Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

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

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

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

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

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

Newest 10 tagged RFDs

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms whose existence is in doubt



See also:

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

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

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

Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because 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.

Oldest 100 tagged RFDs

November 2021[edit]

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

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

April 2022[edit]

This more-or-less refers to an app (supposedly) for building a coalition, even if the "building" is being done by outside observers talking about how such a coalition could come together. I thought about sending this to RfV, but it's SOP even if it exists. bd2412 T 06:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does seem like a marketing name and an SoP one at that. It is like calling a recipe a cook. DCDuring (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've actually seen a lot instances of "X builder" used to mean "tool used to build X", such as "level builders" for various video games. I agree that coalition builder is SOP, but I think we're missing a definition for builder. Binarystep (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a definition to builder, "Software that allows the user to create a certain kind of automated output". Perhaps that can be tweaked, but I think it gets the gist. bd2412 T 06:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Binarystep: Would this be a boldface delete from you on "coalition builder" or do I misinterpret your above words? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my comment below. Although coalition builder is SOP, I'd rather keep it as a translation hub than delete it outright. Binarystep (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Binarystep: Thank you. Should both coalition builder and coalition calculator be kept as translation hubs or can one of them be deleted, presumably coalition calculator? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
coalition calculator is less common, so it can be deleted. Binarystep (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Less common" (than ?) is not a criterion for deletion. DCDuring (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Compare also coalition calculator. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

coalition calculator[edit]

Same as above. SOP to sense 1 of coalition and sense 1 of calculator. bd2412 T 01:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as translation hub. Binarystep (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"coalition calculator" can be deleted, since above it says "coalition calculator is less common, so it can be deleted. Binarystep". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2022[edit]

Also my ass, your ass, her ass, his ass, their ass, your asses, all y'all's asses.

These seem SOP, the sense of ass (A person; the self; (reflexively) oneself or one's person, chiefly their body.) It is all frequently replaced with "butt" and other synonyms, which makes it less idiomatic in my view. Since it is also constructible with all of these others pronouns it becomes less and less set. - TheDaveRoss 13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep - they're pretty unique in that they're used in place of me/you/etc. as well as myself/yourself/etc. I think the only synonym is my butt/your butt/etc., and that's clearly just a euphemism. You're unlikely to hear any other synonym of ass being used this way (outside of obvious humour doing it for effect), and I can't think of any other tangible nouns which can be paired with my/your/etc. to create genuine pronouns (as opposed to intangible nouns like majesty - though we do have entries for Your Majesty among others). It's definitely not productive in any real sense.
To give an example: even though "save your ass" can clearly be changed to "save your skin", you wouldn't ever hear "get your skin over here" or "why is your skin always so late?" because "your skin" is not a pronoun (but merely a metonym used only in a specific context). On the other hand, your ass clearly is a real pronoun that can be used in any context, albeit with a somewhat modified syntax (and leaving aside whether that would be a good idea). Theknightwho (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all: ass is used here metonymically to mean one’s self, and this meaning is already recorded as etymology 2, sense 5, at that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't true, because you can't ask "why is yourself always so late?" You can ask "why is your ass always so late?" The fact it can be used in place of either you or yourself makes this blatantly not SoP, and is not covered by a definition on ass for the reason that you cannot define a pronoun on a noun entry. Theknightwho (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see it differently. "Why is your ass always so late?" can be analysed as "Why is your self [or your body, or your person] so late?". The fact that your ass, your self, your body, or your person can be replaced by the pronoun you doesn't mean those phrases need to be treated as pronouns. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yourself =/= your self. There are no situations where your ass can be used where it could not be swapped out for either you or yourself (ignoring the interjection). It's also completely unheard of to use your self in the way you have in your example, but if it were, that would make it a pronoun too, because it's referring to someone anaphorically (sense 2) and cannot be preceded by a determiner ("the/a/my/your your ass"), which together define pronoun. It's a bound term.
Exactly the same logic applies to Your Majesty, which has two cites showing it being used as a pronoun in place of you (as opposed to when it's used as a formal term of address following a statement). Again, it's about the anaphorical reference and the lack of a determiner. Theknightwho (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sgconlaw None of those sound natural though… and I’d be surprised if they could be cited as well. Like no one really says “Get your body up!” unless they’re talking about a workout exercise or something, whereas “get your ass up!” is just normal usage of a pronoun. “Why is your [body/person/self] so late?” straight up does not sound right at all. AG202 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t think this sort of substitution needs to “sound natural”. That’s a red herring, I feel. In “Get your ass up!”, ass is being used as a metonym of a person’s body or self, and thus as a noun. I don’t think it makes a difference that nobody actually says “Get your body up!”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sgconlaw Is it though? Even at the entry written at ass, it says "By extension, one's personal safety, or figuratively one's job", so in that case it being used to refer to one's self or body is faulty. And speaking personally, I certainly don't really parse it as "your body" or "your person" for sure, for similar reasons. AG202 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the second example at their asses doesn't really align with that that well either. AG202 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn’t seem like “one’s personal safety” or “one’s job” is the relevant noun sense here, so I’d say those senses are simply not applicable. The relevant sense is “one’s body, person, or self”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the thing that clinches it is that it is impossible to use that sense of ass outside of the possessive ("my/your/their"). That means it cannot be a noun, and it is therefore absolutely not SoP. Theknightwho (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That isn't unique to this sense, though this may be the most common example. "...don't show your face around here..." or "...keep your hands off of me..." are similar constructions. I don't think that means one's face and one's hands are necessary entries, or idiomatic. - TheDaveRoss 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it productive, though? They're set phrases. Theknightwho (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We need to get asses in seats to keep this place profitable." - TheDaveRoss 12:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Get your sorry white ass out there." Other modifiers include fucking, tired, sweaty, cute, fat/skinny/flabby/bony, yellow, beaten, dragging, loser, old/young, inconsequential. Though some usage refers to the body part alone, other usage is more clearly referring to an entire organism (plenty of usage of "its ass"), and other usage is ambiguous. IOW, DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep per Theknightwho. AG202 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Everyone is focusing on the substitutability of "ass", but it's the other half of the construction that's interchangeable: it's not just pronouns, any designation of a person can be substituted: "I want to see Joe's ass in my office ASAP!" It's just [noun, pronoun or proper noun referring to one or more individuals]+[possession] + ass. The whole purpose of the construction is to attach a vulgarity as an intensifier- you can't say "get your esophagus over here!" because "esophagus" isn't unpleasant or shocking enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the first word is interchangeable because it's acting as a pronoun. The fact that a name could be put there doesn't change the fact that it can only be used in the possessive. It's also not just any intensifier - it's the only one, with a softer version as an alternative. Theknightwho (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is in fact an argument for keeping this in the form someone’s ass, like we find the President of the United States here referring to Richard Wellington McLaren, then supervising the Antitrust Division, by the appellation “McLaren’s ass”.  --Lambiam 10:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This information could be put at one's ass. WT:CFI states that reflexive idioms should use one instead of every possible variant. Old Man Consequences (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support this compared to deleting everything. AG202 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes it considerably harder to find, though, and is less intuitive to ordinary users. Theknightwho (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt ordinary or extraordinary users will use a term like “your asses” as a search term. The generic-personal-pronoun rule may be less intuitive, but that applies equally to one's fill, one's hour, one's last, and so on; is there a rationale for making an exception for this specific case?  --Lambiam 07:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I equally doubt that we'll see many searches for His Imperial Majesty either, but the logic still applies. Theknightwho (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Binarystep (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into a single entry someone's ass (per WT:CFI § Pronouns and the observations by Chuck Entz concerning Joe’s ass above) and then Delete all these with other, specific personal pronouns (but add See also someone's ass to the interjections my ass and your ass).  --Lambiam 10:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect (merge) to ass or to someone's ass, I think. It seems like ass is the lexical element, since the first part can be any possessive, and indeed the second part can be changed to arse (or dumbass: google books:"your dumbass over") or expanded with other words ("your guys's stupid asses"). I feel like we had a discussion about something of this sort previously, but I can't find it. Maybe I'm thinking of the inconclusive old discussion at Talk:my ass, where someone make the side point that terms like baby are sometimes used pronominally—"when baby is crying". I concede e.g. "Majesty" is also somewhat variable ("your Majesty"; "his Majesty" and "her Majesty" = "their Majesties"; in a few books even "my Majesty"), but that's still a lot less variable (*"I want the director's Majesty in my office pronto"?). - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can one say something like, “We sent out six asses to reconnoitre the area. Only two came back.”? I mean, can ass be used as a pars pro toto in the sense of “person” without possessive determiner identifying the possessor of the body part? If it is obligatory, this is of lexical significance.  --Lambiam 10:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, mostly per Sgconlaw. Imetsia (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. My take on this is the same as Chuck Entz's. I do think my ass should be kept, however, due to its unique, separate use as an interjection. 02:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all except my ass which should be kept because it has uses that are clearly not SOP. This is not unique with pronouns. "John's butt" exists. Maybe create someone's ass and someone's butt and redirect them all. 16:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this should be moved to one's ass, per the precedent we've set. (But is it one or someone? We can't seem to decide.) If this must be a keep or delete vote, though, i consider this a keep because I want the definition re-titled, not deleted. Soap 18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this gets deleted, I ask that we at least maintain the others (all possible forms) as redirects because, while the content at ass is sufficient for a naive learner to use the expressions properly, they might not know where to look on the page without a guide. As for one's ass, in theory it should exist too, but almost nobody is going to use that as a search string, so I'm ambivalent about it. Soap 20:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all noun sections. We should add all attestable "interjection" forms (singular/plural, 1st/2nd/3rd person), at least as hard redirects to someone's ass.
I don't see this as a translation target either. Ass is a noun in these constructions that serves as a usually derogatory intensifier, but parallel to such nouns as self, person, etc. The question is how do other languages accomplish the functions of derogation and intensification, either separately or jointly. It need not be done in a way closely parallel to the way it is done in English. As for showing it all lexically, consider that it took Jesse Sheidlower 270 pages to cover, using OED material, idioms involving fuck in The F Word (3rd ed.), but did not include collocations like who the fuck, why the fuck, fuck him, etc. DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2022[edit]

first-person dual[edit]

first-person plural[edit]

second-person singular[edit]

second-person dual[edit]

second-person plural[edit]

third-person singular[edit]

third-person dual[edit]

third-person plural[edit]

