Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits/Unresolved requests/2010

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

June 2010[edit]

Category:Radio[edit]

You would think this topical categories has such terms like frequency modulation, very high frequency or band, especially seeing as this category is a member of Category:Physics. However it mostly consists of terms like game show, which are probably not used in the field of physics. Therefore, this should be split up into something covering actual radio/TV stations, and this category should only have physics terms. -- Prince Kassad 16:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support splitting, although I can't think of what the new category should be called... --Yair rand (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Same opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly the polysemic term "radio" is unsuitable as a one-part category name because the selection of its meaning is too context dependent. We could recategorize the entries having to do with the physics of radio waves as "physics" (very high frequency, band), broadcast technology as "communication engineering" (frequency modulation). Perhaps the remainder should be a category such as "media" displaying as "radio", relying on the context to convey which sense of "radio" is applicable. Many terms related to the content of broadcast radio programs are the same as those for TV program content, so perhaps they could be combined as "broadcasting", though "radio and TV" or, more wastefully, "radio and television" would be more intuitive. Finally, some terms my be used in more than one of these contexts (eg, FM, AM). The context "radio" may be very intuitive in its meaning in an entry, but cannot yield an appropriate categorization. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the name "radio" is less than ideal, mainly because it has widely different meanings in foreign languages as well as English. We already have Category:Television as a subcat of Category:Entertainment, it may be better to move some of the terms to Category:Broadcasting (which incidentally happens to already exist) since they apply to radio stations too. The other, purely physical terms should get their own category. -- Prince Kassad 11:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have invited Conrad to weigh in as he has been doing most of the work on mapping context tags to categories. There is a trade-off between the intuitiveness and good meaning-in-context of terms like "radio" and the fact that they apparently should map to distinct categories depending on the sub-context in which used. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Since when did I do anything with categories? :p. Instinctively I agree, using an ambiguous name for a category is yucky. Practically, I imagine that we don't have enough common single-meaning terms, to adequately cover our category space - and I think using common words is definitely a constraint to consider. In some ways it would be cool (though very confusing) to have multiple categories with the same name, that differ by the category they are in broadcasting > radio, and physics > radio as separate. I think I prefer "radio" as meaning related to the physical thing, something that is on the radio is not necessarily anything to do with the radio itself, so would advocate splitting the remainder off into something like "radio programming" or "radio broadcasting". I don't think we can have a general solution to the problem, other than be vigilant in spotting categories being abused - maybe we'll get some ruels of thumb over time. Conrad.Irwin 09:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of ...[edit]

Almost all of these Appendix:Glossary of should be renamed to include "English" as that's the only language they treat. --Bequw τ 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree per, well, myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Nah, no point moving them. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

of one's own accord[edit]

Move to one's own accord, keeping redirect and adding on one's own accord as redirect. At COCA, not only "of" and "on", but also "by" and "to" appear with "[one's] own accord". "Of one's own accord" seems to constitute only about 80% of the usage, not enough IMHO to justify making it the representative of the construction. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What's a good definition line?​—msh210 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this might be even better at accord ‎(voluntary or spontaneous impulse to act) with redirects. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I think moving to one's own accord would be the best course of action. with the redirects. I think lumping these sort of definitions in with their base words would create a larege and bulky "accord" definition. Speednat (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
All that [[accord#Noun]] needs is a usage example. Wouldn't it be nice if a wiki-search for "of one's/its/their/my/your/our/his/her own accord" actually took a user to the section containing the usage example or, better, highlighted the usage example and positioned the browser window so that the highlighted example was about one inch above the bottom of the window. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

a few sandwiches short of a picnic[edit]

Move to sandwich short of a picnic (or sandwiches short of a picnic or some sandwiches short of a picnic). "Few" may not even be the most common quantifier. "two sandwiches short of a picnic" is also very common at bgc. But others included on the first 50 raw hits were "a couple", "three", "seven", "many". Also the singular form outnumbered the plural form 308 to 218 at bgc. Redirects from the "few" and "two" forms seem necessary. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The general construction is something like "Q [component NP] [short, shy] of a [whole NP]", where Q is taken from among a list of common quantifiers. One extreme example of creative use of the construction is "the scene was one Gidget and two Wilson Brothers shy of a beach movie." DCDuring TALK 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

one brick short of a full load[edit]

one card shy of a full deck[edit]

