Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

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

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


March 2017[edit]

e-#Etymology_1, "out of"[edit]

Delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin like ec-; and probably sug- et al should be recreated as Latin; for the same reason as Talk:sug-: it seems to me that Etymology 1, the prefix supposedly meaning "out of", is describing a Latin conditional variant prefix and not an English one. Looking at the "derived terms", "evict" is borrowed whole from Latin, it is not "e-" + *"vict"; "egress" is from Latin, not "e-" + *"gress"; etc. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Category:English words prefixed with e-, there are a few words that look like they are examples of productive use of Latin-derived e- (but some have a sense that is more accurately described as non- rather than out of): ebracteate, enucleate, ecostate, elamping, elocation, enodal, etypical, evacate. Maybe they are actually borrowings from scientific New Latin terms, though; does anyone have more info?
Even if this is enough to keep the section, we ought to add information to describe the real situation (that nearly all words with this e- are Latin borrowings). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster says ebracteate is from New Latin ebracteatus and enucleate is from enucleatus, and I can find ecostatus and elocatio and enodalis as (New?) Latin words which would account for ecostate, etc. In all of those cases, e- looks like "sug-": like the prefix only existed in Latin. The invocation of "e-" in our etymology of "elamping" seems to be someone's guesswork, qualified by that question mark at the end. "Evacate" seems likely to also have a Latin or other etymon like "evacuate", or perhaps it is a variant of that word. I can't find a reference that explains the etymology of "etypical"; can anyone else? - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Are there any cases where English uses e- where Latin would use another allomorph of ex- due to the initial sound(s) of the word? Any examples of the suffix being used in an "un-Latin" way would be evidence of it being thought of as an English prefix. —CodeCat 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Probably delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin for the same reason as Talk:sug- and #e-. "Efform" and "effranchise" claim to have been formed using this suffix, but I suspect they were borrowed whole or represent unusual phonological alterations, since the norm when attaching "ex-" to "f"-initial words is not to switch to "ef-" ("exfranchisees sued the company"). The only English dictionaries which have this also have sug- and hence seem to have different inclusion criteria than us. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@-sche: The OED states that efform derives from ef- +‎ form, though I suppose it could derive from the Latin efformō instead. Isn't this an RFV issue, though? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I find older dictionaries with derive efform from Latin efformo, which is an attested Latin word; ef- form seems like a superficial analysis like in some dictionaries' entries for "suggest" which say it's "sug- + gest". As for RFV, some have argued that the question of deleting an affix (even on the grounds that it does not occur in a given language) is an RFD matter; cf the discussions of -os. Sug- was discussed at RFD rather than RFV. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Rfd of the adjective sense: this strikes me as redundant to the present participle sense —This comment was unsigned.

  • Dunno about that. Tinkling bells springs to mind. I think it's an attributive adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
IMO "tinkling" in "tinkling bells" is probably not a true adjective. I doubt that "tinkling" is ever a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like an adjective to me. Even the OED has two entries as an adjective (1 - that tinkles, 2- that works as a tinker). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"The piano is very tinkling"?? It doesn't sound right to me. I think the required adjective would be "tinkly". I don't know anything about OED sense 2. Mihia (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said it's an attributive adjective, before the noun. "The wind chimes are tinkling" is a present participle, "the tinkling wind chimes" an attributive adjective. That's how I see it. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would draw a distinction between what I called a "true" adjective, and the fact that any present participle can be put in front of a noun to modify it, as a regular feature of the English language. I do not believe that participles in the latter cases need separate "adjective" entries where they mean no more than "X doing Y". Where there is a special or extended meaning, yes, but I don't see that with "the tinkling wind chimes". Mihia (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both the verb and the adjective: This is yet another word that ends in -ing that can be both a verb and an adjective. I do not get why there is continual surprise at these, nor why there is continued opposition to them carrying both word types. Purplebackpack89 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mihia. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

thick as shit[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

In the light of thick as pig shit and other similar expressions, I'm not sure, but isn't it just thick + as shit? Can we say "as thick as shit"? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Did you mean to take this to WT:RFD rather than RFV? Is your concern that the phrase is not used, or that its meaning is sum of parts? If it's the latter, the discussion should be at RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you really mean this as RFV, it is cited. As for the SOP issue, I would be more inclined to consider thick as pig shit and alternative form of the same expression. That said, I found a few other quotes (which I put on the citations page) that use "as shit" as an intensifier for other meanings of thick, which lends credence to the SOP viewpoint. The fact that it almost always refers to stupidity, however, makes me think that the "fried egg" rule applies and those few quotes are an anomoly. (BTW, I was unable to find any other meanings of thick when looking up "thick as pig shit") Kiwima (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my concern was indeed about whether it's SOP or not. Shall I copy-paste this discussion to RFD, then? --Barytonesis (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am in favor of keeping common similes in general. Without this entry, how would a non-native speaker know one actually says this in English to indicate someone is stupid? With entries like this, I enter Czech blbý jako tágo, and find how to say this in English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    We should be adding all of the phrases of that form to avoid giving the impression that there is any thing special about thick as shit: boring as shit, hot as shit, cold as shit, slow as shit, fast as shit, dumb as shit, smart as shit. One can find quotes such as "He does have that swagger and looks presidential as shit" (not about Trump). DCDuring (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Point taken; striking out my keep. I accept that "as shit" is a fairly generic intensifier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Excrement is not, in fact, stupid, so this is no tautology or SoP. Delete as DCDuring has pointed out the existence of a single entry for as shit. Equinox 22:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete: as shit is just an intensifier (not a simile) that can occur after many adjectives, like as fuck, as hell, as all get out, etc. Whether we need as pig/dog/cow shit I leave to others. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - [The]DaveRoss 11:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep: Because thick has over a dozen possible meanings. Someone who doesn't know English very well could easily pick description #11 (Deep, intense, or profound) instead of #9 (informal, Stupid) and think they've been given a compliment. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Other senses of thick, including the most literal one, could be used with as shit. The limitations on the senses is strictly due to the slanginess of as shit. DCDuring (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

cost a pretty penny[edit]

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

  • Um, that would include the translations, ones that don't appear at pretty penny. I like the Spanish one, cost a testicle and a half. DonnanZ (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Those aren't direct translations for "cost a pretty penny" but general idiomatic equivalents of "cost a large amount". bd2412 T 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Not that I disagree with your basic point, but translations are "general idiomatic equivalents". Ƿidsiþ 06:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
        • A synonym is cost an arm and a leg, which went through the indignity of an RFD in 2009, and got redirected to arm and a leg. An arm and a leg are two different things, and the idiom only makes sense in full. We don't need a repeat of that disaster. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In other words, keep this entry in its present form. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to pretty penny. DCDuring (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect or keep. The definition line could be changed to "To be [[expensive]]; to cost a [[pretty penny]]". The entry is in http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cost+a+pretty+penny, where it seems to have two entries, one marked as "Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved", another one marked as "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc." The full phrase is in Macmillan[1], but most OneLook dictionaries only seem to have "pretty penny": a pretty penny at OneLook Dictionary Search (Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionaries, Collins, Dictionary.com), cost a pretty penny at OneLook Dictionary Search. I seem to like these longer phrase entries with a verb; they seem more natural to me (like cost an arm and a leg). However, I'll grant there is some force in the argument for deletion, including there being other verbs used: cost a pretty penny, pay a pretty penny, make a pretty penny, earn a pretty penny at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

be in on[edit]

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

I think also get in on, bring in on, let in on, and probably slangy synonyms for most of the above. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

CRT television[edit]

Sum-of-parts. 2602:306:3653:8440:B979:122F:5C44:E2AD 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete as sum of parts, I guess. Shall we have CRT display, LCD display, LCD television, and plasma television? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think therefore I am[edit]

Along with all the translations. Seems like a Wikiquote/Wikipedia situation; it has cultural and philosophical relevance, but it isn't lexical, idiomatic, or worthy of keeping as a phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree that it's entirely unidiomatic, and the fact that it is snowcloned is evidence of lexical value. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
How about just putting {{phrasebook}} into it? Many phrasebook entries are just SOP and not lexical or idiomatic, as e.g. do you have children or what's your phone number. - 23:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Phrasebook entries are for things our readers would want to know how to say. How many people are going to worry about being unable to communicate this to someone who speaks another language? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Zen Buddhism[edit]

SOP; just [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep. My feeling is to keep it at least as a translation hub but I am not sure I find enough supporting translations. When I was entering the Czech translation today, I was almost certain there is "zenbuddhismus", which is a manner of compounding no so common in Czech; it further occurred to me there could be "zenový buddhismus", and I verified that to exist. Thus, by having the entry, we spare someone the little lexico-work I did today. Furthermore, the lemming heuristics applies: present in Collins[2]; en.oxforddictionaries.com has it as an "also" item in boldface in its Zen entry[3]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It might not be sum of parts depending on how other Buddhists view Zen. By analogy, most Christians do not view Christian Scientists as Christians. I believe most Buddhists, or at least most Theravada Buddhists, do not view Zen followers as Buddhists. So Zen would be non-Buddhist Buddhism in a similar to how Christian Science is non-Christian Christianity. I've attended Mahayana Buddhist services before and they admitted to me when I attended their services that nobody outside Mahayana view them as Buddhists, and Zen is classified as Mahayana on Simple English wikipedia. Leucostictes (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The Zen Buddhism article does not say it isn't Buddhism. Please stop making these controversial edits to major topics based on your own unsourced view. Equinox 12:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Zen (not zen) is much more common (c. 10x) than Zen Buddhism on Google N-Grams. Many dictionaries have an entry for Zen Buddhism, usually defined as "Zen". Zen in turn is defined as "a (Japanese) sect/school of (Mahayana) Buddhism". Zen Buddhism seems like a pleonasm. Many contributors argue that apricot tree and PIN number merit entries. This seems similar. DCDuring (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't we need entries for Mahayana Buddhism and Mahayana, too, precisely because some/many consider Mahayana Buddhism a misnomer? DCDuring (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Other dictionaries treat Mahayana Buddhism and Mahayana as parallel to Zen Buddhism and Zen. DCDuring (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
We already do have a Mahayana article. Leucostictes (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
If my view that Zen is not Buddhism isn't held then Zen Buddhism is just sum of parts. I think it should be deleted.Leucostictes (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

manual capture[edit]

delete as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Sum of parts and extremely rarely used, even in techincal contexts. Human-potato hybrid (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

forced update[edit]

Both created by the same anon. Not sure if they fulfil WT:CFI – could they just be SoP? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


Adjective: "Falsely presented as having medicinal powers". That's the noun, isn't it? 12:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The definition is not expressed as a noun, so perhaps you can clarify what you think the problem is? There is a usage example of the adjectival use: "Don't get your hopes up; that's quack medicine!". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It does feel like attributive use of a noun; cf. "that's doctor talk!". Equinox 04:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Hmmm. I do see some usage of the superlative quackest, though they may be facetious or non-standard uses: [4], [5], [6]. However, I didn't see any use of quacker in the comparative sense. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Found one cite for more quack than: [7]. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep: I'm familiar with the adjectival sense of the word. It exists, if very uncommon.

college is the new high school[edit]

Snowclone, X is the new Y. DTLHS (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What about the implied standard of living aspect? And if this really is a "snowclone" shouldn't we have an entry for "is the new"? Because there are so many terms with the layout "X is the new Y". PseudoSkull (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In every "X is the new Y" snowclone, there is some reasoning by which to explain why that particular "X" is the new "Y". bd2412 T 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think the definition is apparent, and unless it isn't attested without the context explaining or implying what is meant, there is no good reason not to keep it. I don't think "it's just a snowclone" is sufficient reasoning to delete, since in this case, the meaning isn't deducible from "college" + "is the new" + "high school". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    One can also find community college is the new high school, A Bachelor's degree is the new high school degree. "I was a little taken aback to see that apparently preadolescence is the new adolescence or junior high school or middle school is the new high school". Preschool is the new kindergarten. the white T-shirt is the new little black dress. Many Xs fit [X] is the new black.
    Delete It's an instance of a snowclone. We've never figured out how to make snowclone entries that would be useful to someone using standard mainspace search. DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    I still think it's worth having those entries, as long as they have fairly consistent definitions (if "college is the new high school" refers to all sorts of different aspects of college and high school, then it's not worth keeping, but it fairly consistently refers to educational expectations, it's worth including). I don't think it's at all harmful to have such entries. If space was a concern, then sure, but it really isn't and you can't necessarily figure out what the phrase means based on the sum of its parts ("is the new" relating to colour is pretty consistent in meaning, but with other phrases it's more ambiguous and it is thus worth it to create separate entries). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete per bd. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I wouldn't necessarily know why college is the new high school, but I don't think this justifies the entry. The possibilities for "X is the new Y" are virtually unlimited, and I don't think a dictionary can be the place to explain the "why" of all of them. 21:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep per WT:CFI: The meaning cannot be obtained from the meaning of separate components, and "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means". We are not running out of database space. Also per Andrew Sheedy: we are able to single out the particular regard in which college is the new highschool, and thereby provide value to the user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that we would need [[the new little black dress]]. I didn't find "the old little black dress".