SOP. I had a good chuckle though when I saw that their definitions are literally the parts linked individually. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note. Someone has since rewritten the definitions, but not in a way I consider satisfactory. For one thing, these concepts do not only apply to verbs and pronouns, but also to a variety of other grammatical aspects in various languages – for example, the Turkish suffixes of possession. (This applies to our inadequate treatment of first person as well.) And IMO "the dual of the first-person form of a verb or pronoun" is meaningless; there is no such thing as "the first-person form" that has a dual.  --Lambiam 11:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete the lot. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 04:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm leaning towards keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you then at least suggest definitions other than the current ones, which inform those thirsting for enlightenment that second-person plural means “second-person plural” (resounding duh)?  --Lambiam 13:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My gut is that we should keep these, since we are a dictionary, and we enjoy using phrases of this sort. Also, I never knew there was such a thing as a 'first/second/third-person dual' until this discussion. bd2412 T 07:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They can be explained in an appendix, in case. There's no need to have them as individual entries. Sartma (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did you know there was such a thing as a dual until this discussion? PUC – 12:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You mean in the sense of a grammatical case for precisely two subjects? I was vaguely aware of it existing, but had never heard of or thought of it being in terms of grammatical person. bd2412 T 06:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually, these are not just SOP (at least the duals and plurals), cf. the lengthy discussion in Anna Siewierska's Person. But before adding intricate definitions (e.g. differentiating between the 2+2 (multiple addressees) and 2+3 (single addressee plus others) use of second-person plural), is it the job of Wiktionary to serve as a dictionary of linguistic terminology? –Austronesier (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Lambiam, until and unless non-SOP definitions are provided (per Austronesier). PUC – 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might possibly be useful translation hubs if nothing else. Equinox 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only tangentially related to this, I have just noticed that the Translation section of English we is a mess. The "exclusive" box serves as a kind of default space for a lot languages that actually do not have a clusivity distinction, while some non-clusive languages (French, German, Arabic etc.) are represented in both boxes. Maybe it makes more sense to have a main box for clusivity-neutral equivalents of English we, and to restrict the "exclusive" and "inclusive" boxes to languages which do have distinct 1p excl. and incl. pronouns? –Austronesier (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, same conviction as bd2412 + Austronesier's rationale. The definitions just need to be updated. AG202 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“... just need to be updated.” That’s a tall order. As pointed out above by Austronesier, whole monographs have been devoted to the topic of grammatical person.  --Lambiam 12:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambiam I have started trying to update them, to at least destubify them, see: second-person plural, though it doesn't feel satisfactory to me just yet. I actually also found that the fr.wikt definitions are more wordy, but do get the point across more clearly and are more open, see première personne du singulier, which I feel could be translated here well, though it would need to include more than just the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and verb forms as you've mentioned. I'm just not 100% sure of the phrasing, so I've paused for now. (Pinging @SemperBlotto as well since you've participated in a related discussion in the past) AG202 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have some gall complaining about "RFDs sometimes coming down to literally opinions of editors with no policy basis", when your vote is literally just that ("same conviction as bd2412", who's talking about a "gut feeling"). Just dropping that here, though; I have no interest in getting into a debate over this. PUC – 12:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PUC Please don't drop attacks like that and then say "I have no interest in getting into a debate over this", that's just poor form. To me, this is not SOP per Austronesier's rationale. And then, this section is actually policy if you've read through WT:CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." which imho is what bd2412's rationale relates to. Also, as stated in my comment on the discussion, I specifically mentioned "with words being deleted", which I've gone into more detail in in my comments on WT:IDIOM not being applied as it should be. If you have genuine critiques that's fine, but please don't come for me again like this while taking my comments out of context and not being well-versed in policy. AG202 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know you specifically mentioned that. You're a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist, of course you'd complain about entries being deleted. This is the reason why I'm attacking you in the first place: you see, what I can't stand is inclusionists taking the moral high ground, presenting themselves as the upholders of reason and argumentation, when they are often the most biased of all and will grasp at every straw to support their POV - like you just did with this ridiculous clause from the CFI. But I've said my piece. Hopefully I've got it out of my system and won't bother you again. (I'm mostly staying away from RFDs nowadays anyway.)
PS: don't take it too personally, I've been rude to bd2412 too, here and here. PUC – 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PUC If you'd actually paid attention, you'd see that I've voted for entries to be deleted. And even if I were a diehard inclusionist, I still have not lobbed personal attacks at editors who are deletionists, and at least try to act in good faith. I'm not presenting myself as the be-all know-all with RFDs, I've archived a ton of RFD discussions even ones that I don't believe should've been deleted, and have often deferred to other editors when it comes to participating in them (@BD2412, @Fytcha, @Imetsia). The original comment in Beer Parlour came from a place of frustration, and to be honest, some entries were closed against policy, like non-Canadian, since folks did not follow or know about WT:IDIOM. You claimed that my vote wasn't in line with policy and so I provided multiple examples of policy that can align with this. If you disagree with that policy analysis, that's fine, but it's rather unbecoming of someone, especially someone who just became an admin, to openly attack and berate folks like that. It's hard for me to not take it personally when it was lobbied directly at me. AG202 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And honestly, my initial comment was taken completely out of context. I mentioned that line to show that we don't keep every word possible, meaning that our motto of "all words in all languages" doesn't align with what actually happens here, meaning that it should be updated. That was the whole point of the discussion in Beer Parlour. I accept that some RFDs end up that way, and have come to accept it as being part of Wiktionary as a whole. Plus see the policy that I've been strongly pushing for for months: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Attestation_criteria_for_derogatory_terms. If I were as "inclusionist" as you claim, I would not be arguing in favor of those terms being limited, so please at the very least make sure that you're aware of what's actually been going on before you attack folks. AG202 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for lashing at you like that. As I mentioned in the conversation I linked to above, RFD debates don't bring out the best in me... PUC – 21:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete SOP + ridiculous tautological definitions... Sartma (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also: WT:PRIOR which maybe could apply in this instance. All the definitions, while far from perfect, are also no longer tautological. AG202 (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per AG202. Binarystep (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I was about to nominate these myself for deletion. Benwing2 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I haven't seen a convincing argument that, say, second-person dual does not mean the same thing as second person + dual. One can always include some encyclopedic content (or just extra words) to make it look superficially as if an expression was idiomatic. We do have an encyclopedic source that we can refer our users to. DCDuring (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all. Putting things in an appendix as suggested near the top of the thread fall just barely short of deletion since the appendix space is well-hidden. Likewise, bundling the already well-detailed definitions into the parent pages like second person will make them very cluttered, and I imagine if we do that people will just delete them later on. So I think it's best the way it is now. Soap 12:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfd-sense "(military engineering) A damage control system on navy warships which is activated by excessive temperature within the Vertical Launching System."
One thing which is certain is that deluge systems are not exclusive to military engineering, or navies, or ships. Deluge systems are used for land-based rockets for sure, and I think many other applications. What remains then is whether deluge on its own is sufficiently supported in the sense of "a system which deluges", and, if so, how many distinct senses should be here. This is perhaps more of a cleanup, but the sense as written shouldn't remain. - TheDaveRoss 15:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just cleaned it up and added another cite for that sense; does it look better now? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 00:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Whoop whoop pull up: The cleaned up version is certainly better (though such systems are often not for fire control, but instead for sound mitigation). Both of the cites are for deluge system, so I am still not sure if deluge on its own means such systems. The term deluge system is SOP for a system which deluges. - TheDaveRoss 12:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are the other uses of deluge systems? Dispersing noxious chemicals into the environment? DCDuring (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"…, so I am still not sure if deluge on its own means such systems." Yes, it does, at lest people use it this way: I just looked up "deluge" because it was used as a synonym for "flooding system" in a YouTube video covering the rebuild of SpaceX's launchpad for Starship, after this launchpad became badly damaged on its first use, because it was lacking a deluge [system]. I wondered if this is an appropriate use of "deluge", only to discover, that this is debated. I like the current version created by Whoop whoop pull up on 2022-07-07: It is informative and covers exactly this meaning well. Olf, 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The senses "An exclamation of triumph or discovery" (usex Ha! Checkmate!) and "Said when making a vigorous attack" (with some quotations) seem redundant. Or at least, all the quotations we have for the latter fit the former just as well, and the usex we have for the former fits the latter. Can anyone find examples that distinguish these senses?​—msh210 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I'm pretty sure it means the sort of thing you see in pantomime sword fights. For example, at 1:34 in this clip from Hook. Theknightwho (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The citations under etymology 3 should go to etymology 2 sense 2. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing your logic at all. These are two different things. The usage in the clip I linked above isn't triumphal either. Theknightwho (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as it is not based on the sound of laughter. This is more akin to hi-yah and heave-ho, ...a nonverbal expression accompanying strong muscle movements, perhaps to help control one's breath. Soap 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To have a short rest period from work, study, etc.

SOP: have (to undertake or perform) + a break (a rest or pause, usually from work.). No reason to keep this as a translation hub either, as take a break can do that job. Theknightwho (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theknightwho: Wouldn't you advocate for the deletion of take a break for the same reason (take 33.: "To practice; perform; execute; carry out; do.")? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm. Now I think about it, there are subtle distinctions in meaning here, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I favour have a break if I'm talking about a brief rest, but take a break if I mean a more significant break for an extended period (e.g. a career break). Theknightwho (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make sure it's listed in Appendix:DoHaveMakeTake and then hard-redirect to the bare noun.​—msh210 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect as msh says. - -sche (discuss) 08:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List at Appendix:DoHaveMakeTake and hard redirect to take a break (moving translations to there). - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 04:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and soft redirect to take a break if it is a synonym. Soft redirect is better than hard redirect, offering less of a surprise. If it is not a synonym, keep and explain the difference in a usage note. Do not redirect to the appendix: these are unwieldy for lexicographical information. If there is not enough support for the preferred outcome, at least hard redirect to take a break, not to the appendix, to direct the reader to translations, and keep listing it as a synonym there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfd-sense: "Adjective: (idiomatic, informal, hyperbolic) surprised.

This is most straighforwardly read as past and past participle of knock down with a feather. Perhaps someone can produce unambiguous evidence of adjectivity, such comparability/gradability, distinct meaning, or attributive use. Predicate use appears identical to passive use. DCDuring (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2022[edit]

SOP. Graham11 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A member of one of the four minor orders of the Catholic Church.
Keep for a few reasons:
  • It passes the once upon a time test at WT:IDIOM as it’s irregular. For example, A cleric in minor orders could no longer see his vocation as a steppingstone to the priesthood. and Don Josef Galindo y Soriano was fiel ejecutor and don Francisco Galindo y Soriano the other cleric in minor orders (he also had a house on the town square).
  • It passes WT:TENNIS as it’s a profession.
  • It passes the in between test as it’s tightly bound.
Theknightwho (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho What about it is irregular such that it would pass the once-upon-a-time test?
Re WT:TENNIS, provided that we mean profession in the sense of professional occupation (sense 2), it's more a class of professions (acolyte, exorcist, etc.) than a profession unto itself. Graham11 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s irregular because minor orders is a countable plural, which should take the definite article (“cleric in the minor orders”), but it doesn’t for some reason.
If you look at the quotations, they’re clearly using the term as the primary term for someone’s profession. In any event, most terms for professions that we have are classes of more specific professions (e.g. there are many kinds of lawyer). Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about these quotations? Some of them show the same characteristics outside of the nominated phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also “monk in minor orders”,[1][2][3] “prelate in minor orders”[4] and “commendator in minor orders”.[5]  --Lambiam 09:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm - should we have in minor orders as an adjective? Or convert minor orders to a proper noun? Theknightwho (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically I think in minor orders would be a prepositional phrase (like in Abraham's bosom, in broad daylight etc; it doesn't seem to meet tests of adjectivity), but AFAICT it'd be SOP as just "in" + "minor orders". I also don't see why "minor orders" would be proper noun, at least not in general, though you could capitalize it to express greater specificity and hence proper-noun-ness, like you could do with the Church or the Website or other things. (And if Talk:Church is to be followed, we could have near-duplicate entries for Everything, But Capitalized... but "church" and "minor orders" etc would still be common nouns AFAICT.) - -sche (discuss) 02:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to a collocations section in "minor orders". To one Theknightwho's points: it's not a profession ("porter" or "exorcist" could be considered a profession, but not "cleric in minor orders", since that's just a catchall term, akin to "healthcare professional"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a profession, as demonstrated by the quotes. A doctor doesn't stop being a doctor just because they become a cardiologist. Theknightwho (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm inclined to delete because it does seem to be a SOP catchall descriptor, and only about one-fifth at most (historically less) of all the uses of "(whatever) in minor orders", and about 1/17th at most of the various phrases "minor orders" occurs in. It's not tightly bound, indeed the parts can be scattered around a sentence, because it's just a description (and not the title of a profession, but a description of a class of professions):
  • 2009, Joseph Bergin, Church, Society and Religious Change in France, 1580-1730, page 64:
    Huge numbers of pre-teenage boys were administered the tonsure, the first of the 'minor' orders, which technically made them clerics and therefore capable of holding 'simple' benefices (that is, without cure of souls).
Btw cleric in the minor orders with the also occurs. - -sche (discuss) 02:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as SOP (and mention as a collocation if desired). Reviving this discussion a bit: a better question is whether in minor orders by itself merits an entry, which @Theknightwho, -sche touched on above. I think in orders, meaning "ordained" (search e.g. "monk in orders"), probably does, since someone unfamiliar with church usage would otherwise need to either figure out that it refers to holy orders or scroll down to sense 13 of order to figure it out, and even then the definition given there isn't substitutable. Then, if in orders has an entry, I suspect it's harder to justify leaving out in minor orders since it's derivative of in orders and not just an ellipsis of "in the minor orders" as suggested above (the latter is used but is more obviously SOP). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Marcha Real[edit]


O Canada[edit]

Poland Is Not Yet Lost[edit]

The Call of South Africa[edit]