Of course there are many others, including a good number that would be attestable. The meanings are mostly indistinguishable, though they differ in register and in fit with context. See this corpus-based study for more examples].

six ways to Sunday[edit]

Out of curiosity, I checked bgc for the attestable forms of "N ways to Sunday". This outnumbers all the others combined, but barely. I counted about eight forms that would be attestable at bgc. I wonder whether we should have this at ways to Sunday. I don't think it is worth the trouble to put in redirects, but perhaps some think otherwise. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Move and redirect from the attested phrases with numbers. See also diff.​—msh210 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Redirects or {{common/alternate form of}}Lucifer 03:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

rolling in dough[edit]

I am sure that this should be moved, but less sure about the target.

I have created an entry at rolling in it meaning "having an abundance of money". That "it" is money is not always readily inferred from the context. "Rolling in money" is more common than the "dough" or "cash" forms, also found at COCA. It may be that rolling in it should be a redirect to roll in it because other forms besides the progressive are attestable.

Some references have "to roll in" as "have an abundance of", but it occurs much more often in the progressive (-ing) forms than in any other. To call any of these an adjective is wrong, even though it superficially appears to function as one.

The idiom is almost always about money, jewels, or jewelry, though other emblems of success can occur.

In any event, we need an entry for various idiomatic uses of roll in, of which this is one. DCDuring TALK 08:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010[edit]

Category:English nouns with irregular plurals[edit]

I believe the Category:English nouns with irregular plurals should be replaced by Category:English irregular nouns, for consistency with the following categories, among various others similarly named: Category:English irregular verbs, Category:Dutch irregular verbs, Category:Aramaic irregular nouns and Category:Old Armenian irregular nouns. --Daniel. 09:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes consistency a superordinate goal? DCDuring TALK 09:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Superordinate in comparison to what other goal? --Daniel. 22:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
While consistency is good, the sort of thing user like me, Bequw and Carolina wren strive for, it shouldn't be at the expense of valuable information. Perhaps Category:English irregular nouns would make a good parent category for the reasons Daniel. states above. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see exactly how Category:English irregular nouns as a parent of Category:English nouns with irregular plurals would be a better choice for keeping valuable information. What else the category English irregular nouns would contain? --Daniel. 07:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. I think I should continue playing with prepositions and also ask about how Category:English irregular nouns as a parent, instead of Category:English nouns with irregular plurals, would be a better choice... Or you can just agree about moving Category:English nouns with irregular plurals to Category:English irregular nouns, if you would. --Daniel. 11:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

Contents of Category:English appendices which does not contain the word English[edit]

Things like Appendix:Animals. Do we want to

  • Get the word English in there somewhere?
  • Use the 'topical' system, so a Hebrew appendix would be Appendix:he:Animals, not Hebrew animals, or animals (Hebrew).

On reflection the second system makes more sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, after your proposed change, Appendix:Animals would contain names of animals in English and Appendix:he:Animals would contain names of animals in Hebrew. If this name system becomes widely used for all appendices, how to name appendices containing words of various languages, like Appendix:Days of the week, assuming they would still exist? --Daniel. 11:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:SC[edit]

I'd appreciate if the following shortcuts pointed to the these specific pages:

To achieve this, the following changes have to be made:

  • Removing the shortcut WT:SC from Wiktionary:Shortcut.
  • Making WT:SC be the shortcut to Wiktionary:Scripts.
  • Renaming Wiktionary:Shortcut to Wiktionary:Shortcuts.