Oxford has an entry for little black dress, but omits figurative use, probably relying on its more sophisticated average reader to infer any figurative meaning in context and a fortiori what modification by the new might add. the new black (new black?) is also in widespread use. Other cases are (person X (eg, Obama, Trump, Cruz) is) the new Reagan. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this snowclone is covered at Appendix:Snowclones/X is the new Y. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. An encyclopedic topic much more than a dictionary term. Very much a SoP. Human-potato hybrid (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Western classical music[edit]

SOP: Western + classical music. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • What other types are there? It's shown as a synonym of classical music under classical music. DonnanZ (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Donnanz: China and India had fairly extensive systems of art music and methods of notation before the modern era. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, you can find uses of "Eastern classical music" or "Chinese classical music" (and many other modifiers). DTLHS (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    Delete (SoP) Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

Berlin Wall[edit]

(as a generic noun) -- moved from RFV. Kiwima (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (politics) Any barrier designed to keep people from crossing a border, e.g. the one proposed to keep people from crossing from Mexico into the United States. Really? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, really. I am short on time this morning, but in a quick search I came up with the following: [8]






I am, generally speaking, opposed to including these kinds of comparative or "referential" senses unless strongly established in the language. I think it is probably incorrect to say that "Berlin Wall" actually means "Any barrier designed to ... etc.". When people say that some other barrier is "a Berlin Wall", what they are really saying is that it is like the actual Berlin Wall, in my opinion. The possibilities for these kinds of references are open-ended and somewhat limitless. In the floods, I could say, of the stream at the bottom of my garden, that I have "the River Thames" flowing through my garden. It doesn't mean that "River Thames" means "Any stream or river carrying a large volume of water". Mihia (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between saying 'like the Berlin Wall' and 'like a Berlin Wall'. By using the indefinite article the author seems to indicate that Berlin Wall does not refer to a specific wall, but to a class of wall. Kiwima (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be correct, but I see this as a regular feature of the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another, not a new meaning of "Berlin Wall". For example, I could say that Hillary Clinton "isn't a Barack Obama". It doesn't mean, in my view, that "Barack Obama" has a dictionary sense of a certain type of person/president. Mihia (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely that the principle, "the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another" (justifying exclusion of such definitions), applies to English nouns. But White House at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that other dictionaries find some metonymic construals of proper nouns worth inclusion. The principle does not limit including definitions of common nouns at all. See head#Noun for the numerous definitions that spring from similes, metaphors and metonomy. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the inclusion in the dictionary of the special metonymic meaning of "White House", but I believe that somewhere between "The White House says that President Obama will veto the bill" and the kind of examples offered above for "Berlin Wall", we pass from a genuine extended meaning to regular patterns of the English language that can apply in the same way to virtually any proper noun. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The second refers to the original Berlin Wall, the third is a mentioning or a comparision/simile ("as a "Berlin Wall""), the fouth is a mentioning and maybe an comparison/simile too ("The .. politican .. described this division as a 'Berlin Wall'"), the fifth is a comparison/simile ("like a Berlin Wall"). The first and the sixth could use some rhetorical figure ("the rope/thing that's a Berlin Wall", "lies behind a Berlin Wall of ..."). - 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Given these arguments, I think this belongs more appropriately under requests for deletion rather than requests for verification. Any use that is found can be argued to be a similie. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Windows, Firefox, XP[edit]

This is an undeletion request - these entries or senses are deleted or removed per RFV. For rationale of the request see Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/June.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 12:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. they should all be recreated. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should have an entry for Windows and XP (especially since the latter isn't the official name). I'm not so sure about Firefox. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Restore Windows. Undecided about others for now. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The unfortunate deletion of these was a result of over-restrictive WT:BRAND, esp. "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent." Removing the quoted part would make WT:BRAND much more palatable. Or someone may try to find quotations that do meet WT:BRAND as is, and place them to Citations:Firefox, etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I placed some quotations to Citations:Firefox. Someone may like to see whether they meet WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

industrial complex[edit]

Hello, I tried to create a page for "industrial complex" because on Wikipedia, there is an article about "white savior" under which the term "white savior industrial complex" is discussed. There are a couple of Wikipedia articles, "military-industrial complex" and "prison-industrial complex", that exist. Beyond these, the term "industrial complex" has been appended in other ways as discussed here, which I had included in the Citations tab for justification. It seems appropriate as a dictionary term since there is no real encyclopedic coverage, but there exists a variety of uses of it. What warranted the rather immediate deletion of this page? Erik (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This says, "The suffix '-industrial complex' has become a convenient (and certainly overused) way to describe the meshing of public and private interests, usually in a manner suggesting that profit motivations have trumped rational policy assessments," with a few examples of its use listed. Erik (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I restored it temporarily so that it can be discussed. I agree that it has some issues, not least of which is that the definition is a mix of etymology and usage note, without having an actual definition included. It is also not a suffix. But perhaps it can be cleaned up? The citation is also a mention rather than a usage, which needs to be addressed. I do think it was added in good faith, so merits discussion. - [The]DaveRoss 17:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Please let me know what sources would be ideal to help here. I'm happy to look further. Erik (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Dave, your ping didn't work. Anyway, let me copy what I said on my talk-page: "I'm really not sure it is appropriate for Wiktionary. You seem to be supporting a sort of suffix (although your entry didn't say that explicitly), but isn't it rather a case of various blends based on military-industrial complex?" I might add that if it were a suffix, the page title would have to begin with a hyphen. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete if only for the crap so-called definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything like "assume good faith" in this particular realm? Why is it exactly "crap" and "so-called"? I am seeing words under Category:English idioms that are less substantial than this. Erik (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I've got to agree with User:Erik, that User:SemperBlotto's statement wasn't nice, and was inappropriate especially to whom seems to be a good-faith new user. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Good faith doesn't necessarily prevent you from creating crap. I know this well, sometimes create crap in good faith myself. --Droigheann (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Droigheann But you don't word it that way, especially with new users. Encourage new users to learn further about the system. Using derogatory terms to refer to a good faith entry from a new user is mean, and not only that, but it can lead to new users who could very well one day become essential contributors to the project, feel that they are shunned away and don't come back. you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
New user? Oh, I've forgotten everybody's always sooo polite on Wikipedia ... The way I see it SB & Erik each yapped once, probably on the spur of the moment, and now they have better things to do. And so should the two of us. Pax. --Droigheann (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The concept exists, we just don't happen to be very good at it. The problem with the definition is that it isn't a definition, as was mentioned about by myself and Meta. A definition for this might be something like "a corrupting influence on the government by individuals or companies with a significant financial stake in related legislation". That is certainly not perfect, but it is attempting to describe what the term means rather than the origin of the term or how it is used. Another problem is that the term isn't used (as far as I know) independently of the various specific terms (military-, prison-, etc.). If the term is never independent then it is not worthy of an entry on its own, but should rather exist at each specific use. - [The]DaveRoss 14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does the term have to exist independently? We can set it as "-industrial complex" if needed. Unless suffixes are not allowed? I see that -gate exists. Erik (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Suffixes are OK, if this is in fact a suffix it should be moved to the hyphenated version. The thing is there are lots of words and pairs of words which are common constructions but which are not affixes or terms in their own right. The question here is whether or not "industrial complex" is, in and of itself, a term. - [The]DaveRoss 19:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I can see why that is uncertain. I would be fine with a move to the hyphenated version. What about this from the book Unwarranted Influence from Yale University Press? Erik (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Those look like they are mostly "mentions" rather than uses. I think my inclination is that this is neither an independent term nor a suffix, but rather a number of snowclone terms of the form X-industrial complex. The industrial complex portion is not idiomatic in its own right, and I don't think that it is a proper suffix. - [The]DaveRoss 20:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Metaknowledge that these all look like blends of military-industrial complex with other terms: it derives from the whole phrase, rather from than from any of its parts. It's kind of like one of those images where someone's head is photoshopped onto someone else's body: the idea is to merge the two identities in incongruous ways, rather than treat the body as a modular piece to be swapped for another. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Considering all the different kinds of Wiktionary entries, I'm surprised there is no place for this term here in any form at all. I would have thought that a write-up of the very term in a Yale University Press book would be good enough. What kind of real-world use is warranted for inclusion? Erik (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, but move to -industrial complex: Mostly per Erik. I also feel like "Delete because the definition is crap" is a rather specious argument for deletion. It's a good argument for fixing the definition, though. Purplebackpack89 18:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW, @SemperBlotto, you wanted the definition reworked? I've reworked it. Purplebackpack89 19:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We already have military-industrial complex. Therefore, we do not need to re-define it here. "Industrial complex" has another definition, however, which I added. Have a look. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, I think it's OK as modified. DonnanZ (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that the new addition is SOP, and that the restated original definition is wrong. This is not short for military-industrial complex, especially not when used in terms like prison-industrial complex. - [The]DaveRoss 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted second sense, added military-industrial complex and prison-industrial complex as derived terms. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

connected graph[edit]

A graph which is connected.__Gamren (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

connected graph at OneLook Dictionary Search DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

icicle plant[edit]

I found only two legitimate (non-dictionary) references to "icicle plant" when I searched the internet. Neither referred to "A plant of the genus Mesembryanthemum". There is a redirect page in Wikipedia, but I do not think this qualifies the term for inclusion in Wiktionary. I would update the Wikipedia redirect but the "icicle plant" article does not exist at this time.User-duck (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be at WT:RFV- but see the citations I have added to the entry. DTLHS (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I added some simple usages to supplement more mentiony cites that support specific definition. DCDuring (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This is tricky, because 1) Mesembryanthemum used to be a wastebasket taxon containing a large number of species that are now classified in other genera, and 2) plant common names tend to be either a) mentioned along with the botanical name, but not used, or b) used, but not accompanied by botanical information. To complicate things further, Dorotheanthus bellidiformis was mostly known as Mesembryanthemum crinifolium, and Mesembryanthemum is neuter in gender, so specific epithets such as edulis and bellidiformis change to edule and bellidiforme. Allowing for that, it's easy to confirm that all of the species in the ice plant and icicle plant articles (except for Helichrysum thianschanicum of course) have been known for most of their history as species of Mesembryanthemum.
It looks to me like icicle plant, when applied to plants in the Aizoaceae, is just an alternative form of ice plant: the species that look like they're covered in ice aren't shaped like icicles and the species that have long, narrow leaves don't look like they're covered in ice. I suspect that ice plant was generalized from Mesembryanthemum crystallinum to the rest of the genus Mesembryanthemum as it was constituted at the time, with that connection becoming lost after the genus was split up. I've changed the articles at ice plant and icicle plant to reflect the above. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I dread having to cite many of the less common vernacular names because the story seems so often to be as you say. I wonder if we should just buryput some of the dictionary-only names in Usage notes. They may be somewhat useful to some users.
It seems highly likely that any good vernacular name will be (mis)applied to higher level taxa and similar-looking or -behaving organisms. Is it even worthwhile to document this?
icicle plant may be so rare as to fail RfV. DCDuring (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

piece of furniture[edit]