Per above. However, God Save the King / Queen and Star-Spangled Banner may be kept due to the presence of multiple senses in the entry (and also because the USA and the UK are the 2 most important Anglophone countries — and of course, the deletion proposal of the above terms are from the perspective of English; and so for example, French Marseillaise, Japanese 君が代, German Deutschlandlied, Hebrew הַתִּקְוָהare entry-worthy from the perspective of these languages). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree we should keep any that have additional senses, but I don't agree that we should have entries for national anthems based on the perceived importance of countries. Either they're lexically relevant or they're not, so I'm in favour of adding God Save the Queen/King and the Star-Spangled Banner to this as well, referring only to the national anthem senses. Theknightwho (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep all except The Call of South Africa, which is basically SOP and a purely encyclopic title and Poland is Not Yet Lost, same. The rest are either single words, or in the case of Marcha Real and O Canada, not immediately parseable as names of anthems. bd2412 T 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete unless (1) it is a single word; or (2) it has at least one sense that is not simply "national anthem of XYZ". Thus, "The Call of South Africa", "God Defend New Zealand", "Marcha Real", and "O Canada" should go. I agree with @Theknightwho that trying to determine the perceived importance of countries is inappropriate and unworkable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I would have no idea what "O Canada" intends, and "Marcha Real" (literally "Royal March") does not name any specific country, so the fact that it is the anthem of Spain is idiomatic to the phrase. bd2412 T 00:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @BD2412: I feel the names of national anthems are essentially more suitable material for Wikipedia, and am minded only to make the two exceptions which I previously mentioned. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I am not exceptionally attached to the two-word names. I find them idiomatic, but would not lose sleep over them if they were deleted. We might have a soft redirect from those to Wikipedia. bd2412 T 05:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're keeping some of them, then we should keep all. I agree with Theknightwho that we shouldn't be giving increased relevance to the US & UK because they're the "2 most important Anglophone countries" (debatable). If the issue is that the others don't have additional senses, then send them to RFV. AG202 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all for being encyclopedic. Binarystep (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Binarystep: I can see that for most of them, but for Hatikva and Kimigayo as single words, we should be able to parse their meaning as words here. bd2412 T 03:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand how they're less encyclopedic simply because they have one-word titles. I'm aware there's precedent, since we also have pages for Thumbelina and Iliad, but that doesn't seem right to me. If these titles aren't being used as words (like Bluebeard and Godzilla), and they don't have unique translations (like Mona Lisa and Chopsticks), I don't see how they're within our jurisdiction. We don't include newer works like Rashomon or Ficciones, and I don't agree with any policy that'd give preferential treatment to older works for no reason other than their age. If anything, we should move non-lexical work titles to an appendix. Binarystep (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Binarystep: actually I’m happy for all names of national anthems except those that have an idiomatic sense to be deleted, including the single-word ones. We seem to be wedded to single-word entries for some reason, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Binarystep, Sgconlaw: Unlike Rashomon, which is a made-up word without prior meaning, Hatikva and Kimigayo are actual words with prior meaning. These are transliterations from the original Hebrew and Japanese, respectively. We do, as it happens, have an entry for ficciones as a word. bd2412 T 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not referring to their uses as words, though, I'm referring to their uses as the titles of artistic works. Binarystep (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how they can be separated out. They exist as words parseable in English because they are used as titles in other scripts. bd2412 T 19:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy is WT:NSE; we do include many names of specific entities, which was voted on. NSE are up to editor discretion. --18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete the multi-word ones, at least (God Defend New Zealand, Marcha Real, O Canada, The Call of South Africa, and I would add Poland is Not Yet Lost). We don't include (relatively) modern book titles like Swift's A Modest Proposal or Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, either. Single-word ones like Marseillaise seem at least more word-like (compare Iliad). Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/June#Names_of_national_anthems. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I mistakenly excluded the Polish anthem. Now added. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all. Interesting how a battery of non-U.S. terms are nominated for deletion once again while the American equivalent isn't. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If these are deleted, I will immediately nominate the two arbitrary exceptions on the same grounds. Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all, this doesn't belong in the mainspace. PUC – 10:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PUC Can you state a specific rationale, which would include at least one salient characteristic making this not belong in the mainspace? Otherwise, the rationale stated contains no specific content and is at the risk of making your vote discountable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep the single-word ones. Governed by WT:NSE, so this is up to editors. "encyclopedic content" is not a CFI rationale and does not give us any guide as to which NSE to keep and which to delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep all to simplify the closure. The multi-word ones are less worthy of keeping, but no harm is done if we keep them as well, and we can per WT:NSE. Those who dislike multi-word names in a dictionary won't visit the entries by accident, seeing immediately what they are. Let this be deleted by deletionists if wished. And if we consider The Call of South Africa and its German translation Die Stimme Südafrikas, this is not a word-for-word translation since "Call" is not obviously "Stimme". Admittedly, considering translations as worthwhile would allow many names of specific entities; OTOH, if we allow Washington County without translations, then these are more lexicographically worthwhile than this county. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see 5:3 delete:keep, which would be no consensus for deletion. Any more input to make the result less equivocal? (The word "encyclopedic" ought to be banned from RFD discussions as practically meaningless.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that several of the keep votes were qualified, it makes absolutely no sense to give a numerical tally for all the terms as a whole. Your unwillingness or inability to understand what encyclopaedic content is does not make it any less relevant. You just don't understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Competence is required for RFD closures, and I'm sorry to say that you lack it. Theknightwho (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea of "encyclopedic" content in relation to proper names is nonsense as it does not tell us which proper names to keep and which to delete. Thus, no one has ever explained why "God Defend New Zealand" is "encyclopedic" while "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not. Ideally, the words "encyclopedic" and "lexical" ought to be banned from RFDs, and substantive differentia ought to be invoked instead, until these words can be given anything resembling operational practical meaning that has anything like bearing on actual inclusion and exclusion. Until that happens, the word "encyclopedic" is just a thin veil behind which "I don't like it" is hidden, or something of the sort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all per other keep votes. Especially God Defend New Zealand. DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donnanz: Can you state a rationale, in keeping with the strength-of-the-argument-augmented numerical consensus? Otherwise, there is the risk that the RFD closer will discount your vote. A minimum rationale is "Keep per person so-and-so." --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have amended my comment, striking part of it because of criticism; the critic failed to take into account that I am an NZer. DonnanZ (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all. I think it's valuable to include these idiomatic terms that I can imagine myself searching for. Even in the cases of Poland is Not Yet Lost and The Call of South Africa we have meaningful etymological information besides the simple definitions and Wikipedia links. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 22:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ExcarnateSojourner: that's what Wikipedia is for. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. As national anthems, I can easily see these as having more meaning than just "a song", but as references to patriotism for that country. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitationsFreak: not really seeing how that is a relevant consideration for RFD. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am arguing that these terms are not SOP or mere titles of songs. They are symbols that stand for what country has that anthem (eg "God Save the King/Queen" is a song that represents the UK, same with the "Star-Spangled Banner" for America and "Kimigayo" for Japan.) Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not understand this argument. Equinox 06:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think some of these are well-known enough to serve as symbols for patriotism, citations like "when I am dead sing over me the Marseillaise" would be persuasive. RFV Drapetomanic (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I meant. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drapetomanic: like @Equinox, I do not think the fact that a certain national anthem may be a symbol of patriotism is relevant as it is not a sense of the term. We do not define rose as “a symbol of love”, nor magnifying glass as “a symbol of an Internet search”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that it can be used as a symbol of something means that it has "entered the lexicon". No entry for white feather, huh? Just "show the white feather" Drapetomanic (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here we are "A flag with a white color, used as a symbol of truce or surrender." Drapetomanic (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drapetomanic: however, white flag is idiomatic in that sense. One can say “She raised a white flag, and admitted she was wrong”. If you feel that any of the national anthems listed above, or others, are idiomatic in the same way, then kindly find at least three quotations for each of them unambiguously indicating, for example, that when a sentence says “He sang ‘The Call of South Africa’” what is actually meant is “He is patriotic”. A similar discussion took place concerning born on the Fourth of July, which was ultimately closed with deletion as evidence of idiomatic use just wasn’t there. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thinks it's enough for la Marseillaise' to be used to imply patriotism, just as a literal white flag implies surrender. One can say "the soldiers raised a white flag" and that needs to be searchable so one would know they were surrendering. It's something you need to know to have a full grasp of the language. Drapetomanic (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drapetomanic: I don’t, I’m afraid. My reading of WT:CFI is that we require proof of idiomaticity, and not some vague suggestion that a term might imply idiomaticity in some contexts. Otherwise, entries will be filled with so-called senses like rose – a symbol of love, and dog – a symbol of faithfulness, which we do not do. I think the entries should all be deleted, and of course if editors can find at least three qualifying idiomatic uses for a particular anthem they can put them on a citations page and request for the term to be undeleted. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all (I just came across an article from The New Yorker where the author misspells "Marseillaise"–it's useful information to include). – Jberkel 07:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People can just as easily look up Wikipedia … — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What was the context? CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special:Diff/72578335/72582774Jberkel 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! This seems idiomatic to me, referencing the ideals of the French Revolution within the context of the film mentioned (Casablanca). CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently not a real thing - just part of Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children? Dunderdool (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Send to RFV. AG202 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no doubt the term can be found used on its own,[6] even as a book title.[7][8][9] But is this lexical material?  --Lambiam 09:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambiam That wasn't the RFD rationale provided though, hence when I suggested to send it to RFV. However, seeing that it can be cited, I'd vote Keep, based on the fact that we have entries for every book in the Bible, including other books like 1 Maccabees which are also found in the Apocrypha. See also: Category:en:Books of the Bible. It would be very strange to have all of those but then delete this one (though it's up for debate on whether or not this is considered its own book, but that's another conversation). Also, the only RFD that I was able to find thus far at Talk:1 Chronicles, ended in consensus for keeping the entry. AG202 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – encyclopedic material, not lexical.  --Lambiam 09:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for sure, I agree with Lambiam. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFD-kept by no consensus. It's been almost 4 months + the {{look}} template. AG202 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, AG, I disagree with this. The Bible book is called Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, not just Song of the Three Holy Children. Dan Polansky's argument is characteristically poor, as Merriam-Webster's entry is probably a mistake. Flackofnubs (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: "Dan Polansky's argument is characteristically poor" is itself a low-quality argument: a decent criticism of argument involves identification of some part or aspect of the argument that is low-quality. Flackofnubs is Wonderfool, and on my wiki, he would be forbidden from participation in RFD process: it is a person that is banned but the user accounts are tolerated, not because editors want to tolerate them, but because if they won't, the person will keep on creating new accounts anyway and new accounts are going to be target of suspicion of being Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • RFD-kept as no consensus for deletion. I discount Wonderfool (Dunderdool, Flackofnubs). Other than that, there are two keeps and two deletes. As for policy, it leaves editor discretion (WT:NSE). The deletionists had enough time to vote delete, and did not take the opportunity. The argument "encyclopedic material, not lexical" is meaningless on the surface of it; in what sense of "lexical", what definition, is a multi-word proper name not "lexical"? A case could be made that this particular proper name should not be kept, but no serious attempt has been made to make the case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RFD deleted - overriding the bad faith closure above, there is clearly a consensus to delete. Plus, "by the strength of argument", the lemming non-policy is not persuasive, as it is not relevant. And if it's really needed then I also vote delete, which makes the consensus for deletion unassailable. Theknightwho (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho Imho this deletion was highly inappropriate. If you want to stop the closure of it being kept, that’s fine, but deleting the entry was a step too far, especially since it hasn’t been a month since the last comment, breaking RFD guidelines. Let alone voting delete and deleting the entry at the same time. Take your issues with Dan Polansky elsewhere as it’s truly starting to negatively affect the project, and you’re openly breaking established guidelines and policies to combat him. I’d like to request that the entry be recreated to its former form and that this discussion plays out how it’s supposed to. AG202 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have undeleted the entry, but this has nothing to do with who is closing the threads: it's to do with how they're being closed. Theknightwho (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no consensus: there were 2 keeps and 3 deletes, where one of the deletes was by Wonderfool; Wonderfool ought not count. The above is incorrect and ought to be undone. The phrase "encyclopedic material, not lexical" is meaningless, as said. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read WT:NOT. Theknightwho (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not anyone's subordinate here and do not accept imperatives. All the peddlers of the "encyclopedic content" argument have to explain why United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not encyclopedic content, or World War II; good luck. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Similar to Song of Songs, Song of Solomon and Wisdom of Solomon - all of which we have. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A redirect to kick. Not informative! Equinox 15:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Shouldn’t it be kick one's ass? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite. To kick one's ass is to physically beat someone up, while kicking oneself in the ass refers to (usually verbal) self-loathing. Binarystep (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
kick oneself also redirects to kick, which seems strange given this is clearly idiomatic, and seems to only be used to refer to rebuking oneself (vs. rebuking someone else). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
kick oneself was changed to a redirect by @Graham11 on 5 July (“Merging contents as the term is already defined at kick using the "reflexive" label”). J3133 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of a pattern of breaking things that don't need fixing. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should have been nominated for deletion, but that seems reasonable enough. Theknightwho (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
kick one's ass is to literally or metaphorically beat oneself up. kick someone's ass is to literally or metaphorically beat someone else up. Facts707 (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Rfd-sense: Charles Dickens, English novelist.

