing control. It's not always negative: "driving someone wild" is usually a good thing. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

There are good examples at drive#Verb. Funnily enough my first "SoP" thought was drive to drink which apparently has a non-SoP non-alcohol meaning (and look, there isn't even an &lit!), but yeah, in general it could be anything: "His words drove me to murder my granny." IMHO delete, or maybe redirect really common ones (but who really searches for "someone"-phrases?). ~2025-38969-24 (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I argue that we should keep drive round the bend and drive someone up the wall, because they are idiomatic phrases, less easily understood than "drive someone [adjective]/to [verb]. The latter are SoP, as others have argued.

In response to @~2025-38969-24, I will say I do look up "someone"-phrases quite often. LeastConcern (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep them all, I think. I'm not keen on this job lot tactic, and not inclined to pick and choose. Most, if not all, are idiomatic, some have quotes (and they require some effort), some have refs from other dictionaries, so what's good for them is also good for us. I noticed translations for drive to despair; the thought drove him to despair; my laziness drives my wife crazy (both from Oxford). It's not as though they are more mundane; drive to town; drive a car. DonnanZ (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Rouchefoucauldian

The correct term is Rochefoucauldian LeastConcern (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Resolved by moving to the correct spelling. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 20:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

digester

Rfd-sense: A biodigester.

This seems included in the immediately preceding sense: "A vessel for converting materials, especially plant and animal matter, into materials more suitable for subsequent use or further processing, using solvents, especially water; relatively low heat; enyzymes; bacteria, etc.."

It could be shown as a hyponym to that sense. It is already a derived term. DCDuring (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

progestogen-only

progestin-only

Is this not sum-of-parts? Of a drug, containing only progestogens. I do not believe the “of a drug” part changes anything. @Juwan. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 03:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment as entry author. the key part against SOP in my opinion is "without estrogen". additionally invoking WT:LEMMING per the OED. Juwan (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki

Does not satisfy WT:BRAND, and there is no shortage of citations. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 06:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

This seems to have slipped through the cracks back when Wikispecies, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiversity et al. were replaced with {{no entry}}. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 07:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata

Failed RfV in 2014 and was recreated, as far as I can tell without appropriate citations (does not satisfy WT:BRAND) in 2021. Possible speedy deletion? — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 07:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

{{no entry}} would work. QwertyZ34 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)