Sum of parts, surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember that years back there was a leeengthy discussion about this and it was kept. If there's ever a need for a translation target, this is the one. If one translates "piece of furniture" word-by-word to almost any other language, one ends up with nonsense. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Not in Chinese, and I imagine many other Asian languages. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hindi फर्नीचर का टुकड़ा (pharnīcar kā ṭukṛā) is nonsensical. फर्नीचर (pharnīcar, furniture (uncountable); piece of furniture (countable)) can mean both. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep, a piece of furniture shouldn't be called "a furniture". DonnanZ (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
So, by that rationale, should we add piece of advice, piece of equipment, piece of information, piece of news, piece of stationery, etc.? This is quite a normal English construction that is used to count a mass noun. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
un meuble is not "a furniture". Neither is et møbel. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
And? Why should a feature of a foreign language impact the inclusion of English terms on the English Wiktionary? What you describe would be better placed in a grammar not a dictionary. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. "Furniture" is just a mass noun, and it's normal to treat it this way in English. This translation target stuff is making me roll my eyes a bit. It comes up for everything. We have to either accept at some point that we're primarily an English language dictionary rather than a translation dictionary, or we need to create a collocations section to allow common SOP phrases. I'd much prefer the latter, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be consensus for it.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't know. We do need to indicate somehow/somewhere that this phrase is the usual singular for furniture (not "a furniture"). That could be a usage note or something at furniture. Equinox 00:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: by all means add a usage note at furniture (note that it is also possible in some contexts to say "a stick of furniture" and "a set of furniture"), but it is clearly SoP as Tooironic says. I take it we are not planning to create entries for "bunch of grapes", "piece of legislation", and so on. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And what about the remaining "translation targets"? Kill'em all? They are hardly more useful than this one. If that should be the policy, I'm ok with it, but let's be consistent. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, this is less of a translation target and more of a clear-cut sum of parts IMO. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Less than ace of diamonds, banana peel, national sports team, model aircraft, birthday card and CD player, just to name a few? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No. Anyway, why don't we just move it to Category:English phrasebook? That category can obviously accommodate anything from could I see the menu, please to I am English to two beers, please, including 59 entries beginning with "I'm ...", from I'm blind (no, it doesn't have a sound file) to both I'm fine and I'm fine, thank you to I'm twenty years old, so why not a few "pieces of" for the cases which, unlike the abovementioned, can't be translated directly? --Droigheann (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Nearly all of the phrasebook phrases are full sentences (even if elliptical, like "two beers please"), not just vocabulary items in a vacuum. Equinox 17:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
And? Does being full sentences make them any less SoPs? Occasionally even sort of "double" SoPs when we have both how do I get to and how do I get to the airport, how do I get to the bus station & how do I get to the train station? --Droigheann (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of phrasebook entries has nothing to do with SoP - rather, we include phrases which are commonly used in phrasebooks and actually useful. "Piece of furniture" is just a common collocation, not a phrase with a specific pragmatic function. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
That's where we differ, for me having "piece of furniture" is about a thousand times more useful than having, say, I'm agnostic. But maybe these things are always down to subjective opinions ... --Droigheann (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I'm agnostic is representative of the English phrasebook. Most of the entries we have in there are actually common and useful. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete SoP, follows a standard English approach to "countabilizing" English mass nouns. It would be important to include the common examples of these in usage examples (less desirably, citations) at the various uncountable nouns that show this behavior. DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
An interesting contrast in terms of idiomaticity is chest of drawers, which is sometimes (NOT normally) spelled chesterdrawers, indicating a loss of connection of the idiom with its origins and apparent components. In contrast pizzafurniture is very rare in this sense and pisafurniture is only a crossword clue word. DCDuring (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I see no reason why pizzafurniture could not also be a crossword clue word. bd2412 T 01:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep as a translation target. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep as a translation target.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete, not even convinced it's the most usual form – I would have said ‘item’. Ƿidsiþ 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
piece of furniture,item of furniture,pieces of furniture,items of furniture at Google Ngram Viewer suggests the piece is much more common. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Weak keep Some singulars of mass nouns are irregular, such as
  • clothes: article of clothing
  • smoke: smoke particle
  • rice: grain of rice.
However, this one follows the most common "piece of". It should be indicated on the furniture page as well, but this page is useful as a translation target, as "furniture" is not a mass noun in all languages (i.e. Spanish). Human-potato hybrid (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


This entry overlaps significantly with the suffix section of 'd, though it adds usage notes, its own (lengthy) example use, and the annotation poetic. I propose these two entries be merged. Rriegs (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Should very likely be -'d as it's a suffix. Additionally there could be a ===See also===.
Btw: 's and -'s are inconsequent too: at -'s the head is 's (or properly |head=’s) but the lemma is -'s. - 19:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I've mmoed/merged the past tense suffix to -'d. See also my post in the Tea Room about this. - -sche (discuss) 15:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

person of size[edit]

Nominating this entry since man of size and woman of size have been determined in earlier discussions to be sum-of-parts. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Delete. DCDuring (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep , as size here refers euphemistically to overweight, not just size in general, which we do not have at size, so it's not SOP. It doesn't mean a tall person, or a large bodied person, it means an overweight or obese person. It's modelled after person of color. Leasnam (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The purported connection with person of color is their shared use of a standard English construction.
I doubt that "purported" is at all an accurate assessment of the the Washington Post's article regarding the term's origin. Leasnam (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I repeat the comment I made above at #woman of size:
I'm sureI hope you agree that wall of great size is SoP. Isn't woman of great size SoP? I would hope you would agree that wall of size is SoP. I don't think woman of size departs from this normal construction of meaning for these of NPs. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree where woman of size is concerned. It is not a woman of (great) size or necessarily any size, which is precisely why large bodied, stocky (but not fat) women are never referred to as a "women of size". No one uses the term that way. "Woman of size" is a nice PC way of saying "plus-sized woman" (i.e. "fat woman"), a woman with more to love ;) She doesn't even have to be large, just have a little excess fat (you can be petite and "curvy" and be a woman of size, or a "plus size" woman, and be of normal size). As I pointed out in ES about the origin of person of size, it is a collocation with its originator phrase person of color which served as the pattern for why the phrase woman of size was created in the first place. It's like little person, little people for those with dwarfism. They're not strictly just "little + people" (SoP). Same thing here. Leasnam (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring, why again is person of color is not SoP ? Maybe the definition of person of size should be: A non-skinny person. Leasnam (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're comparing woman of size to wall of size, then perhaps you're not understanding what woman of size specifically refers to. It's not always a "large woman". It's a woman who has more body fat than popular culture deems desirable. OTOH, big woman would be SoP, because big can mean "fat" in addition to just large size. Leasnam (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I know English expressions reasonably well, but I may be semantically challenged and unaware of it.
Wall of size is just about synonymous with wall of great size and woman of size is just about synonymous with woman of great size. No OneLook reference has of size or woman/person/man of size. Perhaps the OED does?
I think person of color is inclusion-worthy because color does not mean "dark/brown skin color" AND because the selection of an appropriate name for a member of a group that is sensitive to the names it or its members are called is a matter of GREAT pragmatic concern. (I'm speaking here as a descendant of Huns.)
Not every instance of pragmatically/contextually preferred selection among available expressions warrants an entry, still less one that involves only conventional construction of conventional meaning. In contrast plus-size/plus-sized/plus size do involve departure from conventional usage.
As to the matter of size only being one specific measure of size in woman of size, what of garden of size? In this case size can (almost???) always only mean "area", not "length", "weight", "height". You certainly wouldn't want to have separate entries for each combination of [Noun] and of size because a particular meaning of size was most common when used with [Noun]. DCDuring (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere at size does it refer to overweight. It only refers (among other things) to dimensions. Leasnam (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The definitions at [[importance]] don't show "great import", even though it has that meaning in "matter of importance". I think that many of the nouns that are conceived as having scalar or ordinal values are often used without a modifier to mean that the scalar or rank is high in context. Examples of such nouns that can be used with of to yield the result are many as are examples that do not have the resulting type of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Is "garden of size" or "wall of size" a normal construction where you're from? It seems weird to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say it was common, just normal, in the sense of following a fairly standard pattern. One can find numerous instances of "player/lineman/back of size" in sports news. It is parallel to "matter of (some/great) significance/importance/weight" and similar expressions. DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't have us making entries for garden of size, shoe of size, x of size, what have you...those are clearly SoP. But person of size and woman of size are inclusion-worthy. Like man of God, These are not SoP. I see your concern over the slipperiness of this though--should we create passenger of size, roommate of size, patron of size ? No. JUst like we don't have child of God, passenger of colour, or whatever either. We know where to draw the line. Leasnam (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: interesting, that's completely foreign to me (but then again, I don't read sports news). Where do you live? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't read the sports news either: I searched Google News, suspecting that something could be found. I'm just north of NYC. But I don't think it's regional. DCDuring (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you could take almost any word that could mean a type of individual and add "of size": imagine a dating service for plus-sized people. You could say that you're interested in "dog-lovers of size" or "left-handers of size". If anything's idiomatic, it would be "of size", not person of size, man of size, woman of size, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck, absolutely ! Either something is missing at size, or we need to consider creating an idiomatic of size. Leasnam (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This now makes me think that person of color is just person + of color, as you can also say: woman of color, people of color, culture of color, music of color, etc. Leasnam (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to weigh in that my impression is that this really is mainly a matter of of lacking a definition of this kind of thing. Something like denotes that the preceding subject has the quality of the following predicate noun. Hair of gold and days of yore are not made of gold and yore, they're just liken to the implied quality. Seems a standard English construction to me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

road accident[edit]

Pursuant to earlier suggestions, it seems that this is just SOP, and the definition's attempt to escape from that is wrong (that is, to the extent that anyone even says "road accident", it can be just a motorcycle). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The vehicle wouldn't have to be motorized. Don't pedestrians, animals count? DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
In order to avoid re-entry it should also be deleted from Index:English/r2. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If someone walking across the road was knocked down by a vehicle, even a bicycle, that would be a road accident. Revise and keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
"An accident that takes place on a road" does sound like a SOP. delete --Hekaheka (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hekaheka What if a car would hit a biker in the middle of the forest or on a parking lot? The biker would have been involved in a car accident, but I suspect it might still be said there was a road accident. Despite there being no roads. Although it's probably not that common. On the other hand, if somebody suffers a heart attack while crossing the street, that really doesn't count as a road accident. Oxford on "accident": A crash involving road or other vehicles.. This refers to a road vehicle instead of a road, although this is just the entry for accident. Two dune buggies crashing into each other on the beach still counts as a road accident, I think. But I'm not fully sure. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Three valid citations showing that that's how the term is sometimes used would be all we need to support a broadening of the definition along these lines. I think that would make a case for a definition that might pass RfD. But it might strike professional lexicographers as a flimsy argument and be used as an example to show that we aren't serious, as many of them have publicly claimed. DCDuring (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
All words can be used lackadaisically but it doesn't mean that we have to record every lackadaisical usage. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This "lackadaisical" usage would show to my satisfaction that to some speakers the meaning of the term has become somewhat divorced from that of a combination of the component terms. It would be evidence comparable in strength to attestable instances of a term being spelled solid or being misconstructed (chesterdrawers). Apart from the spelled-solid criterion, which we have legislated as sufficient for inclusion, the others are simply fact-based arguments, to be given more weight IMO than the gum-flapping arguments motivated (unwittingly?) by idiolectophilia. DCDuring (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
At least off-road accident is common, but that'll likely be regarded SoP as well. Because of it though, it's virtually impossible to find any citation for road accident being used for that, regardless of such use existing or not. There is https://www.dawn.com/news/1340023 (Two forest guards killed in Dera road accident) which sounds like it probably didn't happen on a road: "But the ill-fated trolley overturned at Mula Khel area. As a result, the two forest department guards died on the spot.".
There are also many roads named "road", so the "Rockingham Road accident" isn't actually a road accident, it's an accident on or near Rockingham Road. (the actual accident happened on a parking lot) So simply due to the nature of search engines and the fact that at least the vast majority of "road accident" uses really is an accident on a road means I don't know how a source ever could be found, regardless of such usage existing or not. I said I wasn't sure and if it would be used this way it wouldn't be common, but for technical reasons I can't rule out (or rule in) the existence of this black swan. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

gravel road[edit]