I readded this sense after it was removed without process. To handle things cleanly, I am listing the sense in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep per WT:LEMMING; governed by WT:NSE. The sense is in M-W[11], Collins[12], and AHD[13]; see also Dickens at OneLook Dictionary Search. oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com has entry Charles Dickens[14], which we do not want and have policy against. OED does not have Charles in Dickens but they do not have surname Dickens either, only mentioning the surname in the etymology of lowercase dickens; OED does not have Asia, Ontario and Germany, so it is not much of a guide for us. Having Charles in Dickens matches our long-term practice: more examples include philosophers (Plato), poets (Keats), politicians (Churchill), writers (Emerson), playwrights (Shakespeare), composers (Chopin), explorers (Cook) and scientists (Darwin). Charles is also supported by the uncodified derived-adjective principle with unknown support: there is adjective Dickensian dedicated to Charles. WT:NSE does not provide specific rules for Charles in Dickens, so we have to use uncodified rules to handle the case. Attempts to remove specific individuals from Wiktionary date back to 2010, per Category talk:Individuals, but they never went anywhere. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Needless to say, it is easy to design a policy in either direction, e.g. "There shall be no sense lines dedicated to individual people in entries for surnames, and individual people shall not be mentioned on the surname definition line." And the derived-adjective principle is this: "When an adjective is derived from a proper name and the adjective definition features a specific individual or other specific entity, that entity should also be listed as a sense in the base proper name." The problem is that neither is probably supported by consensus. The result is the apparently unfair inclusionism since deletion has to overcome the hurdle of 2/3 threshold (not official, but no other one is better supported by evidence). This could be amended by passing 3/5 (60%) to be the overridable threshold for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not a single general dictionary in OneLook has Dickens as a surname: each one that has Dickens at all has Charles Dickens there. This is a systematic pattern with biographical names in general dictionaries: not at all or the specific person. Even more dictionaries have Darwin, done exactly the same way. With geographic names, we are hugely more inclusive than general dictionaries; why do we choose the opposite for biographical names? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I expanded Category talk:en:Individuals with a list of 193 individuals in English surname entries. Category:English terms suffixed with -ian currently has 2,615 entries; that's the current upper limit on the individuals supported by a derived -ian adjectives. Even if it reached 10,000, that's nothing like a million biological taxa duplicated from Wikispecies in Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For tracking, this is per User:Dan Polansky/IA § Derived-term principle and User:Dan Polansky/IA § Extrapolate lemmings.--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, properly defining for anyone who looks this up as the lemma for something like Dickensian. bd2412 T 06:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Already got a "see also" for him, by the way: that's the correct solution here. Equinox 12:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The See also is a remnant of the out-of-process deletion (actually moving to See also) that I forgot to remove. The See also does not need to be there when there is a sense line. This See also solution also shows that the disagreement is in some sense really petty: the person is going to be covered anyway if one admits See also for the person, just not on the sense line. And in Mother Teresa, the person is going to be covered in some way anyway, just in the etymology; the term will have no proper noun section, which is bizarre given it is primarily a proper noun. I don't understand this fear of specific entities on the definition lines when the entities are human individuals: there is no such fear with geographic names such as Newtown. I saw no rationale for treating humans different from places. Places are on the sense lines, exceptionally notable humans can too; more generically of proper names: some specific entities are on the sense lines. We don't cover place names by saying "place name" on the definition line and then shoving the specific places to See also or Further reading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete obviously. It's completely normal for texts to not repeat the full name of a person over and over, but that still doesn't endow the surname word with a new sense. I also reject any exemption based on notability. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no "exemption": CFI does not forbid this case. The referents of proper names are their meaning. It is only about practicalities, to what extent to cover the meaning. "surname" is not a sense; it is a function of the word; having it as a definition line is a practical expedient, not semantics. "Dickens" used out of context, without introduction, without repetition, automatically refers to Charles, that's the point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Fytcha and others above. - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No uses except as a person's surname. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This person says in other RFDs that "Dictionaries should not contain proper nouns, especially ones that only refer to one thing" and "Dictionaries don't contain proper names", the former being an opinion contrary to our CFI, the latter being manifestly factually wrong. And they have 14 edits in content namespaces, and would be ineligible for a formal vote, although there is no such rigid rule for RFDs. I think votes by someone like that should not count. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unsure. I added an RFD notice to Prince (the singer) but didn't list it here, I got cold feet. DonnanZ (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. I can't quite agree with Fytcha's reasoning above because there is an obvious difference between switching to a surname after the referent has already been expressly introduced in a text (i.e. not repeating over and over), and a surname that is well-established in use as a reference to a particular person without any prior context. Of course, the latter can apply to many people with more ephemeral fame than Dickens—so I'm not sure what a good specific criterion for inclusion would be if we need a hard-and-fast rule. If there were to be one, I think it would need to depend on a degree of perenniality and universality (or context-independence), and "Dickens" seems to be closer to "Shakespeare" in that sense than just any surname which would only be understood in a specific context, hence my leaning to keep. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • RFD-kept: no consensus for deletion after several months. Those who would want to delete this would perhaps find it more productive to join forces and handle this is a matter of policy: no senses for specific entities in surname entries. They would need to hope that editors will bother to come to a vote much more readily than come to RFD, since the yield on time is better (delete a whole batch of senses, not just a single one). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Undid closure - it's bad faith to say there is no consensus here for deletion (4 delete vs 2 keep + 1 weak keep). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I'm here, delete. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I discounted DJ Clayworth, who has almost no contribution to Wiktionary (less than 50 edits in content spaces) and ought not count; that person claimed elsewhere dictionaries do not do proper nouns, a clear untruth. That gives us 3 deletes vs. 2.5 keeps. With Surjection, we get 4 deletes vs. 2.5 keeps, still no consensus per WT:VPRFD; however, the above delete with zero rationale ought to be discounted, and minimum rationale ought to be required. Speculations about "faith" are uncalled for, and closure can be contested on whatever plausible grounds; I am fine with that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On balance, delete. It is extremely common usage to refer to people by their surnames. While Dickens itself is, I suppose, a relatively uncommon surname, allowing a definition like "Charles Dickens" opens the door to entries like Kim or Smith being flooded with senses consisting solely of people with that surname. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As for "on balance", no items were stated that are being "balanced", so it has no practical semantics. As for "opens the door" argument, that seems to be the case of the slippery slope fallacy (if one wants to play the fallacy naming game). In any case, it seems to present some kind of open-floodgate problem although the very top of this RFD presented two gates to stop any flood: 1) lemmings, and 2) existence of a derived adjective. More floodgates can be invented. The argument that "Kin" or "Smith" are somehow in danger of being "flooded" does not have a iota of plausibility. I motion that the RFD closer dismisses the above as utterly baseless and implausible; one has to argue much better than that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. There's quite a number of these, without naming them. It's unfair, therefore, to pick on Dickens. In fact, my Oxford Dictionary of English lists Dickens, the English novelist. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then all of such entries should be deleted. I think Wiktionary does not strive to be the same type of reference work as the Oxford Dictionary of English, which “includes thousands of brand-new words and senses, as well as up-to-date encyclopedic information, and extensive appendices covering topics such as countries, heads of state, and chemical elements” (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/acref-9780199571123;jsessionid=C53A2FC0EA5E2841169BDD060ECF389D). We regard the italicized part as the job of Wikipedia. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revise: There is another way around this. Alter the surname definition by adding "notably that of Charles Dickens", then the separate definition can be removed. This has been done elsewhere, and I think it's a good compromise. DonnanZ (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’ve added a note to our sense 1 of Dickens to reflect this. I’m indifferent whether we keep sense 2 or not but we don’t need it now. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep. ‑‑Kai Burghardt (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name of a gang. Almostonurmind (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be possible to attest Peaky Blinder as the term for a member of the gang, which has a stronger case for inclusion (being a noun). Theknightwho (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is already an entry, though at the common noun peaky blinder. - TheDaveRoss 21:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was on my phone and hadn't checked. Fair enough. Theknightwho (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, clearly encyclopedic and not dictionary material. We also shouldn't have entries for the Essex Football Club or the New York City Freemasons. - TheDaveRoss 21:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheDaveRoss: But we often do, to the extent that it's even our habit and custom, e.g. Lioness (and any number of soccer/football and baseball teams). If you are convinced about this, then we need to talk policy and voting. Equinox 04:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does seem we handle players of sports teams differently than the names of sports teams (we don't, to your example, have Lionesses [as a football team] or English Women's National Football Team). It is truly a confused mess. - TheDaveRoss 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain? What if the gang had a single-word name? I know for a fact we've got at least one such term but I can't remember it (it's from 17th-18th century; it was something like "tilters" or "turners" because they allegedly used to throw people upside-down; anyone remember?)... Or more recently, what about Crip, a member of an American gang? I'm on the fence because, on the one hand, it "feels like" a brand name or a company name, how I'd want to delete Pokémon shit, but on the other hand it's sort of a word that isn't that. Hmmmm.... Equinox 04:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yiddisher, Hawcubite, Mohawk, or something older? We do also have Guelph and Ghibelline for historical factions. And Blood and Crip for modern gangs, Deadhead, Modie, Swiftie and Wholigan for fans of particular modern musical artists/groups, Bantam and Viking for sports team members, Methodist and Free Quaker for members of religious groups, Edinbronian/Edinbourgeois/Edinburger etc for people from places... if the singular Peaky Blinder is attested, it might fit our usual practice better to make the singular the lemma (for a member of the gang) and reduce this to a plural-of, but (as you said to Dave) for better or worse it does seem like we typically include this kind of thing... - -sche (discuss) 07:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, move the lemma to the singular Peaky Blinder (google books:"a Peaky Blinder"), decide which one of Peaky Blinder vs peaky blinder to make an {{altcaps}} of the other, and reduce Peaky Blinders to being a plural-of... like we do for Crip (defined) vs Crips (just "plural of..."), Blood vs Bloods, Lioness vs Lionesses, Bantam vs Bantams, Viking vs Vikings. (Unless we want to start a more general discussing about deleting all of these.) - -sche (discuss) 17:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm on board with this. Theknightwho (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the rationale which makes Lioness different from Lionesses? Crip from Crips? I agree that is how we currently operate, I just can't see why that is the case. - TheDaveRoss 12:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would guess it's because a sense for the gang at Crips would be redundant to the plural of "Crip" sense inasmuch as any English plural can be used to refer to a collective, can't it? Russians (a Slavic ethnic group which primarily inhabits Russia) think nuclear weapons (a class of weapons which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions) are dangerous and medics (a category of people who treat injuries) advise not being exposed to them, but we probably don't want to add those senses to those entries because they're just restating the definition of the singular in a plural/collective way, right? (Whether we should have the singulars / any entry at all in the case of specific groups like Peaky Blinder(s), IDK, but...we do, so if we wanna stop, we should probably discuss it in general and not one entry at a time.) - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm - the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that we can just treat it as a simple plural, actually. With most nouns, you can't use the definite article + the plural to refer to all of them collectively, whereas you can with these: compare "the chairs" or "the people", which don't mean "all chairs" or "all people". However, "the Bloods" or "the Vikings" do have a collective meaning, because the plural is itself a proper noun. We take this to silly extremes with entries like Yoruba (which is typical of entries for peoples), which we treat as an ordinary noun that is plural only, capitalised and collective - and it also optionally takes the definite article (when referring to the people, not the language). It is completely indistinguishable from a proper noun. I assume the capitalisation is a tacit acknowledgement of that, in fact. Theknightwho (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yoruba is part of our longstanding difficulty with defining ethnonational groups, yes... a lot of entries have been entered as plural-only with no indication that they're also singulars (I added a cite where someone is "a Yoruba")... whether we should define them as both singulars and plural/collective (proper?) nouns, I don't know: it's been discussed before, and e.g. Abenaki currently does have both a proper noun for the nation and a section for the count noun; prior discussions are this old, short 2012 one, WT:Beer parlour/2017/June#German_vs_Germans_collectively, and WT:Beer parlour/2021/March#POS_of_words_for_"X_tribe/people,_collectively"_like_British,_Chinese,_Cheyenne,_Xhosa.
Re your point about the Bloods, I'm also unsure. On one hand, is that attaching too much importance to one situation (definite article + plural) where they sometimes(!) differ despite otherwise not differing? In "Bloods hate Crips", Bloods is collective without the, and "chairs have legs" is equally collective (and not always accurate, but that's beside the point); "three Bloods shot a man; the Bloods were later arrested" is a noncollective plural, as is "three chairs broke, the chairs were later repaired"; and "as the rivalry escalated, Bloods were shot" and "as the brawl intensified, chairs were broken" is using those words as noncollective plurals without the... so it's in only one of four situations, "use with the to mean the collective", that they'd sometimes differ, and even then, you could say e.g. "On Coruscant, conditions became so dire that the coruscantium miners rebelled" using "the coruscantium miners" (or e.g. "the technicians") as a collective plural. On the other hand, Bloods and Vikings and Abenaki and Yoruba do feel like they also exist as group names, and like the collectives may have come first and the singulars may be derivatives / back-formations... hmm... - -sche (discuss) 23:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree with you, but I think the situation where they differ plus the capitalisation (which is another difference) does seem to be relevant, because it’s an acknowledgment that the collective term is a name (which surely must make it a proper noun). It’s a bit blurry with, say, Vikings, but then that’s probably why vikings exists, which suggests that there is a correlation between a shift towards being a common noun and the loss of capitalisation (in those situations, anyway). I think you’re probably also right about the collective names (at least often) coming first. Theknightwho (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Abstain: Although multi-word proper names with no figurative use and no derived terms are less part of the core of inclusion of proper names, multi-word nicknames Orange Man, God Emperor, Pharma Bro, Korea Fish, Vegetable English, and Elongated Muskrat are included, and if we accept these, I don't see what would exclude Peaky Blinders as the name of a gang. And if we include Peaky Blinders as a plural, it would not even be a proper name any longer. I have decided to abstain since I am no longer convinced we need to include multi-word proper names with no lexicographical saving graces such as figurative uses or derived includable terms. About the pluralization: I am not sure we want to redefine Beatles as the plural of Beatle; I think we don't. It seems Peaky Blinders and Peaky Blinder should better be treated similar to Beatles and Beatle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as nominated by Wonderfool (Almostonurmind), a banned user tolerated not because they are good but to avoid harm to new editor accounts resulting from search for new Wonderfool accounts. Let someone who is not a little devil renominate this if wished. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to peaky blinder (like we do for Crips). I don't mind which but clearly we shouldn't delete the entry entirely. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

United Nations General Assembly[edit]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration[edit]

It apparently appears in two or three dictionaries- see Further reading there. I am unclear if WT:LEMMING would apply to this case as an argument for inclusion. (My instinct is to go with the authoritative dictionaries to maintain the legitimacy of Wiktionary in the eyes of the readers.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) (modified)Reply[reply]