--Daniel. 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the benefit to users/editors, to offset the cost of having people type something in the address bar of their browsers which no longer works as they expect?​—msh210 (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
How would my proposal make the address bar of someone no longer work as they expect?
Wiktionary:Shortcut may be a shortcut to Wiktionary:Shortcuts, because the pluralized name would be expected in English; then, both names would be functional.
WT:SC does not seem to be not a well-known shortcut to Wiktionary:Shortcut.
On the other hand sc= is a well-known parameter meaning "script", which is used by {{infl}}, {{term}}, {{t}} and other major templates, so WT:SC pointing to the page that explains scripts is a natural choice. --Daniel. 19:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Re "How would...": By making http://en.wiktionary,org/wiki/WT:SC point to something other than what it has hitherto. Shortcuts are especially useful for typing into address bars: that whatlinkshere doesn't show much use doesn't mean it's not used. Re "both names [Wiktionary:Shortcut and Wiktionary:Shortcuts] would be functional": They are already. Re "sc= is a well-known parameter": You're right, of course; IMO that reason doesn't outweigh the fact that it would break the current shortcut; what do others think? Note that [[Wiktionary:Shortcut]] does say, right at the top, "'WT:SC' redirects here. You may be looking for Wiktionary:Scripts".​—msh210 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
IMO the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, but not by much. Weak support. --Yair rand (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Shortcuts are not only typed in address bars, but also linked from pages. The number of links is high for well-known shortcuts such as Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary:ELE and Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary:GP, so the Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary:SC does show that this shortcut is not much used. In fact, the page Wiktionary:Shortcut is short and rarely edited [1], which are additional reasons to not worry about its traffic. (other improvements such as expansion and updates would certainly be welcome, as a separate subject)
I have added the message "'WT:SC' redirects here. You may be looking for Wiktionary:Scripts." today after noticing the lack of SC pointing to scripts. Evidently, if my proposal comes into effect, a similar message would be placed at the top of Wiktionary:Shortcuts. --Daniel. 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The small numbers of edits and links to WT:Shortcut are at best irrelevant to the proposal. The page is intended as an aide-memoire. It may well get a great deal of use without much editing. In fact, the relative stability of the page should be evidence in favor of a very conservative policy with respect to changing the shortcuts: users expect shortcuts not to change. Let me suggest that WT:SCR is not now in use. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
DCDuring, I have an analysis different from yours: That the relative stability of Wiktionary:Shortcut is not "evidence in favor of a very conservative policy with respect to changing the shortcuts"; that is, as I said, evidence that this particular page is at best not much used, because it simply does not serve its purpose well: it lists only 32 of the 295 redirected pages, therefore it cannot be a reliable resource or aide-memoire for the status of 263 pages. I'd expect the list of shortcuts to be more regularly updated, given that it is linked directly from the affected pages.
A good way that I can think of, to known whether or not shortcuts have been changed, is of course by looking at their histories, like in this affirmative example: [2]
In fact, there are at least two precedential discussions about changing various shortcuts at once: [3][4]--Daniel. 04:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I find incomprehensible your facile identification of use with editing changes. Also, your failure to grasp what makes an aide-memoire useful for normal humans. As the page states, it is for the core items, not, for example, for the pages that are formed by A + language code, which are of greatest interest to someone who knows the language code for the languages of interest. An aide-memoire is hardly necessary for such. Adding a large number of shortcuts that don't need reminding to WT:SC would render it much less useful. It may well be that the comprehensive list should also have a shortcut (WT:SCC comes to mind.). DCDuring TALK 10:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Your idea of adding a large number of shortcuts to Wiktionary:Shortcut is, as you say, irrelevant to the proposal; however, the page is rather useless already. In my opinion, your other idea of using WT:SCR for Wiktionary:Scripts is not bad, but just not as good as WT:SC for the same page.
Pardon my supposed blindness on the reasoning of normal humans; yet, I can easily discriminate between two groups of people by their different knowledge and needs: normal humans and Wiktionary editors. The former is not expected to know that repetitive shortcuts like WT:AEN, WT:AES and WT:RE:ja exist, so a page like Wiktionary:Shortcuts ideally should help these users, at least by pointing the patterns. The lack of such an explanation is one of the reasons for me to affirm that this page is of poor quality, therefore likely to be not used and definitely a bad resource to check whether shortcuts in general are or not changed. --Daniel. 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You could always improve it. Although it might not me in line with your strategic objective of saving that last keystroke. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer, I have not yet internalized the names of all these shortcuts, so I'm all for the aide-memoire. Support. - Robin 11:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Greetings[edit]