A road with a gravel surface—sounds like gravel + road. Compare "brick road", "concrete road", "gravel path". —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • No wonder, you removed a substantial part of the definition. DonnanZ (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    I removed "usually a rural road with little traffic", which I think is probably an accurate generalization about gravel roads (and about dirt roads and other unpaved roads), but it's not part of the definition of the phrase. I used to live on a gravel road in a city, and the fact that it was in a city would not make me hesitate in the slightest to call it a gravel road. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it could be a generalisation, I know of a couple of gravel roads around here in suburban areas - both are privately owned but access is not restricted, and one of them leads to my local railway station. Perhaps the def can be re-expanded and improved. Anyway, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you please explain how this meaning is supposed to differ from the sum-of-parts meaning? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I think SoP can be a red herring sometimes, I'm not a deletionist. The main question should be whether it's a useful entry or not, but I will have to leave that to others to decide. Its a useful companion for dirt road though. DonnanZ (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh God I just saw that entry and must immediately vote against all forms of gallery. Equinox 16:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I love "believed to be in Russia" ... like gravel roads are so rare we can't find a photo of one in a known location ... Mihia (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha. I found Russian text in the description for the image, which gave me the impression that it may be in Russia, but sadly the image provider didn't say where it is. That part can be removed if this entry survives. But the potholes are characteristic of a gravel road which needs a visit by a road grader. DonnanZ (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
No offence intended. Mihia (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete SoP. If ugliness were a consideration, that alone would justify deletion. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Gravel road" is believed to be in SOPland. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this the repayment I get for using an entry for comparative tests in image presentation? I'm far from impressed. DonnanZ (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm grateful for such a good illustration of ugliness, but would have preferred one not likely to get RfDed. DCDuring (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Gravel roads aren't exactly aesthetic in appearance, and I have driven on many in NZ. But you're welcome to find and add images of "beautiful" gravel roads. DonnanZ (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about the overall appearance of entry with the photos in it. Sometimes we only have ugly pictures of beautiful things, but that's a separate matter. DCDuring (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, it's a simple matter to rearrange the images. I think the original idea was to avoid clashing with translations. Yes check.svg Done. DonnanZ (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dirt road is idiomatic, gravel road is not in my experience. - [The]DaveRoss 14:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Dirt road may be idiomatic, but users still need to know the difference between a dirt road and a gravel road. DonnanZ (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, doesn't seem distinguishable from "dirt road" outside of volume of use, but use is certainly sufficient to meet the CFI. bd2412 T 02:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for translations if nothing else. —CodeCat 11:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Gravel (DP)
Gravel road (DP)
  • I imagine gravel to look like the picture I posted to the right, labeled "Gravel (DP)". My initial expectation for a gravel road surface is to look similar. When I look at the images in the entry, I am surprised these are called "gravel road". In the image at the right here, labeled "Gravel road (DP)", from my perspective, there seems to be almost no gravel at all. However, it may be a fault of my overly narrow construction of "gravel". Be that as it may, the "gravel road" entry with the images seems an interesting tool for vocabulary refinement, at least for the present non-native speaker. The definition seems sum of parts, but the images do not seem to obviously rank under "gravel road". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There are of course different types of gravel. The top picture resembles gravel found on a gravel beach, which may be OK for someone's driveway. Gravel used in road construction and making concrete is mixed with coarse sand, and comes from a gravel pit. DonnanZ (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Added an image of a gravel beach for comparison. DonnanZ (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Gravel beach

August 2017[edit]

the only thing one should fear is fear itself[edit]

I can see why someone would create this as a proverb. But it seems to be more of a quote than a proverb, like you can't always get what you want. --WF on Holiday (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a proverb, just a misquotation of q:Franklin D. Roosevelt#First Inaugural Address (1933). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the description isn't even right. It means something along the lines of "There is nothing to be afraid of, you can do this". This actually does appear to be a NISOP. Possibly some common wisdom, which is still no dictionary material. W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This has 1 Google Books hit, whereas the only thing to fear is fear itself has thousands. Equinox 18:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and move this modern proverb to the more common form. It might need a US label. DCDuring (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree that it's not really what I'd call a proverb, but people might think it is and expect to find it in Wiktionary. Move to the correct wording, per DCDuring, and link to Wikiquote. P Aculeius (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've striken out my vote because DCDuring and P Aculeius made some good points. I abstain from voting for now. (might change my mind if other arguments arise) W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Added new sense. I still think the original description (Implying one should not be afraid of the things that go on in the world) is rubbish. Improving on what I said earlier: "Whatever you are afraid of is not wat disturbs you, it is the fear itself that disturbs you.". I vote to delete the original "things that go on in the world" sense. As for moving, I don't know. If this is considered a proverb it should be moved to the core of the most common form. (whatever that may be) If it's considered something people could mistake for a proverb and expect to find to here, it should be moved to the actual quote and have proper etymology/wikiquote added. W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. We are not Wikiquote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You guys often tend to think that just because it originated from the quote always means that any person who says it afterwards is mentioning the quote. Without mentioning Franklin D. Roosevelt and completely outside the context of him when using this quote, citations of this phrase are acceptable. Definite keep. Seriously, people, try REALLY hard to understand the difference between the mentioning of a quote and using said phrase that originated from the quote outside the context of the quote. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Seems to have sufficiently lost its association with the original quote and become more of a saying/proverb. I'm not fully convinced it isn't SOP, however. (Also, I agree with W3ird N3rd's assessment of the current definition.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference between "the only thing one should fear is fear itself" (you should fear nothing at all with the exception you are allowed to fear having fears) and the meaning that ultimately comes down to "fear cripples you". It's not fully SoP but not completely illogical either. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Alley Oop[edit]

Comic strip and its protagonist. Equinox 15:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The comic strip is certainly notable, but we don't have entries for most other notable comics or their characters, unless they're used to refer to other things. For instance, Prince Valiant refers to a haircut; we have Popeye (although the definition could stand improvement), but not Dick Tracy or Li'l Abner (although there are several entries derived from the strip); the only examples from Peanuts might be Snoopy and Linus blanket, but there aren't entries for the strip or for Charlie Brown. Now, I think that Alley Oop might have been used at one point as a synonym for "caveman" (i.e. someone who looks or behaves like a primitive), in which case it might be worth keeping, but I don't have time to look for examples right now. P Aculeius (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

subcritical mass[edit]

Is it only me, but I see just "subcritical + mass" here? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

More like "sub" + "critical mass", since the term "critical mass" is probably much more familiar than the word "subcritical", and directly related to the topic of this entry. I believe that terms formed with prefixes and suffixes are usually includible, provided they meet the other criteria for inclusion; in this case probably the only question is whether the term is in actual use, and while it doesn't currently have any citations, it looks like it is used with a specific and regular meaning. It's not just any possible use of "subcritical" combined with any use of "mass", like the amount of an optional ingredient in a recipe, or an editorial board that gives insufficient scrutiny to submissions (you could use it to mean those things, but only humorously). So I think this one is a keeper. P Aculeius (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
There are no SOP's! QED. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
There is something to the above argument: if this is a sum, then rather sub- + (critical mass) or subcritical + critical mass where the + operator enables replacement. While critical mass at OneLook Dictionary Search finds multiple renowned dictionaries, subcritical mass at OneLook Dictionary Search finds almost nothing. Still, it seems that the reader would be better off with our having the entry. By the way, someone could nominate critical mass for deletion, arguing that the definition should be in critical entry; that would be talk:free variable case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


Moved from RFV - this belongs more properly in RFD Kiwima (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it fulfil our criteria for inclusion? I'm not all that convinced. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Three quotations are in the entry. The question remains whether they meet WT:BRAND, if WT:BRAND applies. The nomination does not state which specific criterion in CFI is being questioned; WT:BRAND is my buest guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Protestant Movement[edit]

Protestantism. Seems SoP. Equinox 16:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Let us consider undeletion of this, originally entered as "Robert Pattinson". This was failed in 2011 per Talk:RPattz, and the rationales provided there seem weak: "If we don't include Robert Pattinson, why include this? Also it's a proper noun." and "Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry." We have recently kept some space-free nicknames per Talk:J-Lo. As for policy, WT:NSE leaves editor discretion in keeping or deleting RPattz; the term does not come under "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted and delete J-Lo too. Cruft barren of etymological value. bd2412 T 21:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    Does Pattz generally refer to someone named Pattinson? By the way, I now noticed we have R-Pattz, which survived RFD as part of Talk:J-Lo nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Undelete, as an alternative form of R-Pattz. Terms used for individuals have lexicographical value, even if some editors would rather dismiss pop culture lexicography as "cruft". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Undelete, to be consistent with the results at Talk:J-Lo where R-Pattz was kept. This is not a terribly valuable entry, but it is a proper name with no space and no hyphen in it, and these I generally favor including as long as they are attested; WT:NSE leaves editor discretion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Should we also include Ice Cube, Antigirl, Psy, etc.? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pricasso is an entry that really annoys me, heh. Equinox 23:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    I removed many mention (not use) quotations from Citations:Pricasso, but there are still enough to have this attested, so it won't fail RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


Comic book and its main character. Equinox 19:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think delete. Any comic strip (pretty sure it's a newspaper comic, not really a comic book) or its characters can be alluded to, but I don't think the character is familiar enough to have lexical meaning beyond a direct allusion. Isolated from context, calling someone "a phantom" or "the Phantom" could suggest various phantoms or Phantoms in various media. This might be different from familiar catchphrases, such as "the Shadow knows" (a character from a radio serial, but comparable, IMO), which might be used isolated from their original context, with a distinct meaning, which isn't immediately apparent to everyone. P Aculeius (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete for sure, and all its translations. WT:FICTION PseudoSkull (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

give me liberty or give me death[edit]

Literal meaning; famous quotation. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 17:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]


"Used on words borrowed from other languages, especially French, as a reminder that the final "e" is not silent". That's not a suffix! That's just not removing the é on the word that you borrowed. I note that the associated "words suffixed with é" category is empty (red link). Equinox 01:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the idea was actually to explain the odd acute accent on, say, animé. Regardless, that's not *animeé (anime + ), so delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Is anyone actually going to look for this? I am leaning towards delete. DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete per above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Move to é as an English letter. The explanation is necessary and useful, but not as a suffix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Move per Shinji above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Move. —suzukaze (tc) 01:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Am okay with the move. We do need to avoid treating this as a suffix. Equinox 01:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, we may have more reason to move the article to ´. If we separate precisely, the grapheme added is ◌́ U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, even though it possibly does not appear on an other letter than e. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC) What is a “suffix” in graphemology called though? Palaestrator verborum (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


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

  • I don't know, we have Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. bd2412 T 01:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I expanded that definition now. I'd say keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Citations meeting WT:FICTION would be useful here. bd2412 T 00:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Isn't it a matter of WT:RFVE with consideration of WT:FICTION? If it gets attesedt, it get's keeped; if it doesn't get attested, it get's deleted.
        If it was a matter of wording, wouldn't it belong to WT:RFC? - 00:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

world's oldest profession[edit]