  • Keep per lemmings in the entry, although I nominated this and although they are not the traditional ones except Collins. I won't shed a tear if this is deleted since the name is kind of transparent and I would not vote keep without lemmings, but I still like the general lemming principle. We have no sound and comprehensive criteria for multi-word proper names, and lemmings help us include United Arab Emirates and World War II, for instance. We should sooner delete United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I think; it is no less "encyclopedic" and is not supported by lemmings. Admittedly, lemmings would have us include Federal Aviation Administration, Food and Drug Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Central Intelligence Agency, so if you don't like that consequence, that's probably a delete from you. Later: I spoke too soon: the full name of the U.K. is supported by lemmings. Oh, well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We should not be including terms in non-LDLs just because other dictionaries have them. Theknightwho (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a normative opinion, not a fact. I have more at User talk:Dan Polansky § Lemming test, lemming principle or lemming heuristic. The lemming principle is in the spirit of Wikipedia, which depends on reliable sources, whereas Wiktionary is full of opinionated people who love to think for themselves, which is quite attractive but is not without problems. The rationale "encyclopedic" is a blanket statement of ignorance, not a statement of principle. "Quasi sum of parts" is a statement of principle, and I see it here, but I defer to lemmings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You say yourself that there is nothing lexically interesting about these and that they are "quasi sum of parts", but want to include them solely on the basis that they're included in one other dictionary (Collins). If your principle is just to blindly follow what other publications have done, then my "normative opinion" is that we shouldn't do that. The major difference between Wiktionary and Wikipedia is that Wiktionary is a secondary source, not a tertiary one; that means we generally have to curate at the point of inclusion, whereas Wikipedia has far more scope to vary the manner in which something is included, proportionally to its notability. It also leaves us in the absurd position of including some terms in a class but not others, due to the (potentially arbitrary) decisions of other publications. No thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not really absurd and appears unavoidable anyway. All dictionaries do it and the otherwise excellent OED is quite bad at it, with its apparently arbitrary inclusion of some proper names but not others, as per Beer parlour. One can ask: why should United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be included while National Aeronautics and Space Administration excluded? I see no principle based on purely lexicographic concerns that differentiates the two. Do you see such a principle? And do you have sound comprehensive inclusion criteria for multi-word proper names? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You not being able to see the principle does not mean that outsourcing it to other publications is a good idea. I look forward to seeing your nomination to undelete Talk:西線無戰事 and all the other novel titles that are included in the Taiwan Ministry of Education dictionary. Theknightwho (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one has given us these principles, not me, not you, not anyone else, except perhaps those who say, delete all proper names or delete all multi-word proper names. Is "Taiwan Ministry of Education dictionary" a general monolingual linguistic dictionary? And a single dictionary does not count for lemmings either. Outsourcing inclusion (not exclusion) would give contributors certainty that some of the content they will create would be predictably kept. What we have now is not really consistent either, randomly depending on who shows up in the RFD. Some want United Nations excluded since all organizations are "encyclopedic", some included. The lemmings would give us includable core around which we could ponder expansion into a more uncertain territory. I have drafted some inclusion principles on my talk page, but they are not wholly comprehensive and would probably exclude United Nations, which I don't see happening. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, it is a general monolingual linguistic dictionary which we use very extensively, and you can see the entry here. The fact that you changed your opinion based on the inclusion by Collins alone also makes your point that a single dictionary doesn't count for lemmings irrelevant, anyway, and I shouldn't have to explain why the inevitable variability of who turns up to RFD doesn't justify doing things blindly instead.
    Let's be honest, here: you dislike the uncertainty, and would rather have an arbitrary line than a fuzzy one. If you don't trust our collective judgment in excluding these kinds of terms, then you also have no basis trusting our collective judgment in including others, either. Theknightwho (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The full NASA name is in Collins and Dictionary.com so that's two; it is also in WordNet, but that does not count. If one argued that Dictionary.com should not count, I could perhaps be convinced and change my mind. The count of two does matter and was required in the failed vote. Predictably administrable policies are a widely recognized good, while you seem to be inexplicably dismissive about this good. Presumably, contributors prefer to be able to predict that the content they create will be kept. The notion that we should trust collective judgment of varying groups of decision makers, who do not agree on inclusion principles among themselves and each votes according to different inclusion principles and keep changing their minds as time passes, seems bizarre. Even with lemmings, the line would be fuzzy since we would include things beyond lemmings, but there would be a secure core. I created the vote that replaced the attributive-use rule with today's open-ended uncertainty, so it is really not about me personally. The derogatory use of "blindly" has no force: our CFI for geographic names has the RFD participants do things "blindly" for them, and that was presumably the purpose of the place name policy, which seems rather arbitrary from lexicographical standpoint but does exactly that which you dismiss: let us do things in a predictable manner. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yet you do trust the "collective judgment of varying groups of decision makers, who do not agree on inclusion principles among themselves and each votes according to different inclusion principles and keep changing their minds as time passes" when it comes to the inclusion of terms not in other dictionaries, as I have already pointed out. You're just trying to sweep the fuzziness under the rug, but that doesn't make it go away - particularly as those very same points apply to the people that made those other dictionaries in the first place.
    Including things on a per-class basis is not the same as your proposal, because those are decided on the basis of what the terms refer to, while your proposal is decided on the basis of what other people have decided. That's why it's a useful signpost, but not a distinguishing characteristic. Theknightwho (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, lemmings do not eliminate all uncertainty, just some. Better than nothing. Fuzziness remains as admitted: no sweeping under the rag given the admission. Deciding on the basis of what the terms refer to is non-lexicographic. It is not obviously better than deferring to others: both is predictable and both is lexicographically arbitrary. There does not seem to be anything lexicographical about Small Magellanic Cloud, but CFI has it included. CFI has "X County" terms included, lemmings don't. You may like the arbitrary referent-based policy better, that's up to you, that's not a matter of objective facts. You have not posted any inclusion principles and you have not even voted yet; you just ask us to trust inconsistent collective judgment. That's pretty empty handed, if you ask me. If that's the readers' and users' policy preference, I can't help it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't object on the basis that LEMMINGS doesn't eliminate all uncertainty - I objected on the basis that the removal of uncertainty is not justified by implementing arbitrary rules. The fact that you say "better than nothing" actually confirms my point that you're only doing this because you want to make the decisionmaking process simpler, ignoring that it removes editorial control from users and does nothing to solve the underlying problem. That is not a good approach. It was also soundly rejected by vote (and having checked, many users had the same sentiments as me), so please stop trying to force it.
    "Deciding on the basis of what the terms refer to" is an inherent aspect of the sum of parts principle, and the basis of several guidelines at WT:IDIOM. Fundamentally, those are all "arbitrary" too, in that we've decided that they best suit the purpose of what a dictionary is for (which is a normative judgment, as you say). However, there is a clear, qualitative difference between deciding based on the meaning of a term and deciding for each individual term on the basis of whether other dictionaries have included them or not: the former is based on a property of the term itself (and the classes it fits into), while your proposal is not, and leads to random inclusion/exclusion in cases such as 西線無戰事 (which is the title of a novel) - and before you object by saying that 西線無戰事 is only in one dictionary, I am obviously not just talking about that one entry.
    It's also all very well to point out that there are other arbitrary things as well, such as who participates in RFD discussions, but that's not persuasive because (a) the decisions are not random, (b) they're governed by Wiktionary policy (unlike other dictionaries), and (c) that objection also applies to any decision we make in respect of LEMMINGS, so it's self-defeating. Theknightwho (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree with most of the above. The SOP principle does not depend on classification of referents at all. Again, two lemmings are the minimum. I feel this is getting repetitive and unproductive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ignoring the primary point while misrepresenting what I said about the SOP principle is not an adequate response. You very clearly have no response to the major flaw in your proposal that it allows for random inclusion/exclusion based on the whims of other publications, and just don’t want to admit it. Theknightwho (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The so-called major flaw is a real downside. But the upside is much bigger. What we have now is whim of randomly varying amateurs; whim of the pros seems much preferable. Just recently, Bank of England was deleted while non-SOP and European Central Bank was kept while SOP. Lemmings would have prevented that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no upside - it’s just sweeping the arbitrariness under the carpet by making it look like it isn’t, which is a point you’ve failed to address with anything other than saying what we do is already arbitrary, while ignoring the difference between inclusion on a per-class basis versus a per-term basis and the difference in outcomes that creates. Nevermind the disdain you have just shown for your fellow users, which is a whole other issue. Theknightwho (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The upside of improved predictability and consistency is as undeniable as the downside of partial loss of autonomy and gain of certain arbitrariness (attestation is still a requirement). Wikipedia is doing fine deferring to pros for inclusion and even for fact. I have no disdain: I am as much an amateur as others here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has “certainty” in the way that including every attestable string of more than 5 characters has certainty, but that doesn’t mean we should implement it. We are also a secondary source, not a tertiary one like WP (and you must not be familiar with how hotly contested AFD can be - notability is not straightforward). I haven’t even begun with the other flaws, such as the fact that other dictionaries copy from each other (making inclusion in two often non-independent), errors, the question of historical dictionaries (and other hybrid works), propagandistic material (plenty of those in Russian from the Soviet era), the inherent biases of the authors and so on. It’s not workable, and is - to boil it down - lazy scholarship. Theknightwho (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(outdent) The lemming principle's arbitrariness is nowhere close to as bad and off topic as "include all 5 character combinations"; that's pretty much a non-argument. The principle is obviously workable; it is not ideal, but workable. I guess Wikipedia editors are also "lazy scholars" by depending on potentially erroneous authoritative sources instead of diligently doing their original research, which is much more work than taking over sentences from sources and rephrasing them. Whether we are a secondary or tertiary source makes no difference; our being a secondary source for WDLs (not always for LDLs) does not bar the lemming principle. And we would not even depend on them for matters of fact, merely for matters of inclusion. At worst, we would scope in too many redundant entries, no error of fact. Including a million entries for all the taxa from Wikispecies is the real elephant in the room, the king of avoidable redundancy; no one ever talks about that. About dictionaries copying from each other, the way in which they wary in their coverage of proper names depending on the name one picks suggests they are not trying particularly hard to outdo each other in covering anything anyone else has; the non-independence claim does not seem to be borne out by observable facts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you agree that there are degrees of arbitrariness, then your argument that our current practice is also arbitrary falls apart, because it is self-evidently more arbitrary to include terms on a per-term basis than a per-class one. You also seem to have missed that I said that WP’s notability requirement is not comparable, because notability is hotly contested, and they don’t just include anything simply because it’s sourced. The latter would also be lazy scholarship. I also don’t care what Wikispecies is doing - another project making an error (and I make no comment on Wikispecies either way) is no justification for us making one too. Oh, and being a secondary source does bar the lemming principle, because other dictionaries are secondary sources. You realise that’s one of the things that distinguishes dictionaries and encyclopaedias, right? Theknightwho (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(outdent) My complaint is above all that our practice is inconsistent and unpredictable since it depends on who comes to RFD and since RFD voters often state no usable criteria, instead throwing around the buzzword "encyclopedic". Our place name criteria are arbitrary, but that can be lived with; at least they are predictable. If adopted as a policy, the application of the lemming principle would be pretty straightforward and not hotly contested; in this we would differ from Wikipedia's AfD. We would at worst discuss whether a particular lemming counts, and we could keep refining our lists of accepted lemmings. Wikispecies is not making any error: it is their core business to document taxa. It is us who is making the error of avoidable redundancy to Wikispecies, which is not our lexicographical business. Right. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Predictability has no value if the outcome is arbitrary, and including things on a per-term basis instead of a per-class basis is a lot more arbitrary. We often self-correct mistakes, and we do not need a straitjacket like this which short-circuits productive discussion by simply deferring to people with inclusion criteria that we don’t even know. Theknightwho (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the contrary, rule design usually buys predictability at the cost of increased arbitrariness. To wit, the number 3 of attesting quotations is arbitrary: it could be 2, it could be 5, and it could be left unspecified and discussed on a per RFV basis. Setting it to 3 increases predictability. Any lemming principle acceptable as an approved policy would have to be overidable anyway, so there would be no "straightjacket". What about Wikispecies? Any point taken so far? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have pointed out that arbitrariness is not all-or-nothing numerous times now, and you have stonewalled that every time (except when you felt it convenient when I used a ridiculous example to prove the point). It’s very clear that you are not engaging in reasonable discussion, whether you realise it or not, so I’m done here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Dan Polansky (CC: @Theknightwho though I assume you already know this) The UK & UAE examples are automatically included with WT:CFI#Place names. If you’re going to argue that Place names shouldn’t be a policy, that’s a different discussion, but under our current policy, there’s a different between those and the full name of NASA. No comment at this point on the others though. AG202 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, but what I am investigating here are universal lexicographical principles, not those taxonomy-based arbitrary rules currently in CFI. "Exclude all multi-word proper names that name in a transparent manner", or exclude quasi-SOP names, sounds like a fine universal principle, but we do not intend to comprehensively enforce it. About the value of lemmings, let's consider the recently RFD-deleted Bank of England and the recently RFD-kept European Central Bank. The former is not quasi sum of parts (the bank serves the U.K., not England), while the latter is quasi sum of parts (it is the central bank of the EU and the meaning of European includes "of or pertaining to the EU"). The result is the opposite of what should be done, and lemmings would have prevented that. ECB was kept by near unanimity and BoE was deleted under the 2/3 threshold, so maybe it should have been kept. This happened because different groups of editors voted in the RFDs, and for BoE the deletionist ignored all the non-SOP objections and deleted the term anyway. Both terms are supported by lemmings: if both were kept, the situation would be better. One could object that we do not apply the "exclude quasi-SOP names" principle consistently, and the response would be, we mostly do except where overriden by lemmings. Dismissing lemmings would not improve the consistency all that much since we ignore the delete-SOP principle for place names; for states, this would be fine, but we include all those "X County" terms for no apparent reason. NASA is a more important organization than counties so if we include quasi-SOP county names, we can also include quasi-SOP full NASA name, together with quasi-SOP full ECB name. This leads us to classifying referents and not terms, and without lemmings, we now have to figure out which referents are large, important or powerful enough. One can also work with the lemmings principle flexibly, if one wishes: one may say that Dictionary.com does not count and that the sole Collins is not enough, and therefore NASA full name should be excluded; that's actually pretty convincing. If we had an overridable lemmings policy (overridable since otherwise it won't gain support), we could explicitly forbid Dictionary.com and make the lemming application more predictable and uniform. Without lemmings, what should be done for NASA? It is quasi SOP, but is it perhaps as prominent, notable or significant as ECB to warrant an exception? We can now ponder the principles to apply to NASA and "exclude all-SOP names" does not seem to be accepted without exception, as per ECB. One of the deleters of BoE said "the name of an institution, which in itself is not dictionary material"; to me, it is the nearly all lemmings that include United Nations, including OED, which suggest the "not dictionary material" to be blatantly incorrect. There are too many editors on the project who seem to love to arbitrate that names for some class of referents are not dictionary material even when almost all lemmings disagree. So all names of organizations are supposed to be gone, while nicknames of some individuals should be kept: that is absurd even from the point of view of prominence or importance of the referent. In any case, for those who see some value in the overridable lemming principle, NASA is weakly supported by it, and WT:NSE gives discretion to RFD voters. One may decide to require 3 independent lemmings, that's flexible; United Nations is supported by 6 lemmings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Albanian Orthodox Church[edit]

Alexandrian Orthodox Church[edit]

Army of the Republic of Vietnam[edit]

Assyrian Church of the East[edit]

Bulgarian Orthodox Church[edit]

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints[edit]