This and similar categories is treated as a topic category. The naming of each language's category reflects that. That seems wrong. The entries in the category are not about greetings. They are greetings. DCDuring TALK 10:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but most of the entries in Category:Mammals are mammals, and in Category:Fish are fish! The 'and similar' categories are as numerous as the 'not similar' categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No: this is a w:Category mistake that has led to a Category naming error. The members of Category:Mammals are names of mammals. The members of Category:Greetings and all its language-specific subcategories are not the names of greetings. They are the greetings themselves. DCDuring TALK 10:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Not just names. At least, I have been interpreting 'terms related to mammals' to mean I should be listing words like "mammalian" in Category:Mammals. - Robin 11:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we have standards that would exclude, say, features or organs of mammals from membership. Should we? DCDuring TALK 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
They are topical. There is no L3 header ===Greeting===, "Greeting" is not a part of speech. Therefore, greetings cannot be a lexical category and has to be topical. -- Prince Kassad 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It does not follow without the bald assumption (nowhere stated in policy or anywhere AFAICT) that only approved PoS headers are valid lexical categories. We have long had numerous subcategories of our PoS categories. Furthermore, the inadequacies of traditional PoSes have lead grammarians to numerous recategorizations of terms with not all categories fitting into a simple hierarchy under the traditional PoSes. We have now have categories such as Category:English non-constituents, Category:English clitics, and Category:English contractions that don't fit the PoS hierarchy and are clearly not "topical" the way Category:Mammals is. Whether such categories should be visible to normal users who do not opt in to having hidden categories visible, I don't know. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to oppose your proposed move, but you haven't actually proposed a new title. That makes it a bit harder for me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Anything to facilitate your opposition: Category:English greetings. Whatever other language categories had mostly greetings, not names of greetings or words applied to greeting, should probably be correspondingly changed as well. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010[edit]

Category:Words from Shakespeare[edit]

Maybe to Category:Shakespeare derivations. Also, some of these terms are not words. --Felonia 12:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention removing the ones that aren't from Shakespeare. Benedict is from Classical Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Proto-Indo-European verbs[edit]

Propose merging into Category:Proto-Indo-European roots because PIE roots are essentially roots of verbs. This was proposed (way back) by Ivan Štambuk on my talk page (User talk:Anypodetos#PIE stuff). --ἀνυπόδητος 13:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if often wondered if proto languages have parts of speech. As you say, don't all parts of speech share the same roots? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Roots are semantic, they have no real grammatical quality in them, other than that certain roots formed certain parts of speech in actual practice. I believe that PIE roots inherently had a 'primary' part of speech that others were derived from through various forms of derivation. However, it is certainly not true that all roots are verbs, that's just nonsense. —CodeCat 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
But then what is the difference between these two categories? Cat:PIE verbs contains roots from which verbs are formed (and other parts of speech as well, as *snígʷʰ-s "snow" from *sneygʷʰ- "to stick, to snow". Cat:PIE roots mostly contains such roots as well, with some exceptions like *pel- "grey". --ἀνυπόδητος 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, in cases such as *sneygʷʰ- both the root and derivations should be grouped on a single page, where they can be discussed all together without resorting to redundancy and impracticality of disconnected treatment on separate pages. Only "cleanly" reconstructible nouns/adjectives should get their own pages. --Ivan Štambuk 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Non-verbal roots are not interesting and don't get separate PoS sections and categories, but only as complete words (nominative singular [masculine]). root means "verbal root" here and deals with verbal reflexes (meanings & paradigms) in the daughters. Since PIE had no infinitives, there is really no other way to lemmatize verbs other than bare roots. These two terms are synonymous in usage here. --Ivan Štambuk 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ivan Štambuk 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure you can lemmatise them. Use another verb form, like the 1st person singular of whatever aspect the verb has as its basic form. If all the roots we have pages for are verbs, then we can easily make proper verbs out of them. But I don't see the point in restricting roots to verbal roots only. —CodeCat 20:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem with PIE verbal paradigms is that they are in most cases not completely reconstructible and no "basic form" is reachable. If we chose some arbitrary inflected form of e.g. present stem as a lemma, there would be in most cases several variant forms to chose from on the basis of attested reflexes, and giving precedence to any of them would be a value judgment on the "importance" or "authenticity" of a particular reflex. By using a root-only form in e-grade, we can simply ignore the issues of paradigms, ablauts, enlargements etc. and deal with all that neutrally within the appendix itself. PIE verbs are traditionally lemmatized as roots and to my knowledge no dictionary ever used something else. We should simply follow the established practice, using roots as synonymous with verbal roots. Derived nouns/adjectives should go on separate pages, or on the same page in some special cases, but then they will clearly be separated with different headers and citation forms in the inflection line from the verbal part. --Ivan Štambuk 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I think to avoid confusion we should avoid using 'root' to mean specifically 'verbal root'. Because it certainly confused me, since I think of a root as a base for the formation of any part of speech. So we should list those roots that are verb roots as verbs, if that's what they are. The fact that they are roots (denoted by the trailing dash) should then indicate that the inflection is unknown or uncertain. —CodeCat 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
They are translated as English verbs ("to X"), they have verbal inflection and morphological variations in the inflection line...it's pretty obvious that we're dealing with verbal roots. Although some of those currently in that particular category refer to nouns and ought to be renamed. I have no problem if we use ===Verbal root=== instead as a header name. --Ivan Štambuk 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Ivan, such things are obviously verbs. How about the simple header ===Verb===, then? The listing will be just as for any other verbs we have here, except its root will be used as the lemma form instead of one of the inflections. I think it's fairly obvious from the presence or absence of a dash at the end whether the root or a full form of the word is being displayed. – Krun 20:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) So which name should we use for the category? I still prefer "PIE roots" because "PIE verbs" isn't exactly correct (after all, there are nouns derived from these roots). Another possibility would be "PIE verbal roots" but that's needlessly complicated in my opinion. The confusion about those being verbal roots could hopefully be resolved by adding a lead section to the category. --ἀνυπόδητος 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010[edit]