As with world's oldest occupation, deleted above. world's + oldest profession. bd2412 T 17:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Tempted to keep or redirect. "Oldest profession" doesn't necessarily imply "world's oldest profession". What happens when we send a bunch of uptight Puritans to Mars like we did with America? Equinox 04:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep or redirect. I've only ever heard it mentioned as the three words, to the point that it could be considered a set phrase. --Dmol (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

risk tolerance[edit]

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

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

burn in hell[edit]

Per Robin Lionheart in an old RFC, this seems like SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Convert into an interjection. I wouldn’t say that it’s any more verbal than go fuck yourself, but it’s just as interjective. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The Czech translation for the verb phrase is "smažit v pekle", but "smažit" is not a translation of "burn" but rather "fry". Other languages could have similarly useful idiomatic translation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
That's true. In German you "braise" (schmoren) in hell. Also, I suspect with a little effort we could evidence of this phrase being used nonliterally. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

local variable[edit]

global variable[edit]

In an RFC in 2012, User:SemperBlotto and User:CodeCat expressed support for deleting these entries... but nobody ever bothered to send them to RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. (I would also prefer not to have "free variable", "prime number" and friends.) Equinox 23:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
A small representative handful of other things that you might encounter in programming (from GBooks): "local constant", "local instance", "local scope", "global object", "global static variable", "local integer variable": you get the idea. Equinox 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
These are largely variations on "variable", except perhaps for scope. Injectablity in between does not bother me any more than with phrasal verbs. The definition at local is designed for variables anyway rather than scopes: "Having limited scope (either lexical or dynamic); only being accessible within a certain portion of a program". To me, local variable is a natural location, as is static variable (redlink), prime number and red dwarf. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. We have the relevant sense of local ("(computing, of a variable or identifier) Having limited scope (either lexical or dynamic); only being accessible within a certain portion of a program." and global ("Of a variable, accessible by all parts of a program.") DCDuring (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
In Talk:free variable, you voted delete, consistent with your present vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

be on about[edit]

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



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

  • Clear delete --P5Nd2 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Defined as "A rating of 0 on the Fujita scale" where Fujita scale is a scale for rating tornado intensity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

1/4 d[edit]

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

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

is it going to rain[edit]

Survived RFD in 2006. Back then, of course, WT was run by amateurs...--WF on Holiday (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It has a large number of translations. DonnanZ (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
So does "It has a large number of translations". --WikiTiki89 20:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Unsure, keep-ish. Usually, I like to keep some phrasebook entries, and I like the arguments given at Talk:is it going to rain. @Dan Polansky, would you like to check if this passes your lemming heuristic? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Really? I see no good arguments there. Even Stephen's first argument is not so great. Every language has a way of saying "it is raining", a way of speaking about future events, and way of turning a statement into a yes-or-no question. The only potential reason to keep this is for the phrasebook. --WikiTiki89 21:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if we could have a phrasebook entry is it going to ... for questions like that. (obviously, including but not limited to is it going to rain, is it going to snow, is it going to explode and whatever) Would it work for all languages, or maybe not? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You'd essentially just end up translating "will" or the future tense (e.g. in French, "il pleuvra?" = "it will-rain"?). Equinox 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep using the lemming heuristic for phrasebook: google books:"is it going to rain" phrasebook, i.e. multiple phrasebooks have the phrase. The phrase is probably not terribly useful, but using the heuristic allows us to put some algorithmic or mechanical limit on inclusion of phrasebook items, with the risk of overinclusion. google books:"is it going to snow" phrasebook also finds three independent phrasebooks, and would be included using the heuristic. google books:"is it going to explode" phrasebook suggests exclusion. I don't like template-like entries like is it going to ...; as a user, I much prefer to extract the pattern from a fuller example. Thus, I like to include I am twenty years old while excluding other examples of the same pattern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Make it a phrasebook entry. It will fit well with its companions. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It was already in the phrasebook as per the category present; I now added the gaudy phrasebook box as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: What is the rationale? Is the vote based on policy? (It does not necessarily have to be, just asking.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm very wary of these phrasebook entries; I consider them outside the scope of a dictionary, and don't want to have them in the mainspace. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

do you believe in God[edit]

Phrasebook entry. It is not the kind of phrase that commonly appears in phrasebooks, being present in five phrasebooks by two different publishers. It's probably also not very useful, who's going to use this in an unfamiliar foreign language? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

google books:"do you believe in God" "phrasebook" is a search finding what you report. The results are not terribly many, and one can argue that two publishers do not yield 3-independence, but they are not so bad. (These considerations are about the lemming heuristic for the phrasebook, and are not based on an actual formal policy, which is in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. If we apply Dan's (rather lenient) phrasebook rules with any consistency, this has got to go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

state capital[edit]

"The capital city of any state, of the United States of America. Usage notes: almost never used to refer to capitals of states other than US States." Not true; often used e.g. of Indian states; so SoP. Equinox 19:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, but reword: I don't see why this needed to be put up for deletion. It could easily be fixed by rewording the definition and either rewording or abandoning the usage notes. Purplebackpack89 19:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Deletion because SoP. If "X Y" can be rephrased "the Y of an X" it's usually straightforward: tractor parts are parts of a tractor; chocolate eaters are eaters of chocolate; a state capital is the capital of a state. But let's not rehash this yet again. Equinox 21:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ironically, because the entry exists, I changed some entries from [[state]] [[capital]] to [[state capital]]. There is also Category:en:State capitals of Brazil as well as Category:en:State capitals of the United States of America. DonnanZ (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I would keep this, if only because both state and capital have multiple meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    The same is true of red car = red + car. —This unsigned comment was added by Equinox (talkcontribs).
    State and capital each have multiple meanings, and state capital can refer to virtually any combination of those meanings. --WikiTiki89 16:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. SoP. DCDuring (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
IMO not the same. Since when was state a colour? Keep per Semper. DonnanZ (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Adjectives with multiple definitions don't count? How about wall art, kitchen counter, banana box, sofa cushion, craft fair. We could continue to fill this thing up with such entries, if we want make-work. DCDuring (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
And there's harm in that why? If people want to spend their time creating those things, and we have to allow those things to allow clearly-much-more-necessary definitions like "state capital", then I'm for allowing them. Purplebackpack89 14:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89 It creates illusion about the nature of English, which has all sorts of SoP noun phrases. They are not restricted in meaning, except in context. For example, nothing prevents state capital from being used to indicate a capital letter that appeared depending on a state variable in a program or capital controlled by the state, as in state capitalism. Hell, someone might decide to construct it as term in which capital is a postpositive adjective. DCDuring (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You know that the possibility of people doing that hurts the case for this being SOP, right? Purplebackpack89 13:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't help it if some people's thinking about the purpose of a dictionary is wrong. A dictionary is NOT intended to document all the possible attestable meanings of every possible attestable word combination.
If there are multiple possible meanings, then one has recourse to the lexicon for the possible meanings of the components, selecting the ones that make sense in context.
Why do you think the meaning of one combination of component definitions should be singled out? The one of greatest frequency? Do you know of any sources of such information or is your opinion supposed to be sufficient. I realize that you would rather not be limited by facts, let alone the need to gather facts. but that stance does not help us make Wiktionary into a reliable source of lexical information.
Do dictionary users really need our help in sorting out the relevant, contextual meaning from the various transparent combinations of component meanings? DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP. As for being U.S.-specific, I suspect state capitol (referring to a building) has a better claim on that than state capital (referring to a city) does. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am unsure about this one. On the one hand, it’s a straightforward sum of state and capital. On the other, while you can always understand red + car and brown + leaf given enough context, no amount of context (or geopolitical knowledge) will help you know that a state capital is the capital of a state (national subdivision), but not the capital of a state (sovereign polity). I could be wrong, but would you answer Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel, or Tokyo (State of Japan), when asked for an example of a state capital? The case seems similar to that of fried egg. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    I probably wouldn't answer Jerusalem or Tokyo when asked for an example of a state capital; but I also wouldn't answer Israel or Japan when asked for an example of a state. As an American, the "national subdivision" sense is so strongly entrenched that the "sovereign polity" sense wouldn't occur to me. But if I were reminded of it, then yes, I would say Jerusalem and Tokyo are also state capitals. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    If more native speakers use state capital the same way as Angr, my vote is delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't be confused with state capitol either, which is a building (List of state capitols in the United States). DonnanZ (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I looked on Trove - Australia has "state capitals" - so not exclusively a US thing. Also plenty of cites for such as "Tel Aviv Becomes State Capital" - which would be a different sense. I lean towards Keep, with two defs. But very SoP-ish, it cannot be denied.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 16:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Abstain: My first instinct was to keep it since "state" may all too easily confuse non-native speakers like me, who may fail to distinguish "state" from "country". But I don't really know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

make good time[edit]

I'm not convinced. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:E0D4:8FEB:9536:5A23 17:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

2a02:2788:a4:f44:e0d4:8feb:9536:5a23 created this page and immediately RFDed it. I thought that was silly and therefore deleted it, but he/she wants it to go thru RFD process, so... here we are. Equinox 19:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it should be kept - nothing is actually "made" here. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Abstain. You can "make bad time" too, so I suppose "better, worse, terrible, excellent" etc. might well be attestable. Unfortunately, make has 31 senses. Equinox 19:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Or lose time. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
You can say someone is "doing excellent time" (I like to use "excellent" because it reduces interference from things like a prison sense of "good time", and some set phrases). You don't have to use an adjective either- "really making time" works just fine as an description of high speed (I've also seen "making time like crazy"). I also think there's a closely-related sense of "in [adjective] time", as in "arrive in excellent time" or "make the trip in excellent time" (not "at an opportune time" or "very much in time" but "in a short length of time"). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Bearing in mind it doesn't mean the same as make time, I wonder if the definition is a bit crappy, should it be "proceed at a satisfactory rate"? DonnanZ (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I have split the original definition line into its three non-synonymous parts. Only the first is familiar to me (and to the three OneLook references that have entries for make good time). DCDuring (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep, but I only know one sense, which is something like "To proceed at a good pace relative to one's schedule", which is like present sense 1, but the idea of "relative to one's schedule" seems to me to be important to the meaning. Mihia (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete - this is already covered at make time as far as I can see - here 'good' is used typically - and you can make poor time, make excellent time, make shitty time, etc.; no need for entries for all of these. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

fringe science[edit]

Science that is fringe (adjective sense: "outside the mainstream"). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete; replace with {{no entry|w:Fringe science|lang=en|because=rfdfailed}} or something better that entirely suppressed the confusing portion of the text inside the box. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

academic institution[edit]

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

Per the entry, the point seems to be that this applies to "higher education" (e.g. university) but not to something like high school, even though that is also academic. Equinox 23:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep DCDuring (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I created that in Feb 2008, at which time I was a bit over 1 year Wiktionary-old, and I don't know what I thought at the time. In any case, above, Equinox makes a good point. On a different note, from the definition ("educational institution ...", a research-only institution does not pass as "academic", right? I think the definition would benefit from exemplification and counter-exemplification. I don't know whether the definition is right; I took it from WP, as indicated in the creation edit summary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Move to RfV. It is not clear to me that the English-speaking community as a whole excludes high schools from the definition. I have found uses that exclude trade schools, but include "college-prep" high schools, some that include all high schools. I wouldn't be surprised to find definitions that excluded professional training programs, such as in business, engineering, law, nursing, teaching, and medicine. The use of the collocation seems quite flexible.
It may be difficult to find usage citations that unambiguously support a non-SoP definition. DCDuring (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

residents' committee[edit]