These are the kind of long multi-word proper names that we probably do not want to include. There does not seem to be anything lexicographically interesting about them, and are covered by Wikipedia. Orthodox Church is perhaps more defensible. Past deleted proper names are in Category:RFD result for proper names (failed). The batch could be longer; this is a start to see how it goes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete as SoP and encyclopedic. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all as above. The only possible exception being the last one, as fundamentalist doesn’t really mean polygamous (though it is, or was, a fundament of the Mormon church). Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all except National Aeronautics and Space Administration, per lemmings; see the discussion under the term above. More exceptions can be granted if a rationale is provided, but I currently don't see it. Deleting NASA won't be a terrible loss, as the lemming case is pretty weak, unlike for United Nations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep all except the army: I changed my mind. Our churches are listed at Thesaurus:church and we are not flooded by them. I thought it would be preferable to delete quasi-SOP names of organizations, but I am no longer convinced; it seems preferable to have some importance/notability criteria for them and keep some of the most important ones. Right now, we have no such criteria. In general, translation of proper names is a hard problem and Wiktionary can render a lexicographical service there. Wikidata has translations but not tracing to sources for them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I started to keep track of inclusion arguments. Those that apply here: User:Dan Polansky/IA#Wikipedia-style generosity, User:Dan Polansky/IA#Extrapolate for consistency, User:Dan Polansky/IA#Extrapolate lemmings, User:Dan Polansky/IA#Dictionary-style treatment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another step toward complete circularity: adding links in discussions to you talking to yourself in userspace. Whatever your intention, it makes it look like you have your own CFI that you consider more important than the real one, because everyone else is too stupid to think like you do. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No circularity here. CFI's official WT:NSE requires editors to figure out their own inclusion criteria and arguments. Yes, I have my own CFI, and everyone who participates in WT:NSE-driven RFDs has their own CFI. There is no other way. The links serve concision. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the Latter-Day Saints one (not SoP), the UN ones (feel relevant enough that someone would look it up, though I wouldn't be devastated if they're gone), & NASA (LEMMING). The other church ones I'm ambivalent about, and then delete Army of the Republic of Vietnam. AG202 (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel the LDS one should be deleted as well since it is very long and covered by Wikipedia anyway. The implied rule behind the keeping seems to be "include all attested multi-word names of organizations that are not transparent names", but that would still lead to a huge redundancy to Wikipedia since there are so many of them. Going by length of the name seems terribly arbitrary, but it's better than nothing. Another arbitrary aid are lemmings: org name in WP & not in lemmings => out. No purely lexicographical principles to aid the filtering come to mind. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So now you do want to exclude things based on how many characters are in the string? This one has more value than some of the others, as it isn’t immediately obvious what it refers to, or why they differ from other Mormons. “Fundamentalist” is playing a role here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Number of words, to be precise. Yes, it's terribly arbitrary. If we are going to include all intransparent proper names of organizations, we are heading into a major redundancy. But I am actually happy to use lemmings instead of the number of words. There has to be some additional exclusion principle, I feel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve had an idea: how about we consider terms on merit by discussing them, and then formulate a general policy once we can actually come up with one that isn’t arbitrary? How does that sound? Theknightwho (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Utopian. But if you can pull it off, so much better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The great thing about it is that it means we don’t implement arbitrary policies like LEMMING in the meantime. Glad you’ve come around to that. Theknightwho (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I am concerned, WT:NSE and lemmings walk hand in hand until you pull it off. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, as with Talk:Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Talk:Soviet Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, etc, the last two of which Army of the Republic of Vietnam seems directly comparable to. - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think it’s time for a general discussion about organization names at the Beer Parlour again, rather than trying to deal with this one entry at a time. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created Wiktionary:Names of organizations to track the subject. Precedents are listed, as well as some arguments and counterarguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confused to be honest as to why the LDS church name would not be SOP whereas the Assyrian Church of the East would be. The latter is a specific denomination and does not mean either a local church province (as the Orthodox ones can be read as) or the "church of Assyrians that's in the east". Any criterion that matches one goes for the other too. I also think attestable religious denominations ought to be included in general since it's not clear to me where the line ought to be drawn between minor ones that are encyclopedic and larger ones ("Roman Catholic Church" etc) that apparently aren't. So Keep both of those at least, I'm ambivalent on the rest. (Perhaps leaning keep on the Orthodox ones too, since they also represent distinctive practices and the precedent would otherwise logically lead to e.g. keeping Assyrian churches but deleting the sister Chaldean church since it happens to be in communion with the pope, which seems troubling.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I request undeletion. 1) It is in M-W as a "geographical name" and Collins; also Dictionary.com, but this is not a classic lemming. 2) The deletion discussion nomination "Not dictionary material" gives us no observable properties to work with. The name is covered by Wikipedia, but so are United Nations, Red Cross and Red Crescent. Being covered by Wikipedia is alone no reason for exclusion. 3) The principle could be to exclude all full multi-word names of specific entities, but we do not apply this to geographic entities, astronomical entities and biological taxa. All of them are covered in Wikipedia or Wikispecies. 4) We could want to delete transparent multi-word names of specific entities, but the NATO name is not fully transparent, unlike National Basketball Association, from which we know it deals with sports, whereas for NATO we do not know it is a military organization. It is semi-transparent by being an organization relating to North Atlantic Treaty. Even the kept Royal Navy is more transparent: it is a royal navy, we just don't know the country. 5) Fully transparent multi-word names of countries such as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland get a free pass, and it would be a natural extension of that to give a free pass to names of important international organizations, and NATO is as important as countries; this would cover United Nations Organization, European Union, OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (redlink), Warsaw Treaty Organization (recently deleted), and bluelinks International Court of Justice, International Maritime Organization, International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank, European Free Trade Association, World Health Organization and World Trade Organization. From a purely lexicographical standpoint, NATO full name is not unambiguously includable, but it is no worse than the full name of the U.K. Undeleting NATO name would give a better consistency in what we do: we do consider importance of referents for human-related aggregates. 6) It was said that the spirit of WT:COMPANY is relevant, but I don't see that: this is nowhere close to being a company. And there are much fewer important international organizations than companies. 7) Whether this should be kept for translation I do not know. For Czech, the most usual term is Severoatlantická aliance, matching North Atlantic Alliance; the translations could be in North Atlantic Alliance if we had the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undelete. The term is opaque (as Dan points out), and it also refers to something very notable. See also the discussion of § United Nations Economic and Social Council. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 20:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep deleted. The vast majority of names of specific entities should be relegated to encyclopedias, there is not sufficient lexical value to bother including them in a dictionary. Keep NATO with a pointer to Wikipedia, people who are actually looking up "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" want an encyclopedia entry not a dictionary entry. We should also delete most of the class of entries which Dan has highlighted as blue links. - TheDaveRoss 13:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People who are looking up "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" in a dictionary know what they are looking for, perhaps translations. These are in interwikis, but are not per se Wikipedia's remit. To capture the arguments: User:Dan Polansky/IA#Wikipedia-style generosity, User:Dan Polansky/IA#Extrapolate lemmings, User:Dan Polansky/IA#Extrapolate for consistency, User:Dan_Polansky/IA#Dictionary-style treatment. Or delete the full name of the U.K. and delete "X County" entries, when we're at it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To get some data, I looked at page views for European_Free_Trade_Association, International_Court_of_Justice, nonadrenal, International_Maritime_Organization, nonaccrual, nonacoptic. The organizations are no blockbuster entries, getting units per day, but the nonX entries perform even worse. Whether the data is conclusive is unclear: people know to look for nonX entries in Wiktionary (it has so many of them), but they do not know to look for names of organizations (it has so few of them). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep deleted until there has been a proper discussion or vote on the criteria for including or excluding the names of organizations. Dealing with the matter piecemeal is unhelpful. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created Wiktionary:Names of organizations to track the subject. Precedents are listed, as well as some arguments and counterarguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add that NATO is as important as European Union and United Nations. EU is political and economic but not military; NATO is military but not economic. NATO is a quasi-empire, or 1/4-empire. Since we keep EU and UNO without explaining why, keeping NATO would be very much in keeping with that, even if we delete IMF, for instance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undelete per reasons already presented. AG202 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undelete in this form, although being a user of British English, I naturally prefer the "Organisation" spelling. DonnanZ (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undelete. While I think the number of multi-word entries about organizations should be kept very low on Wiktionary, I think this entry would be helpful to readers based on WT:LEMMING, the subject matter's considerable notability and its somewhat unconventional name. Einstein2 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SOP much??? Flackofnubs (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep as lexicographically useful: allows us to say that this is more common than "bullet list", and this could be "list with bullets", but "bulleted list" is the lead. The translator may use bulleted to find a translation of the adjective, but it is the whole phrase that needs translating, e.g. into Dutch lijst met opsommingstekens. I was trying to find Polish translation and the best I could quickly find is "lista punktowana", but that is rare in Google Books; "wypunktowaną lista" also finds almost nothing in Google Books, but is used in Wikibooks. This illustrates the translator's problem: the translation is not an easy sum-of-parts job but rather requires quite some labor. And it does feel like Talk:free variable. Whether it may meet WT:THUB is unclear, though. It would be better to have a standard way to mark entries as arguably SOP for the reader, e.g. by saying "sum of parts" as a label before the definition, than deleting useful content whose usefulness is not articulated into a specific testable rule made part of policy. Policy-wise, we have WT:CFI's unvoted "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Impressed by Dan's verbosity but I don't see a point inside it. Equinox 17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dan (a non-native speaker) says "it's not a bullet list", but of course it isn't, because a "bullet list" in English would be a list of bullets, not a list that has bullets. Equinox 17:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tbf we do list bullet list as a synonym of bulleted list, and I have seen it used as such. AG202 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Web says: "What exactly is a bullet list? The simple definition is that a bullet list is a series of items with a heading broken up by dotted points. These lists can be used for anything you need them to, whether it's as informal as an agenda or as formal as a business plan at your workplace." If this is wrong, bullet list needs to be deleted as wrong. But web search finds more places using "bullet list" as a synonym of "bulleted list"; are they all wrong? And this only reinforces the notion that we are dealing with useful lexical information here. In a RFD for the Dutch translation, we are now discussing which one is the most natural, most fitting for a Dutch speaker. This all shows this is eminently useful. One should not look at it from the standpoint of a native speaker who knows which term is most natural anyway, but rather of a non-native speaker and a translator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact it can be either interpretation makes it plainly SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Thadh (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a WT:JIFFY case at all? AG202 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might.
Free variable: Consider Talk:free variable, and from linguistics, transitive verb and the content of Category:en:Verbs, 19 items. The question is what is the most natural location for the definition of these notions. It seems "bulleted" is predominantly used with "list" per google:"bulleted", so the definition in bulleted is there mostly for "bulleted list". Like "transitive verb", "bulleted list" is not syntactically fixed, and can be found e.g. in "bulleted and numbered lists". The free variable argument was sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected. We still have many free-variable terms, especially in math, e.g. continuous function. Talk:acute angle was restored via consensus, yet it is covered in acute. Talk:prime number was kept via consensus. Dictionaries sometimes define terms supported by the free-variable argument, and often don't. continuous function is less useful than bulleted list: the translations are sum of parts.
Setness: WP says "Lists made with bullets are called bulleted lists." It explicitly defines this as a term. One can say "are called bulleted." but more often does not. More at google:"called bulleted".
Synonyms: bullet list can be entered as a synonym at bulleted list, but not at bulleted.
Translation: Covered above. I'll add that I tried to find a German translation (I speak German) and failed. Some contexts use Aufzählungsliste as a contrast to a numbered list, but I don't feel confident to enter it. A German speaker could enter that as a translation if confident. An exercise for the reader: pick a language you know or are learning and try to find the best translation by considering the translation of bulleted together with "list" and see how far it gets you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Dan. Binarystep (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add that bulleted list is as often visited as bulleted and much more often than noncholestatic.[15] Users do find a reason to look it up. Also, Diuturno added an Italian translation and JackPotte added the French one; they cannot be expected to show up in the RFD and protect the entry from User:Wonderfool (Flackofnubs) and from non-differentiating deletes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfd-redundant: "Isn't it true?"

The other definition is "Isn't it that way?", but there is only one translation table. Are these two equivalent in all languages? If not, then we need two translation tables. DCDuring (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep "Isn't it true?" sense as a plain and literalist rendering, covered by TheFreeDictionary. As for the 2nd sense "Isn't it that way?", I am not sure how this is supposed to differ from the 1st sense, so maybe this one can be deleted. Or does anyone see why sense 2 should be kept? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2022[edit]

SOP. PUC – 13:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep per WT:LEMMING. Black's Law Dictionary has an entry (in both the 1910 and 1991 editions that I have on hand), as does Merriam-Webster's Law Dictionary. bd2412 T 06:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as SoP. Not sure the reference to Black's Law Dictionary is that helpful; as it is a specialist dictionary, it contains entries that we would regard as SoP for the purpose of explaining the legal principles. A parallel example would be referring to a dictionary of chemicals, which is sure to contain many SoP names of chemicals as entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Sgconlaw: Why should we be less helpful to readers than the most widely used specialist dictionaries? It's not as though this is only found in an obscure dictionary of an obscure field. bd2412 T 23:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I second the comment of BD2412. If Wiktionary doesn't include specialist words, then what's it for? Does descriptivist ideology extend only to documentation of racist neologisms? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I think that’s a specious argument. If the test for inclusion is “what a reader might find helpful”, we might as well have no other criteria for inclusion. The meaning of “retroactive law” is simply “a law which is retroactive”, and if a reader does not understand what retroactive means they can just look up that word. A law dictionary is intended to contain terms, whether SoP or not, that judges, lawyers, and law students might come across in the course of their work, so one may expect to find entries that do not meet the CFI here in such a dictionary. For example, in the 1st edition of Black’s ({{RQ:Black Law Dictionary}}) there are entries like Institutes of Lord Coke (well-known set of law books) and insurance agent.
        Also, the current definition is incorrect. Civil (non-criminal) laws can also be retroactive. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        If the definition is incorrect, then fix it. My point is that "law" is not some obscure field like scorpiology, and Black's Law is not an obscure dictionary. bd2412 T 19:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        And my point is that a more accurate definition is "a law that is retroactive in nature", which is entirely SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        The definition we have is very poor, I agree. Retroactive laws can do lots of other things besides making acts illegal, such as legalisation, the application of civil liability, taxation etc. It's a reasonably common term, but I don't see how it isn't SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought retroactive law was a more natural entry to look up, but the page view data shows users are looking predominantly for retroactive.[16]. This is very different from bulleted vs. bulleted list, where the list wins[17]. On the other hand, the term is in “retroactive law”, in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1996–present. (I find their definition much clearer than ours). But WT:LEMMING requires at least two lemmings, and it requires "general monolingual dictionaries". The rationale might be that "specialist" dictionaries may tend to include encyclopedic heads? LEMMING did use to speak of specialized dictionaries, so the matter is not settled in any way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, SOP, as also indicated by its terrible wrong definition, showing that someone just did not know what he talks about. Law dictionaries have all kinds of magic words that are inclusionworthy there for their being often recommendable to be used in a specific context, which is the essence of collocations. Fay Freak (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WT:LEMMING. Binarystep (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can be deleted per consensus for deletion (4:2). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as SOP as noted. "Chocolate cake" may appear in a cookbook but is just SOP here. Facts707 (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should IMHO be deleted as redundant to -tomy. All the items can be analyzed as Xo- + -tomy or X + -o- + -tomy if need be. For instance, adenotomy can be analyzed as adeno- + -tomy or aden- + -o- + -tomy if need be. To place e.g. metrotomy to multiple suffix categories, one for -tomy and one for -otomy, seems to create avoidable redundancy. See deleted Talk:-oscopy for a similar treatment. We have no -oplasty. A check in Category:English suffixes shows we do not have this all that often, relative to the total number of suffixes we could treat like that. -ocracy, and -ology are some examples of what we do have. Here, again, czarocracy can be analyzed as czar + -o- + -cracy, with no need of -ocracy suffix.

An alternative to this RFD would be to make it a matter of policy, but we have some precedent so let us see whether there is support for deletion here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. More examples of suffixes -oX that can be handled as just -X or if need be -o- + -X: -ogony; -ologist; -ometer; -ometry; -onomics; -onomy; -onym; -onymy; -ophilic; -opoly; -osis; -ostomy; -otic.  --Lambiam 12:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposed treatment is in keeping with WT:MWO: It has no -ometry, -ostomy, -otomy, -onomy, and -ology. But it has -ocracy. It has -onymy, traced by Wiktionary to ὄνομα, so the -o- is not the interfix but rather part of the etymon. It has -osis. By contrast WT:OED has no -otomy, but it has -ocracy, -ology, -ologist, -ological, -olol, -ometer, and -ometry, all as combining forms. It has -osis. I propose to follow MWO for minimalist treatment. -onym is a special case, etymologically. Why MWO has -ocracy I don't know. We can investigate whether -osis is a special case as well. We can expand our suffix entries with notes that some derivations are sometimes analyzed as containing an -oX suffix but that we chose to analyze it as -o- + -X. That should do and help up avoid double suffix entries and double categories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added sources to our -o- entry. MW has speedometer as an example using -o-; AHD has acidophilic. We analyze both entries using -o-, not using -ometer or -ophilic. If we keep -otomy, some editors will invariably keep using it in etymologies, resulting in inconsistent treatment. As for whether -o- is a morpheme, that does not seem decisive: it is a "linking element". Perhaps it is "speedo-" and "acido-" that are the morphemes; it is not clear why "-ometer" and "-ophilic" should be more of candidates for morphemehood than "speedo-" and "acido-". Category:English terms interfixed with -o- has over 1,400 entries; many cases of similar analysis/etymology can be found there. However, some should perhaps be analyzed using Xo- combining forms: archaeography could be analyzed using archaeo-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entry for -o- even admits that it is not a morpheme, and you are still basing your argument on how our categorisation structure works, which is wrong. As for why it doesn't attach to speed or acid, that's because they aren't prefixes and don't behave like them. Basic stuff. Theknightwho (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our entry on -o- is no authority and does not even say "not a morpheme". Furthermore, so what if -o- is not a morpheme but perhaps a "morph" or "linking vowel"? It is an element of analysis. Suffix -y attaches to "skin" to create "skinny", and similarly, -o- could attach to "speed" to create "speedo-". Affixes do attach to free morphemes. Linking elements -n- and -o- are accepted in German, Czech and other Slavic compounding etymologies, avoiding the need to create combining form entries such as Wolken- for Wolkenkratzer, Bundes- for Bundestag or modro- for modrooký. Thus, modrooký = modrý + -o- + oko + -ý. What is to be avoided is duplication, not only of categories but also of suffix entries. The minimalist approach is well enough sourced to be a linguistically acceptable option. Is the proposal here that -o- should not be used in our English etymologies? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s not relevant that it doesn’t use the exact words “not a morpheme”, as it says it’s inserted between morphemes - a completely unnecessary statement for anything that is itself a morpheme. You’ve also provided nothing to suggest it is a morpheme, so we cannot assume that it is one, either. This is relevant, because it determines whether the suffixes that include it are alternative forms; evidently, they are.
The idea of avoiding duplication in alternative forms also goes against our approach everywhere else on the site, as you very well know. Given your heavy focus on categorisation, I can only conclude that this is yet another misguided attempt to sweep anything awkward under the rug when it goes against your own over-hasty analysis and attempts to pigeonhole everything based on whatever your latest category obsession is. That is a terrible approach to building a dictionary. Theknightwho (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(outdent) 1) Search for google:"linking morpheme" finds linguistic sources using the term to refer to linking elements. They do think linking elements are morphemes. 2) The claim that it is not a morpheme is not backed up by any linguistic source so far; it is based on an uncertain inference from wording. To describe an interfix as connecting two morphemes is natural (it follows from its definition) and does not really imply it is not a morpheme. 3) If it is not a morpheme but rather a glue-like element used to link morphemes, then like glue it does not attach with priority to one of the connected surfaces. 4) If we accept "inserted interconsonantally between two morphemes", this does not imply -o- creates -oX but rather that it is inserted between X and Y to create words. This description does not imply -ometer as an intermediate product. 5) Spellings like cool-o-meter are a hint at this kind of analysis. There is no need to create -o-meter alongside -ometer to account for cool-o-meter and clap-o-meter. 6) I propose to keep analyzing speedometer as speed + -o- + -meter rather than changing it to speed + -ometer. To make sure this analysis is consistently applied, having no entry for -ometer is the most practical option: when there is no -ometer, it is not available in etymologies. I propose to follow a) Merriam-Webster, b) Wiktionary current predominant practice, c) the result of Talk:-oscopy, d) even OED to a large extent (see next point). 7) A minimalist approach is practical and would serve the readers well. Looking just at the neo-classic compounds starting with "acido-" that we have and that are in OED, we would need -ocyte, -ogenesis, -ogenic, -oleous, -olysis, -ophil, -ophile, -ophilia, -ophilic, -ophilous, -ophyte and -opore (-ophilic is the only bluelink, created in 2018, used in zero etymologies). Not even WT:OED has any of the forms; it has e.g. -genic. OED on "acidogenic": "acid n. + -o- connective + -genic comb. form." So even OED does not consistently and fully play the -oX game (it has -ology). My proposal: let's take the practice that we follow in all but a few cases and apply it consistently. Let's go by the Occam's razor heuristic. Let's not invent (a + (b + c)) when (a + b + c) is fine and does not prefer the former over ((a + b) + c). Let's not create a plethora of -oX forms that we never had and most of which are absent from most dictionaries, e.g. per -cyte at OneLook Dictionary Search vs. -ocyte at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calling it "uncertain inference from wording" only makes sense if you're intentionally refusing to understand why I don't think it's a morpheme, as you've failed to engage with my explanation. 3 is completely false, because it ignores the option to simply model the two variants as alternative forms that depend on whether the stem ends in a consonant or vowel; you cannot argue that there are two variants of the stem, however (and examples like archaeo- are not relevant, as they are prefixes where my argument also applies). The existence of terms like cool-o-meter is also completely irrelevant, because (a) that only exists with the suffix -ometer, and (b) is riffing off the English word meter (something which measures). Just because you don't like the fact that acidophilia doesn't neatly fit into your model doesn't mean that you have to model the existence of a semantically irrelevant morhpeme in order to explain it. Much simpler to take the usual approach of noting that the suffixes often have phonetic variants that depend on the final consonant of the stem. An approach that is, in fact, a lot more common in linguistics than yours.
As for "taking a minimalist approach", you've failed to explain why we should only take that approach here, while we don't anywhere else on the dictionary. As someone who is usually highly inclusionist, it is one of the more glaring examples of the way you will argue totally contradictionary positions depending on what you want in any given moment (such as trying to brush any awkwardness under the rug to make categorisation easier while using the WT:LEMMING argument to argue for exclusion; the latter of which is something that you explicitly said you should not do on more than one occasion). Calling my approach (a + (b + c)) is also a pretty obvious misrepresentation of what I'm saying, too. Theknightwho (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you could provide some external sources to support the notion that -o- is not a morpheme and that the -oX approach is more common or "usual" in linguistics. I provided sources for existence of -o- as an element of analysis (multiple dictionaries including MW and OED), sources lacking most -oX forms while having -X forms (multiple dictionaries including MW and OED), and anyone can search for "linking morpheme" to easily find academic sources online. I find my analysis compelling and well backed by sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could engage with the main substance of my point instead of fixating on the word "morpheme"? It just comes off as though you've only read the first sentence of my reply, because you haven't addressed my main argument(s) at all.
Continuing to use WT:LEMMING to argue for exclusion, despite explicitly saying that you would not and should not do that in the past, is not a good argument by the way. Theknightwho (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, as for "An approach that is, in fact, a lot more common in linguistics than yours": if that is true, it should be easy to provide at least one external linguistic source. I am eager to learn more from external sources, to broaden the perspective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, you're avoiding the substance of my argument. It's intellectually dishonest. I also said that modelling suffixes as having variants is more common than inferring the existence of a link - it was a general point you've not only hyper-fixated on for disingenuous reasons, but obviously misinterpreted in order to feel like you've "won". Egotistical nonsense. Theknightwho (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not share with us your sources for common enlightenment? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seriously want me to source the use of epenthesis with suffixes, and how it doesn't involve the creation of a morpheme? That Wikipedia article should help.
Go on then - please explain what the morpheme -o- means in -otomy. If it's a morpheme, it must have some kind of semantic value. By the way: the fact that linking morphemes exist does not inherently mean that -o- is acting as one. We even define it as an interfix, too, and interfixes are not morphemes (unlike infixes). Theknightwho (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't trust Wikipedia. When a Wikipedia article is well sourced, it is possible to trace a statement to the sources it traces to. What needs external sourcing, not Wikipedia, are the claims that are subject to disagreement, e.g. "interfix is not a morpheme" or "the -otomy analysis is more common in linguistic sources". As for semantics of morphemes, cranberry morphemes have no known meaning. I played the sourcing game by tracing -o- existence to multiple external sources, by tracing interfix to multiple external sources, by creating empty morph and tracing it to multiple external sources, by pointing out to "linking morpheme", where the tracing to external sources is available in Google search. There is empty morpheme (semantics-free morpheme), but I found only two sources to trace it to. I will quote one of my sources, boldface mine: "Interfixes (also called linking elements in English and Fugenmorpheme in German) refer to the phonetic material some-times found in compound words at the constituent boundary."[18]. The source may be wrong; I don't know. If you give us an external source claiming that an interfix is not a morpheme, we will have a more complete picture of what sources are saying. Without it, we have your claim against the claim of multiple sources found by searching for "linking morpheme", and as far as I am concerned, the multitude of external sources win. I may well be wrong, the sources may be wrong, you may be right, but that's the sourcing game. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have seriously (and I think disingenuously) misrepresented what a cranberry morpheme is, which is a morpheme that has an opaque meaning to speakers because it exists in fossilized constructions. You also don't seem to understand that morpheme and morph are not synonyms.
The concept of an empty morpheme is also controversial, and it also doesn't appear to be relevant here given that we can explain the presence of an -o- here as being a purely phonetic element.
Given that Wikipedia has plenty of sources, as you can already see, and the fact that you are calling a single paper that you've pulled from Google a "multitude of external sources", I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, as you are clearly not engaging in good faith. Theknightwho (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, let's talk about me. Good idea. Now, let's try something different. Should Wiktionary be allowed to mark up Czech word mrakodrap (skyscraper) as mrak (cloud) + -o- + drapnout in its etymology? If so, does it mean that Czech etymologies are allowed to use -o-, although it has no semantics and therefore is, allegedly, not a morpheme? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. It is spurious to analyse the intermediary "o" as a morpheme in its own right. This is clearly an epenthetic alternative form. To delete because of categorisation issues is also totally wrongheaded - that problem is obviously possible to solve in other ways, and is an issue that exists in many languages. Plus, the idea of regulating content based on how well it conforms to our current categorisation system is the opposite of how we should be approaching things, and therefore something I will never support. Theknightwho (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the above. AG202 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per proponent. PUC – 11:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 2: "To settle in one place rather than moving to another". If you look at the citations, they all have a negative connotation of getting nothing done, making no progress, and thus ought to be under sense 1. Equinox 13:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Not a separate sense. However, I miss in the current definition of sense 1 the aspect of failing to timely move on to a further destination, which is also present in the quotations for sense 1.  --Lambiam 11:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sense 1 Cottrell quote does seem to use it positively, but that might be purposefully challenging the phrase's negative connotation. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(with the verb "take") An act of kneeling on one knee, typically to acknowledge an injury or sacrifice or otherwise to show respect. After Kyle went down hard on the ice, both teams took a knee as he was carried off on a stretcher." — This is always in the expression take a knee, which has its own entry. So it should be listed as a derived term, not a sense of its own, I think. Equinox 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – yes, could also be RFV, because “to take a knee” means primarily to put the knee forward etc. with some implications of what this could mean but not the act of kneeling itself, so this only works if found outside this phrase, which we have as “An act of kneeling, especially to show respect or courtesy” which makes this sense redundant so we should have a combination at least. “A blow made with the knee” should also be deleted for the same reason, @Equinox. If I gave the dog food it does not mean “food” means “eating” or “feeding”. Fay Freak (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak: I'm not totally convinced that "a blow made..." should be deleted. We have the example where "Winnie gave him a knee to the jaw". This wouldn't otherwise necessarily suggest a "punch" or violent action. (Suppose I said "I gave Bob a chin to the leg." We imagine that two body parts make contact, but there isn't a suggestion of aggression.) However: if you dislike that sense, please challenge it separately. Equinox 09:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Equinox: I am not convinced either. The consideration or argument was to be made though. It is difficult to think of examples where this sense is totally necessary by reason of not being used with verbs implying movement, impact or attraction like “give” or “get”, thus containing the notion of a “blow” or similar already in the environing words, which makes this kind of an optional sense. Fay Freak (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RFD-deleted - clear and longstanding to delete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(baseball) A failure to convert a save opportunity to a save."

Only other OneLook reference is UD with a very different definition.