SoP? Not exclusive to Singapore? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Even if you find use outside of Singapore: The use shown on the page and on the web shows bureaucratic formalization of such committes which lexicalizes the composition beyond its constituent words. And this is definitely one of those things one looks up in one. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 15:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Nah. Any non-SoP-ness is encyclopedic. Mihia (talk)
Keep - I believe the use of this term while it may not be exclusive to Singapore is pretty significant to Singaporeans, and the usage does not only show its bureaucratic formation but I believe it goes beyond the constituent words towards relating the term to an identity that Singaporeans could relate to. Missuniverseworldforever (talk)
Delete: regardless of how the entity is formed, ultimately the term is still SoP as it is a committee made up of residents, or dealing with issues relating to residents. Let's say in some fictional country the legislature is made up of people appointed by the absolute ruler of the country instead of being democratically elected. We would still describe this as "a governmental body with the power to make, amend and repeal laws", and I doubt it would be correct for us to add a sense indicating that in XYZ country the legislators are appointed rather than elected. That sort of information is for Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete per SGconlaw. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep - actually I believe the term is more than sum or parts, because inherent in the term "residents" is that it is the residents of a block of apartments or an estate of apartment blocks, it is not just any residents - SoP would be a committee of any residents in any meaning of the word, for instance if I form a committee with some people who are all residents of Australia, then I wouldn't call that a "residents' committee". Similarly you can't (or don't) have a residents' committee for people living in detached houses on a certain street, even though they are all residents of the same street. That said, I don't think it is specifically Singaporean, and the def needs changing to a more general def.. - 00:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why residents of any type of community in any country cannot form a committee and have it called a "residents' committee". Mihia (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not about whether they 'can' but whether they 'do'. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Google search finds dozens of mentions of "residents' committee" that are nothing to do with Singapore. I imagine that these committees typically have broadly similar aims to what the Singapore definition says. In English, "residents' committee" is just a generic term. In any particular locale there may be certain region-specific issues, but it is not the job of a dictionary to explain all of these. Mihia (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

happy dance[edit]

"A dance that conveys happiness." Unless it is a specific dance with particular motions, this seems SoP. Equinox 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

When it's just a dance that's happy, the stress pattern is ˌhappy ˈdance and it's SOP. But when it's a dance that expresses happiness (you often hear people say "This is my happy dance!"), then the stress pattern is ˈhappy ˌdance and it isn't SOP. (The stress pattern parallels the difference between ˌhot ˈdog "a very warm canine" and ˈhot ˌdog "a type of sausage". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
If you were asked to name your "happy place" or "happy song", wouldn't you also stress the first syllable? Should these too have entries on that basis? Possibly the distinction is that stressing "happy" means it's something that makes you happy, while stressing the noun means it's something that is itself happy...? Equinox 15:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've heard "happy song" used that way, but I do think happy place is worth an entry. It isn't a place that's happy, it's a place (often just a state of mind, a place in your imagination) that makes you happy. If the usual expressions were "happiness dance" and "happiness place", I'd say they were SOP, but I feel like "happy dance" and "happy place" in the relevant meanings are idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the difference in stress pattern has more to do with the nature of the first part rather than whether it's a true compound: "happy dance" seems to be short for something along the lines of "(I-am-)happy dance", and the stress pattern seems to be different for a phrase being used attributively. I can imagine someone saying "she's doing her I'm-hot-and-you're-all-losers dance again", with an equivalent stress pattern. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
To me, the stress thing seems no different from innumerable other examples such as "Mine is the blue suitcase" or "A good criminal is a dead criminal", where you are emphasising that it is one type of thing rather than another type of thing. Whether the "conveys" part of the supposed definition "a dance that conveys happiness" is sufficient to justify the entry seems rather doubtful to me. Mihia (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think your examples are analogous. Yours are stressing a word because there are others to compare it with ("mine is the blue suitcase, not the red one"). A happy dance isn't being compared with a sad one. Equinox 03:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Whether a compound or an adjective + noun, it is still SOP. The entry began as a request for a slang definition, but I can't find anything that seems like a separate meaning. There are some cases where it means "overwhelming experience of the senses or emotions" or "sexual intercourse" that are little more than ad hoc metaphors. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Transparent. DCDuring (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


I don't think it's a suffix, but an element of compounds. See Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/October#-works. Equinox 12:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

pineapple tart[edit]

pineapple tarts

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, seems no worse than apple pie. Equinox 16:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Apple pie in the literal sense probably wouldn't survive RfD. DCDuring (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Do I have to go to Singapore to find one? It sounds interesting enough to keep, sounds delicious too. DonnanZ (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
They seem to be associated with Chinese New Year. They also come in different shapes; I have added an image to the entry, here's another with rolled ones. DonnanZ (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete as SoP, I think. Unlike apple pie, it doesn't have any figurative sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep - as per egg tart and treacle tart - these are not tarts filled with pineapple, but rather some pineapple-flavoured concoction; "pineapple-flavoured tart" would be SoP.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Pineapple tarts are either filled with or topped with sweetened, mashed pineapple. I don't see how this makes it not SoP. The definition itself is essentially "[a] […] pastry filled with pineapple jam". Most food ingredients are processed in some way and not used whole, and I don't think the processing involved in this case has been sufficiently transformative. In the case of egg tarts, for instance, they are filled with an egg-based custard which is quite different from raw eggs. But I wouldn't suggest we add apple tart, rhubarb crumble, etc., simply because the named ingredient has been cooked and sweetened in some way. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it is more than just a case of being SoP. I for one didn't know what a pineapple tart is, so I have learnt something. I don't think they are well known in the western world, and I wonder whether a Singaporean knows what a Bakewell tart is. BTW, an egg tart sounds a bit like a custard tart in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
That's what we have Wikipedia for ... ;-) — SGconlaw (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
... which is fine for more detail. DonnanZ (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP, lexically uninteresting. The details belong in an encyclopaedia. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep – [The tart is not simply SoP, instead it really is a different kind of tart as compared to any other fruit tart. It's bite-sized yet called a tart, so that one way to see it as being different. The cultural context also plays a part here - in the Singapore context, pineapple tarts aren't open-faced tarts to be sliced and shared. They're called pineapple tarts yet do not fit into the general conventions of how a tart usually looks like. ] - Buluketiakasmara (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC) [moved this here as comment put in wrong place] - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A type of large Bakewell tart that is sliced for eating
In this case, size doesn't seem like a reliable guide to whether the term is SoP or not. We define a tart as "[a] type of small open pie, or piece of pastry, containing jelly or conserve". However, that covers a wide variety of tarts, including some types of Bakewell tart which are actually the size of a pie and usually sliced for eating (see image), store-bought Bakewell tarts which are much smaller (pictured on the Bakewell tart entry page), and the bite-sized pineapple tarts which are the subject of this discussion. In other words, there is no fixed convention of how large or small a tart is. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

fire at will[edit]

Seems like it's just fire and at will combined. You can "shoot at will" or "stab at will" or "hit at will" or just "watch TV at will" if, for some bizarre reason, you don't want to harm anyone.

The usage notes suggest it's more than that, at least in the military. Equinox 21:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Does it? That's the same usage as any other verb. "Sleep!" means "go to sleep now" just like "Fire!" does. "Sleep at will" means "sleep whenever you like" just like "fire at will" does. 21:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely a set form. Compare something like "fire as you wish". bd2412 T 01:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd say delete. Could at will have been extracted from this specific phrase and applied to other verbs, btw? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Easy to find numerous examples of "[VERB] at will" at Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete What makes the imperative form so special? march#Verb can be used as a command. We have no verb entry for cease fire or return fire. Though we may have many commands, presumably because they are not completely transparent (not SoP), we are not obliged to have entries for all the commands ever to appear in any English-language military manual. DCDuring (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
We should have an entry for cease fire - both as a set phrase for the command to literally stop firing a weapon (and by derivation, to stop being hostile even when no weapon is involved), and as WT:COALMINE attested alternate spelling of ceasefire. bd2412 T 04:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that COALMINE applies because "cease fire" is a verb while "ceasefire" is a noun. Equinox 15:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox I mean that the noun is sometimes spelled with the space, i.e., 2004, R. Elizabeth Migliore, Evening Flower: "On August 4 there was a cease fire in Java, the battle had lasted all of two weeks"; 1996, Tom Sine, Cease Fire: Searching for Sanity in America's Culture Wars, p. 280: "I also encourage all of us to begin the cease fire in America's culture war by taking the initiative of inviting someone from the other camp to lunch". bd2412 T 16:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm I don't like it, but usage rules! Equinox 03:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe there is benefit in including set-phrase SoPs, if the rules can be framed to accommodate this. Mihia (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a phrase that had been in use for a long time. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    So have so many expressions. DCDuring (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The ambiguity is speech has come to wide public attention in the US: [15]. DCDuring (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

bleed to death[edit]

Looks sum of parts to me. You can do anything "to death". 23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete. To death has a literal (SoP) and a figurative meaning. Bleed to death uses the literal one. DCDuring (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Other references, including MWOnline, have it. [[bleed out]] (synonymous) has several translations. DCDuring (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • How is “to die from massive loss of blood, usually from severe arterial bleeding” different from “used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning”? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

smoke dope[edit]

The first def is SoP. Someone might have thought otherwise because dope most classically in the modern era means heroin, but "smoke dope" is often used for marijuana. But dope is really rather vague and can also mean marijuana (especially in Canada I think? At least in Sunnydale Trailer Park). In any case, any idiomaticity accrues to dope, not smoke dope.

The second def also seems useless IMHO. It's just using an expression non-literally, as all expressions can be used. I can say "he's tripping" even if I know he's not on a hallucinogen, it just means he's acting as though he is on a hallucinogen. I don't see how "smoking dope" is any different. 00:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete def 1. Totally SoP. But, if def. 2 is real and attestable, then it should possibly be kept. Though, I don't know the term and wonder if it really is a set phrase with that meaning. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete only def 1, or replace with {{&lit|smoke|dope}}.
I would claim widespread use for definition 2, which is clearly figurative and not SoP. DCDuring (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Def 1 RFD failed and converted to an {{&lit}} (which I placed at the end, as is customary, so it's now listed as def 2). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

fall to pieces[edit]

Both senses seem SoP, one relying on a literal to + pieces, the other on idiomatic to pieces. DCDuring (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Slightly hesitant because it seems very common. And to draw an analogy I wouldn't be bothered with having French tomber en pièces/tomber en ruine(s?). --Barytonesis (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, not the usual sense of fall - as when a book falls to pieces, nothing has to actually fall anywhere. Certainly not transparent, but just so common in English that it seems transparent. Sense 2 is definitely not understandable from SoP, being a metaphorical extension of sense 1. The fact that we've created an entry for "to pieces" (supposedly being discussed in the Tea room but I cannot see any discussion) is not a good reason for deleting this because it is very unlikely that anyone would look up "to pieces" if they came across "fall to pieces" and wanted to understand its meaning.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    Not the most common, but common: fall ("to change into the state described by words following"), eg, fall asleep, fall into disrepair. DCDuring (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
There is definitely some kind of "standard metaphor" by which a person can be reduced to pieces (by various verbs, even just the flavourless "GO to pieces"). There are other types of breakage that don't really "work": someone would only shatter, crack, or smash in a poetic context, if at all. But "...to pieces" can take a zillion verbs. I feel as though we should cover some of these metaphors (God knows how) but I don't think that creating entries for every possible verb is the way. Equinox 13:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
We could make redirects to [[to pieces]] from as many of the collocations as we care to. DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I can't think of many of the zillion other verbs - fall, go, bring are the most frequent in this particular sense afaik, - we could just cover these. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Love, kick, smash, cut, shoot, slice, rip, tear, blast, blow, break, chop, dance, crumble, hack, shred, shatter, dismantle, break, fracture, and spin are some. Most can be found in both literal and figurative usage. DCDuring (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
love goes with def 2 "completely, utterly", all of the others go with def 1 "apart" - but I don't think any of these go with sense 4 "into a state of emotional breakdown", which I believe goes with very few verbs and since this is not the most common meaning, nor one that is likely to be understood by someone who doesn't understand "fall to pieces" and wishes to look it up, having an entry is good dictionary practice. Don't we want the dictionary to be as useful as possible? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I lost my way in the discussion and drifted off into the "apart" definition. DCDuring (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: Merriam-Webster has it, with 3 senses[16]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

take to pieces[edit]

SoP: take + to pieces ("apart"). DCDuring (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. The collocation is different in French, though: mettre en pièces ("to put into pieces"). --Barytonesis (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of verbs that can take the place of take, each giving the expression somewhat different meaning. Fall, kick, crush, even dance. There are also verbs that collocate with into pieces (SoP, IMO), like render, break, some of which work with to pieces also. DCDuring (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 13:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: the phrase does no make much sense to me when read literally. And using the lemming heuristic: Merriam-Webster has it[17]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

critically acclaimed[edit]

A common collocation, yes, but I'm not sure that warrants an entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, purely SOP. bd2412 T 23:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. "Critically" in this sense means "by critics", or "in terms of the criticism". Sth can be critically derided, applauded, etc. etc... Equinox 23:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete In cases like this where the collocation is very common (10% of current usage of acclaimed, 2.5% of critically [Google Books]), we really should follow the practice of making sure that one or both of the component terms has a usage example the includes the collocation. I have added one at [[acclaimed]]. DCDuring (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, just a collocation. That said, it is sometimes spelled "critically-acclaimed" where it works as a single compound adjective - this should be in I guess -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    Not really. Some people always hyphenate between an -ly adverb and an adjective (though style guides tell you not to); that doesn't make it any more idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    Yep, those people are just weird. ("have a very-nice day!") Equinox 13:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    You mean "just-weird". —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 03:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
    And what about critically-acclaimed? Deleting the space-version and keeping the hypen-version would be a bad idea (cp. WT:COALMINE: SOPs can stay if there is a non-SOP alternative single word spelling).
    Trying to RFD critically-acclaimed here too without even mentioning it and placing an RFD tag in that entry, would be devious. - 03:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • RFD failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

prohibition sign[edit]

As with #high voltage sign (to be archived at Talk:high voltage sign) and the like, this is semiotic rather than linguistic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rolling Stones[edit]

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

I'll admit that the quotation points to a genericized usage, however. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Then we need an entry for Millard Fillmore because the following is just one of many instances of its use:
  • 1985, Randy Roberts, Papa Jack: Jack Johnson And The Era Of White Hopes[18], page 43:
    He was the Millard Fillmore of the boxing world.
Some more:
  • 2001, Joe Queenan, My Goodness: A Cynic's Short-Lived Search for Sainthood[19], page 32:
    The first is Pericles, the mighty Athenian king, widely viewed as the Fiorello LaGuardia of his time.
  • 1905, William Watts Hart Davis, A Genealogical and Personal History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania[20]:
    One of Mr. Nightingale's admirers recently spoke of him as the "Zachary Taylor of the Baptist ministry."
  • 2006, Mike Davis, City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles[21], page 190:
    Even in 1978, when the Assembly (AB 283) flatly ordered Los Angeles to bring its zoning practices into conformity with its General Plan, Mayor Bradley — acting like the Orville Faubus of pro-growth — encouraged the Planning Department to malinger in heroic fashion.
IOW, IMO, Delete, unless we really do want to become a short-attention-span encyclopedia. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
For a really funny list of many more, see this passage in Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
We have an entry for Beatles, and a number of other Proper Nouns for people, e.g. Cicero, Homer.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the point about the usage example. This kind of "the X of Y" is a standard pattern of English usage that can be used with essentially any proper noun X. Mihia (talk)
Delete for the reason given by Mihia. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete as currently defined (the band). I don't like the "Beatles of the 21st century"-type entries either but we do seem to have a historical consensus of inclusion; I have raised such entries for deletion before and been disagreed with. Equinox 14:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep, but alter the definition to cover the genericized use. When something is called the "Rolling Stones" of some field, the relevant point is not that they are a successful and long-lived band, it is that they had that "bad-boy" image, in contrast to the more innocent image of the Beatles. If someone looks up a proper noun like this in the dictionary, as opposed to in an encyclopedia, it is because they want to know what you mean by "the Rolling Stones of voice-over artists." The current definition does not answer that. Kiwima (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I myself am very curious about what might be meant by "the Mussolini of mulligatawny". I don't think a dictionary can or should address that. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
By that token we would have to include in the dictionary virtually every proper noun in existence and explain each of their potential attributes or associations. Mihia (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: "virtually every proper noun in existence": Far from it. A fraction of all proper names has this kind of "the X of Y" usage attested. And we could set a higher threshold for the number of such uses attested, if required, to limit the volume of included items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
For standard patterns that are used ad hoc, the issue of attestation is not very relevant. Mihia (talk)
There might be grounds for altering CFI to include such proper names that have attestable derived terms (Homeric, Ciceronian). DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I have heard worse ideas. Equinox 03:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Governed by WT:NSE, and thus, up to editor discretion. As for "Millard Fillmore", that is excluded by current CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." The "X of Y" pattern is a usual construction, sure, but far from every attested proper name has such usage attested, and therefore, the pattern does provide a filter, an element potentially usable in guiding inclusion and exclusion of proper names. Returning back to "Millard Fillmore", google books:"the Millard Fillmore of" finds 24 hits in total but not all independent. By wading through google books:"the Rolling Stones of", I find more relevant usages (and many irrelevant ones). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's the Rolling Stones of, the Beatles of, the Bee Gees of at Google Ngram Viewer; "the Bee Gees of" is not found there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Bottle of Dog[edit]

Bottle of Dog is a Geordie synonym for (a bottle of) Newcastle Brown Ale. The tem is derived from the phrase "taking the dog for a walk" such that to "walk the dog" means to drink Newcastle Brown Ale. I've added a definition to Dog as a synonym for Newcastle Brown Ale (and indeed copied the etymology across to there). It looks to me as though that makes Bottle of Dog redundant as SOP. -Stelio (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

pioneer generation[edit]

This is given a very specific Singaporean definition, but just about every place or group that has a definite beginning and a multi-generational history can be spoken of as having a "pioneer generation", with various nuances in the senses of pioneer and generation used, depending on the context. Yes, there are differences in the context of Singapore, but those are for an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. A lot of these Singaporean English entries make me cringe... And what's the deal with all the accounts? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe it's a class being set homework of creating entries. The teacher popped up last time we had a lot of them. Equinox 16:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete: as with grassroots leader and pineapple tart, I remain unconvinced that these terms are not SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. We are getting a lot of Singapore crap recently. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Although I think "pioneer generation" may have been a good candidate to delete - can I ask, what's the deal with just deleting it without giving other editors who can't check things out every day a chance to vote? Is there some sort of due process, or not? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You can still vote on it- entries can be undeleted very easily. I agree, though, that it would have been better to leave it until the vote was done, so people could find out about the vote. I understand why he did it, though: you'd be amazed at the sheer volume of garbage edits we see and deal with every day, and he spends more time than the rest of us dealing with the mess. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
It's harder to make an informed judgment when you only have the entry name to go by, though. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, if voting is still open then we should be able to see the proposed definition. If the decision has already been made to delete it then voting should not still be open. Mihia (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I can imagine the amount of utter rubbish that must be getting added - but I feel my imagination must fall short of the reality. Also, I recognise it is a great task that the administrators do and they deserve all praise. I would have liked, however, to see the entry before it was deleted since in the Singapore context the word "pioneer" has a very specific meaning (one imposed by the government, but used throughout the country) that is not captured by the current definitions. So it would have been good to see what had been written even though it was in a transparent compound (i.e. SOP) - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The def was: "A special group of people born on/before 31 Dec 1949 and possess Singapore citizenship on/before 31 Dec 1986, who are given this title to recognise their contributions to Singapore's early development". Equinox 20:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It looks clearly not SoP, with a decidedly specific meaning, though only understood in defined sense in Singapore. See w:Pioneer Generation Package.) Pioneer seems as much an includable honorific, IMO, as Her Majesty. DCDuring (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I wrote too quickly. Lowercase pioneer is more like millennial. It is in part an honorific and seems to have been defined as an administrative class for purposes of eligibility for certain benefits.
pioneer generation is a lot like Generation X. DCDuring (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel that would be going down the slippery slope of having entries like Court of Appeal (the final appellate court of Singapore). That's the job of Wikipedia, not the Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
We already cross that line arbitrarily whenever we feel like it. Snow White is a book title. Pecksniff (as defined) is a fictional character. Hundred Years' War is... a war... if we can have a war, I suppose we can have a court. They aren't brands as such (I'm sure the éminences grises are gnashing their teeth and trying to make these things brands). I do suspect we might be too quick to delete apparently-SoP Asian phrases because we (mostly) aren't Asian and they don't mean much to us. — Sgconlaw excepted of course! Equinox 02:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There is an entry for court of appeal, but I don't think there is a need for a capitalised proper noun. DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhodie bar[edit]

SOP Kiwima (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

male privilege[edit]

female privilege[edit]

Both SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete both. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete both. Meaning is transparent. What are considered valid examples is not. DCDuring (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I created white privilege at some point - in case anyone thinks it falls under the same criteria. Equinox 20:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


This just seems like it's a combination of -acea and -an. Both words suffixed with "-acean" just show a word ending in "acea" + "-an" in their etymologies. Crustacean is Crustacea + -an, not crust + -acean. It's not crusta (the Latin root of crustacean) + -acean either, because the word "crustacean" refers to a member of the subphylum Crustacea, hence the addition of "-an." —Globins (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete, metanalysis. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

right man[edit]

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

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

"If it exists at all" sounds like a matter for WT:RFVE. "bad plural" sounds like a matter for WT:RFC (bad plural created by template {{en-noun}}). "bad caps" sounds like a matter for WT:RFVE or WT:RFC. I can't see any RFD relevant argument (like SOP, or maybe non-standard SMS/chat/internet mis-capitalisation which could be a reason to delete non-capitalised English proper nouns). 04:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Blood in the Water[edit]

A particular water polo match from 1956. Looks encyclopedic to me. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see a reason for this entry to exist. —Globins (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ditto, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Governed by WT:NSE. The interesing thing is the naming, that is, that this kind of name is applied to a polo match. WT:NSE leaves editor discretion; "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means" may be considered as an auxiliary inclusion criterion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


Name of a Web site. If removed, please fix link at Redditor. Equinox 20:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there are probably attestations for this. What's the policy on website names? —Globins (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
WT:BRAND and Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names, I think. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
WT:CFI - maybe section for brand names or names of specific entities? Anyhow, website names can be included as e.g. Wikipedia, YouTube (the proper noun), hence there's no proper reason for deletion. If there are any doubts about attestation, it would be a matter for WT:RFVE. - 03:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep but RfV as a brand. DCDuring (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep and RFV per DCD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

if ye please[edit]

Equinox 22:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

And why should it be deleted?
  • If the unuttered argument is "SOP", then doesn't it also apply to if you please?
  • If the unuttered argument is "lacks (or misses) attestation (or citations, quotations, cites, quotes)", then this belongs to WT:RFVE.
  • If there is no argument at all, then there is no argument why it should be deleted.
- 04:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

bluff out[edit]

This doesn't seem idiomatic to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

For some reason people feel that a verb plus adverbial out usually makes a "phrasal verb". This one might be a bit like fake out. DCDuring (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
And see bluff out at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
So is that a vote for deletion? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The meaning of "bluff out" that I know typically has a dummy "it" as its object, i.e. "bluff it out", meaning try to bluff one's way through a situation. Mihia (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
That's why it looks to me just like bluff + out, which makes it SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
My feeling is that bluff out, tough out, brave out, etc. are sufficiently unpredictable and idiomatic to deserve separate entries. Mihia (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

crowd in on[edit]

This doesn't seem idiomatic to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

To me neither, but see crowd in on at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"crowd in on" is a known expression to me (BrE). I guess there is a question about whether there should be an entry at crowd in instead of or in addition to this one. Mihia (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks SoP to me: crowd + in + on. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

emergent evolution[edit]

SOP with the new sense at emergent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom's pretty good definition of emergent. Most dictionaries, even the online ones, don't have any good definition for that kind of usage. DCDuring (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Also, the new def of emergent looks good, but doesn't work too well for the phrase "emergent property": "a property having properties (...)". --Barytonesis (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

go clubbing[edit]

NISOP? seems like go + gerund, like go swimming, go running, go wenching etc. --Spreaderofwords (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems Sum of Parts to me. Why did DCDuring add it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Reduce to clubbing or even club. People go fishing and go hiking and go walking. Equinox 03:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
(They aren't as cool as the people who go clubbing though. Earlier I was out and somehow their YouTube broke and started stuttering and jumping like an old vinyl record. "IS THIS SKRILLEX" I said. Then everyone laughed and kissed me, then I won the lottery.) Equinox 03:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
dude — Kleio (t · c) 03:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete or make a redirect. But should add a usage note at "club" def 4 that it is most commonly used in this construction.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

For why I added it, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/August#Wiktionary: a translation dictionary only?. (Note that no one has added any translations.) In my Wiktionary I would have a usage example with the expression at club (not a citation BTW). A redirect would be a useful addition. But this isn't my Wiktionary. DCDuring (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: there was already one, but I've added another. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

double up as[edit]

See also #double as.