Seems SoP to me if one knows what a save is in baseball. DCDuring (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is worth keeping specific and official stats (e.g. at bat, run batted in, shot on goal, etc.). - TheDaveRoss 18:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the senses given for most § Adverb is:

3. superlative degree of many

As many is not an adverb, I do not believe it has an adverbial superlative.  --Lambiam 08:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't the usage example already covered by determiner sense 3? I don't really get the difference, if there is any. I guess that "Most times when I go hiking" is an adverbial phrase, but the word "most" itself is not being used as an adverb. 06:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, its syntactical function in the usage example is that of a determiner, the same as that of many in “many times when I’m lazy”, or most in “Some people succeed because they are destined to, but most people succeed because they are determined to.” The difference is that one (determiner) is correct while the other (adverb) is incorrect.  --Lambiam 10:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it change anything if the sentence were worded
Most times I go hiking, I wear boots.?
I was the one who added the usex, but i realize now that my sentence doesn't illustrate adverbial use. Still, I think this is possible to interpret as an adverb if we simply omit the word when, since it will then make times function like sometimes, which is an adverb. Since only an adverb can modify an adverb, I'd say that the questioned sense does exist. Soap 16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here the word most modifies times, which is the plural of the noun time, sense 3.4. Adverbs do not modify nouns. The grammatical function of most times in the adverbial clause most times when is not affected by the omission of the relative adverb when.  --Lambiam  --Lambiam 19:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'm gonna say delete. 23:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we sure that times isn't a relic genitive of time? (connected to betimes, sometimes, ofttimes, possibly others) DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Query: Do our definitions cover usages like: "They were the ones who won (the) most." (ie, say, "most frequently") DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pre-alpha version[edit]

beta version[edit]

These are all SOP - particularly given that it's much more common to hear that a program is "in alpha" or "in beta", which shows that those words are simply acting as plain adjectives on the word "version". We don't currently have an entry for pre-alpha, but it works in exactly the same way. Theknightwho (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete. I work in this industry (occasionally): there are alpha and beta (and sometimes other) releases, and alpha and beta candidates, and just "alphas" and "betas". Same thing. It may be the case that these terms all derived from "alpha (etc.) version" (in which case we might want to keep it, as "mobile phone" despite "mobile"), but in that case I think we ought to have some strong sourcing. Equinox 01:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ambivalent on this but the OED considers "alpha" and "beta" in the software sense as clippings of alpha testing and beta testing (rather than version), which seems plausible enough since their citations for the latter go back to the 1960s. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could be a case of WT:JIFFY or similar thus, difficult to know, but maybe for parsimony as we can arguably cover the ideas on the pages alpha and beta alone weak delete. Fay Freak (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Err on the side of keeping: these are the headwords I would use for lookup. In Macmillan. Mark using "sum of parts" label if desired. Very good page views[19]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. pre-alpha is currently a red link, btw. Ultimateria (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not sure if I can vote without an account here, but as someone who looked up the word through Google and the Wiktionary definition was exactly what I was looking for (and I was very perplexed by the deletion message), I obviously want to keep this. -- 00:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Like the previous commenter I was someone who looked up the word through Google and the Wiktionary definition was exactly what I was looking for (and I was also very perplexed by the deletion message), I obviously want to keep this. The fact that pre-alpha is a red link is not a good argument to delete this, and I would say having the page arguably is a positive to help people keep the same meaning in discussions. -- 2001:4645:3D47:0:D1F6:24E6:6D:15D0; 2023-03-20T11:44Z (11:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    WT:JIFFY would support entries for alpha test/alpha testing etc, if it they are earlier than the challenged terms. If we have usage examples or a good set of collocations for alpha and beta we should satisfy those hunting for the meaning of all the SoP expressions. Delete. DCDuring (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Before 1950 alpha test" was often Alpha test or Alpha Test, referring to the w:Army Alpha test, one of the first widely used intelligence tests. There was other usage of alpha test to refer to a test that was applied first to test objects, preceding a possible beta test. I found a 1950 HP Journal article that referred to alpha test as "Lab Test of Functionality" and beta test as "Marketing Test of ..." (snippet view only), which is close to modern sense. Before 1970 "alpha version" appears in Google Books mostly in comparison of different sources (eg, manuscripts) of old documents and not at all in the context of electronic devices, software, etc. This, plus the OED's treatment suggest that alpha test and beta test are the expressions that introduce the modern senses of alpha and beta. The myriad modern uses of alpha and beta in their technical hardware and software senses seem SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was very useful to me. Don't delete it. 19:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfd-sense, "the right for someone to practice their religious beliefs," the Etymology 1. This is SOP and a literal definition, do we really need this if it necessitates a separate etymology? This'd be like if we had a separate etymology for learning permits (plural of learning permit) to define for a phrase like, "Learn as much as learning permits!" PseudoSkull (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete but replace with {{&lit}}, given the fact there is also a non-SOP sense. No need to keep separate etymologies after doing that, though. Theknightwho (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: when an entry covers some senses, it should also cover other senses of the same term in some form. A minimum way is to invoke {{&lit}}, but explicit coverage as is seen in religious right seems better; otherwise, a non-native speaker needs to consult the polysemous right entry and figure out which of the multiple senses are meant. Picking the salient sense for the reader adds value. As before, I would find a label "sum of parts" on the sense lin perfectly fine, to make things explicit for the reader. But these are not two etymologies: the different senses of "religious right" are under the same etymology of "right". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That isn’t relevant to how we decide what etymology sections to use for this entry. You also seem to now be trying to include senses which you admit are SOP, which is contrary to both policy and established practice. Theknightwho (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for common practice, I know of no evidence to that effect. As for policy, WT:CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers". But that is arguably not about SOP senses; I know of no policy regulating inclusion of SOP senses. Let others comment and we will decide together; my position is that the current explicit phrasing is better than {{&lit}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is hilariously bad rules lawyering, even for you. It is trivial to see that senses are also covered. Theknightwho (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WT:CFI: "including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic". No talk about senses. A search for the word "sense" in CFI did not reveal anything. Indeed, if SOP senses were excluded, there would be no use for {{&lit}} at all, but since we use {{&lit}}, there is some support for SOP senses. And if we interpret that language to cover senses (which we shouldn't), then what I quoted allows inclusion of SOP items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be because of sense (sense 7). You and I both know you're being disingenuous in the extreme. Theknightwho (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rest my case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice non-sequitur. Theknightwho (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arguably, the sense is not even really SOP. Since, "right that is religious" would well fit Sharia law, but what is meant by it is the right to practice a religion. The "to practice religion" part does not have the same meaning as "of or pertaining to religion" and cannot be easily derived by it. The plural "religious rights" seems less ambiguous; Sharia is not "rights" in plural. I maintain there is only one etymology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The right to practice religion is not the only right which is related to religion, and not the only religious right. Being an inadequate definition should not save it.
Unless the same sense of right is being used, they have different etymologies, because the route to get to the term in question differs. The fact that it forks at the term right and not earlier is irrelevant from the perspective of how we lay out the entry religious right. Theknightwho (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are 6 edits to compose a single post really needed? Now to the point: What, then, is a proper definition of "religious right" that covers the right to practice one's religion and perhaps more? I for one cannot obtain it from "right" and "of or pertaining to religion". And since Sharia is not "religious right", I rest my case about non-SOP until shown otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're unable to deduce that a religious right is a right which relates to religion from "right" and "of or pertaining to religion"? That suggests a competency issue on your part, not that this term is not SOP.
The number of edits to write a comment is irrelevant. You frequently write many irrelevant things. Theknightwho (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2022[edit]

SOP. Also translations in other languages: Portuguese internet a cabo, Romanian internet prin cablu. I'm not sure about Dutch kabelinternet as it's written without spaces. Benwing2 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't strike me as SOP: Fiber internet which is transmitted using fiber-optic cables does not fall under the umbrella of cable internet even though a SOP interpretation says so. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? Cable Internet is just Internet transmitted over cables; why would it matter if they're fiber-optic or coaxial? Benwing2 (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it doesn't make sense and that it's a ridiculous and annoying misnomer but it do be like that sometimes: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's understood as being short for cable (television) Internet because it is delivered by television providers. At least in the USA. So keep, as not being sum-of-parts after all. Soap 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really think this makes it a...term. The cites appear to use italics to refer to the movie, and this usage of movies/games/whatever in these kinds of contexts is pretty common, for example, "Well the movie was pretty bad, but it was surely no Manos: Hands of Fate". PseudoSkull (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Citizen Kanes" cite looks promising, but phrases like "the Citizen Kane of horror movies" really shouldn't count. Binarystep (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if I see "The movie was no Citizen Kane" somewhere I can't come here to find out what it means? Drapetomanic (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You would be better off going to Wikipedia and learning more about the movie than a single-sentence definition can tell you. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same for Einstein then? Drapetomanic (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Einstein is much more generally applied and understood independently of context, I'm not sure Citizen Kane is. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we should look for some kind of test. Drapetomanic (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per proponent. PUC – 13:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: the non-proper-name uses (the X of, Xes) need to be covered in some way, whether via the current common noun sense or as part of proper name sense indicating what the entity is noted for. (The proper name sense in Joan of Arc ought to be restored: it was deleted using low-quality rationale.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, merely being used as an object of comparison is not sufficient to be included, even if well known enough that the comparison can be made without further context. The sentiment above about a test being created is well taken, though I don't have a good suggestion for such a test. - TheDaveRoss 12:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The apostrophe. Pious Eterino (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guessing this was meant to be an ayin mark, zaʿtar. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this should be MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE ʼ instead of MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA ʻ. At least this is what man uses to transcribe for instance Ottoman Turkish where for ع(ʕ) they had a glottal stop (so logically it would not only be transcribed words but ultimately incorporate thence into English sentences, typical for scholarly works in the field that can’t shy away from incorporating Arabisms and Turkisms and what ever is local to their field). Fay Freak (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Fay Freak. Theknightwho (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, either move it to use the ayin mark or move it use the modifier letter apostrophe, but the turned comma seems to be entirely wrong. - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SOP. Not in lemmings; dictionary.com has an entry sourced from "THE AMERICAN HERITAGE® IDIOMS DICTIONARY". This, that and the other (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaning keep. It's not transparently SOP: per the OED, at least, run of luck is specifically a series of gambling wins, the more generic use to mean any spell of good fortune (not listed at our entry) is a later transferred sense. There, it has a sub-entry as a noun phrase under luck (alongside stuff like devil's luck—mere collocations are shunted to their own separate list). We also have the very similar lucky streak. There's another more general historical aspect, since etymologically it appears that the sense of run as a series or a spell might have been generalised from its use in gambling: "run of fortune" is attested from the late 17th century, whereas the more general concept in reference to events is 18th-century. Compare etymonline. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, SOP. The collocation is not reserved to gambling contexts.[26][27][28] One can also use the synonyms streak of luck[29][30][31], run of fortune,[32][33](déjà vu)[34] and, to complete the list, streak of fortune.[35][36][37] Furthermore, the luck can be qualified, as in run of good luck or even of bad luck.[38][39][40] I see no reason to think that the use of run in the sense of “series of like items” originated in gambling.  --Lambiam 12:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambian: Just to note, my argument above was a historical one—it is obviously used outside of gambling contexts, but this now-SOP use is transferred and not the original sense according to the OED. The "series of like items" sense of run is also listed as a subsense after "spell of luck" (similar earlier attestation is to continuous and abstract referents like "the run of time" and not a discrete series). The OED is only one source, but it seems reasonable enough and I'd want another citation to feel comfortable rejecting it out of hand. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have access to the current edition of the OED, but the 1933 edition of the OED defines a sense of run as: “A course or spell of (good or ill) fortune, esp. in games of chance.”[41] The first three supporting citations, which are ordered by date, are:
The rest contains, in order, the collocations “a good or bad run of luck at cards”, “a long run of evil fortune”, and “a run of ill-luck”. With the 1933 OED definition, “run of luck” is definitely SOP. In my opinion, this sense is actually merely a specialization of a sense defined by the 1933 OED as: “A continued spell or course of some condition or state of things”. The aspect of fortune and the role of games of chance, if applicable, are conferred by the context in each of these quotations.  --Lambiam 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current edition is rather more detailed, yeah, but the 1933 would then seem to in fact support that it originated in gambling, no? All of those early uses relate to gambling. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the full passage containing the third quotation is interesting and seems to support the contention that "run of luck" in fact originated as a term specifically related to gambling: [42]. Note that it's introduced without prior context—the reader is expected to infer that it refers to gambling and not just any old luck—and also that it's italicised in a way suggesting that it's a term of art. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These six quotations are uses of the term run. Obviously, they have been selected by Murray to support his definition, involving fortune – and a good source of discussions of fortune is provided by games of chance. So what we have here is a selection effect. Only two contain the specific collocation run of luck. We see either stand-alone uses of run or in various transparent combinations: with at dice, of luck, of evil fortune, and of ill-luck. As I said, IMO these are SOP uses of run in a more general sense. This sense of run is old enough. For example, a book from 1677 has “a run of 20 Years”,[43] viz. of the Ark residing in the house of Abinadab. Why shouldn’t one expect to see it applied to other spells or courses of something, including good or bad luck (in gambling)? The collocation “a constant run of Fortune” occurs in a book from 1694,[44] unrelated to games of chance. Is there a reason to think this is by extension of a sense originating in gambling, instead of simply being the more general sense?  --Lambiam 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just the name of the space in Monopoly.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep – but the definition needs to be replaced by or extended with a figurative sense. In several of the given quotations, the term clearly is used in a figurative sense. Even when not (it is not always clear without further context), these uses appear to be independent of reference to the Monopoly universe.  --Lambiam 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: since the original sense gave rise to a figurative sense, the original should be kept as well. Some will prefer to have it etymology-only, but I don't see a benefit of moving semantics to etymology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant with good spirits. PUC – 13:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're that fussed, redirect it. DonnanZ (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't even seem worthy as a translation hub. Vininn126 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sum of parts. zero-day existed years before this entry. Equinox 22:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, SOP. The definition is also wrong, a zero-day exploit is an exploit, not an act of exploiting. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfd-sense "unit of area in Hong Kong". the plural form is definitely attestable (in fact in most cases the only form used), as in google:"Victoria Parks" site:scmp.com, but is this SoP or something similar in some way, such that it should be deleted? – Wpi31 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This is similar to saying how many ‘football fields’ an area is and I don’t see why we should delete either sense at either entry. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The nominator added this sense to the entry, and must have had second thoughts about it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's because some of the Chinese equivalents were nominated for RFD, so I assumed that similarly this one may not satisfy CFI. – Wpi31 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should probably keep this one then[45], though I don’t feel qualified to vote on Chinese entries myself. We should also define ‘football pitch’ to be the area of a soccer pitch, IOW a typical 1.76 acres according to Wikipedia (see[46] - this this author works on the basis that a pitch is 1.79 acres if you do the maths) and perhaps also have another sense at ‘football field’ defining the area as 1.76 acres (if such a sense can be attested of course). The current definition at football field is based on the area of an American football field (1.32 acres) --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We know the park exists, we need to verify this sense is used, if any quotations can be found, preferably in English. It's really an RFV matter. If some decent quotes can be added, I would keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)