Not a good definition, but hard to understand as anything but double up + as. DCDuring (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please delete and/or kill with fire. We see a lot of these, like "exist as" or "look like" or "walk towards" (made--up examples, but it's an epidemic). I hate the whole vote/discussion/blah blah but I really think we need some policy. I have a vague clue about what is a phrasal verb and what isn't. I am sure we have other users who are more linguistically qualified. Can we create some kind of rule that stops stuff like "stand near" being created? Equinox 04:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree with deletion: double up + as. However, some sources consider these kinds of items to be phrasal verbs, "three-word phrasal verbs". double up as at OneLook Dictionary Search shows only Macmillan[22], having a soft redirect entry "same as double". By contrast, come out with is in M-W[23], Macmillan[24], oxforddictionaries.com[25]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
In the event that it's kept, the definition is wrong and should be changed. Both "To double up" and "to perform a secondary function" are intransitive (or include the object in the definition), whereas "double up as" is transitive. Mihia (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

pinched look[edit]

Delete as sum of parts? As for existence: google books:"pinched look", google groups:"pinched look", pinched look at OneLook Dictionary Search. Originally nominated by Equinox for RFV, but Kiwima changed it to RFD (diff). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete - we have a def of pinched "(of a person or their face) tense and pale from cold, worry, or hunger." (Mind you, I am unsure if this def is really correct, but that's irrelevant here). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. DCDuring (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 16:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


It is questionable whether this mainspace to Wikisaurus redirect should have been created. Now that the project is called Thesaurus, it should be deleted anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep as redirect to Thesaurus for benefit of those not familiar with the change who may remember Wikisaurus. DCDuring (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. This is a classic bad redirect — though we may not have an entry now, we could in the future, and there are a couple citations (though for what seem to be different senses) in durably archived media already. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
(Talk:Wikisaurus?) —suzukaze (tc) 05:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Was deleted before (en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikisaurus) and the reason "Bad redirection" should still apply. It shouldn't be too hard to type WT:Wikisaurus, WT:WS, WT:Thesaurus, *WT:TS? - 15:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It isn't difficult to TYPE; it's difficult to KNOW what to type the first time. DCDuring (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Either one knows the prefix "WT:" or "Wiktionary:", in which case it should be relatively easy to find WT:WS etc., or one doesn't know the prefix, in which case by the argument of finding the relevant WT page, the entries delete, deletion, remove too should point to WT:RFD, the entries verify, verification, attest, attestation to WT:RFV and so on. - 05:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

if you love someone, set them free[edit]

Not buying this as a proverb, nor that it was coined by Sting. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

keep - seems proverbial enough to me - a formulaic piece of sage wisdom. My Googling didn't turn up anything prior to the 1980s, which surprised me. I seem to remember it from before then. Is there some other form of it? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing references such as [26] to the fact that American author Richard Bach said: "If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if they don't they never were." However, Google Books doesn't appear to indicate the actual work by Bach in which it appears; perhaps this quotation is inaccurate. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It is also phrased as "If you love [someone, somebody, them], let them go". bd2412 T 19:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Not dictionary material. Mihia (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Move to Appendix:Mawkish platitudes. Equinox 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ice hockey player[edit]

Sum of parts. Kiwima (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Could be kept as a translation target. DTLHS (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The players of various sorts have been discussed earlier: tennis player, football player, baseball player, basketball player, chess player... If I recall right, they were kept because they can be professions. Golf player is missing, but a golf player is called golfer. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also hockey player and field hockey player. Ice hockey isn't played in a lot of countries, so the use of these terms can differ from country to country. I would say keep all of them. DonnanZ (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. As I pointed out for previous "X players" (though ignored by everyone), it's not specific to someone who does it professionally: you can be "a bad tennis player". These entries are precisely as silly as "euphonium player" would be. Equinox 02:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete this and all similar ones where the meaning is no more than "person who plays X". Mihia (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

public sector[edit]

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

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

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

I also can’t tell the difference between the three senses. We can merge them all, unless someone can find some usage examples that apply to each sense and not to the others. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I see no worthwhile distinction. I also question the "Any government" part of sense 1. I don't really think of the actual government as being part of the "public sector". Do other people? Mihia (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I would also support a merging of the three senses. It would be difficult to find attestations which clearly demarcate them. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

person of color[edit]

SOP: person + of color. of color can be added to several terms, such as: man of color (= MOC), woman of color (= WOC), child of color, girl of color, politician of color (e.g. B. H. Obama), musician of color. -Toprothew (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

But this is the standard formulation. It is the preferred term for, well, people of colour, in much of the American press at the moment. JzG (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Why not redirect to of color then? Equinox 02:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Redirect. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

pick up the phone[edit]

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

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

research gap[edit]

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

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

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

@Sonofcawdrey: Your argument seems to be about the concept, but should be about the term. That the concept is important doesn't mean that the term is (from a lexicographical point of view).
To me "research gap" seems to be sum of parts (SOP). - 04:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

sexual threat[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Being a hot topic in the news doesn't stop stuff being SoP. Equinox 02:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I cannot grasp any aspect in the slightest why it should not be SoP. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

expiration date[edit]

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

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

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

December 2017[edit]

Thesaurus:female ephebophile[edit]

None of the listings included are what ephebophile means. Also notice that Thesaurus:male ephebophile does not exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This was created by PaM ("Pass a Method"), whose additions should mostly be deleted on sight without overview. He picks a specific thing (usually something sexy or rapey, like "incest" or "incel") and messes up a million entries. There is really something broken in his head. I guess technically we should RFV but I'd say just zap it. Equinox 02:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm familiar with him from Wikipedia. Very familiar. Are editors sure that the User:Zzliel account that created the above page is a Pass a Method sock? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
With Pass a Method socks, one can never be 100% sure, because they've switched between ISPs owned by the same company, that company dynamically assigns IP addresses from a pool that geolocates to various locations within a certain geographical area, and I don't have user agent data to compare with. On the other hand, their behavior is quite distinctive, and I've only seen that behavior associated with IPs that match the geolocation pattern mentioned, so the combination of geolocation and behavior is more than enough to establish an identification. Zzliel was using an IP matching the geolocation profile, and their behavior fits Pass a Method very well- picking a sexual or religious theme that they believe is underrepresented, and coming up with every variation they can think of to add to the dictionary. Since they don't check usage, their definitions are often different from what the usage would indicate when it (barely) exists. Having dealt with thousands of IP edits fitting this pattern over several years, and thousands of Pass a Method/confirmed-PaM-sock edits, I think I have enough experience to make the determination. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you really mean RFV, or do you mean RFC? If RFV was meant, what should be RFVed? All the terms on the thesaurus like cougar, ephebophile? The thesaurus itself can't be RFVed.
Wouldn't the given reason mean that it should be RFCed? For example, the hypernyms could be removed if unfitting. Than a list of synonyms could remain -- though these synonyms could also be put in the entries, like giving manther etc. as synonyms in cougar. - 04:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
If you take out all the terms that aren't synonyms for "female ephebophile", there's no content. The entire entry is based on a misconception, and the real meaning of ephebophile is too restricted to be worthy of a thesaurus entry, thus this belongs in a deletion discussion- though rfdo would be a better fit. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
(Ahem, guess who just came back as User: and started an "erectile dysfunction" thesaurus project.) Equinox 18:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


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

"Does this satisfy WT:BRAND?" is a question for WT:RFVE and not for WT:RFDE. 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There is also a Gibson shoe, a lace-up shoe for men, so I don't know how you get on there, e.g. I'm going to wear my Gibsons today. DonnanZ (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know but nothing good for the dictionary user is going to come out of this nomination. The challenge is how to search for quotations meeting WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. I remember most BRAND cases coming to RED. What did I miss? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's one: 2008: Rick Rinehart, ‎Amy Rinehart, Dare to Survive: Death, Heartbreak, and Triumph in the Wild, p. xiv: "We'd like to think that his spirit lives on under the western sky he so loved, strumming his Gibson somewhere and belting out a Woody Guthrie ballad to an audience of coyotes and rabbitbrush". This is in the acknowledgments, and nowhere does the book state that a Gibson is a guitar. bd2412 T 22:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I added the common noun (i.e. "Gibsons" are guitars) when I saw this nomination. The nom is for the proper noun, i.e. the company name, not its products. Equinox 19:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I see. Delete the company name. bd2412 T 19:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


No real definition. The Russian translation doesn't look idiomatic. DTLHS (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@User:Tooironic Lmao. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic Someone who has an arrow pointing at their user name needs to be very careful how they use "this" in their posts... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 22:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

paternal grandmother[edit]

Also RFD for paternal grandfather, maternal grandmother, maternal aunt and some translations like nonna paterna, abuela paterna etc.
As SOP as Großmutter väterlicherseits (diff, Talk:Großmutter väterlicherseits), just paternal (or maternal) + grandmother (or grandfather, aunt, oncle), or the non-English aequivalents. - 03:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Just an observation: this might be a good candidate for "this entry is here for translation purposes only", since IIRC there are a lot of cultures that do have single-word terms for family relationships where English doesn't. Equinox 04:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "translation target" or "{{translation only}}" might apply to the English entry. To SOP non-English translations like nonna paterna however it doesn't apply.
(By the way, I'm not sure if there should be another RFD at WT:RFDN, and if there should be several RFD headings for the several RFDed terms, and if there should be the RFD template in all SOP-looking entries.) - 04:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep as translation target, which is not a sentiment I commonly hold. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all, cross-culturally useful. bd2412 T 22:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Translation only. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Adjective: "Hashed, chopped into small pieces"; sole citation:

  • 1855, William Makepeace Thackeray, The Newcomes
    The Colonel, himself, was great at making hash mutton, hot-pot, curry, and pillau.

This does not seem to behave as an adjective. The citation and the derived terms in the Adjective PoS section seem to me to illustrate, without exception, attributive use of the noun. DCDuring (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it a matter of WT:RFVE to find better citations? - 00:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's an RFV question. Equinox 03:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Just move the quote – which does not support the adjectival sense – to the citation page and delete. This is too hard to verify. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

identification number[edit]

Sae1962. Smells like SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 19:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
There are many phrases that people are likely to assume being SoP while for jurists they are not, but this is not one of these cases. Delete. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)