phone it in[edit]

Should be phone in, unless any of the three senses always takes 'it'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Can you demonstrate any usage in any of the overlapping senses given that has another complement? DCDuring TALK 11:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
google books:"phone in a request"​—msh210 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Idiomatic sense 2 is cited. I'd be surprised if there was quantitatively significant usage in the idiomatic sense with an object other than "it". I don't think that senses 1 and 3 are citable in the sense of being clearly distinct from sense 2. Like call in, phone in might be worth an entry because the places to which one "phones/calls in" are restricted to some central or controlling locations. OTOH, it doesn't seem terribly idiomatic, except for the lack of transparency in the selection of the adverb "in". Sense 2 could probably be generalized to more clearly include senses 1 and 3 to the extent they exist. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Move #1, but not #2 or #3: #1 is usually "phone in", but #2 and #3 are usually "phone it in". Add conjugations of phone it in. Also, close this discussion as it's 16 months old. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Moved all senses since I can find examples where "phone it" takes an explicit direct object rather than "it" (e.g. from a review of Sharknado 2: "Some disaster movies phone in their awfulness, this one did not."). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:English words with optional capitalisation[edit]

I think we should use the -z- spelling of capitalization. We use romanization for example, not romanisation. It's purely a question of being as consistent as possible, not a British vs. American thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore we use 'terms' not 'words' giving Category:English terms with optional capitalization. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

sowohl ... als auch[edit]

Those ellipses should probably not be there, I haven't seen them on any other entry to date. -- Prince Kassad 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They're on sekä ... että, too. How should it be put better? sowohl only appears in this construction, it makes little sense to create a new entry splitting the construction up. Longtrend 19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe sowohl als auch? It is used occasionally that way by itself, too. -- Prince Kassad 23:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
True, but IMHO this should be a different entry. Longtrend 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd remove the first space, so sowohl... als auch. I'll let our Germanists work out the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

get one's knickers in a knot[edit]

The idiomatic construction essentially includes "[someone's] knickers in a knot". Common collocations include the noun phrase as object of "with" and objective complement of "have" or "get". Also, "knickers" is occasionally modified, as with "collective" or "scanty". I have also seen "put one's knickers in a knot. Furthermore, knot can be replaced by "bunch", "twist", or "bundle" and "knickers" can be replaced with "panties", "boxers", "underwear", "fishnets", "khakis", "skirts", "wiretaps", "tonsils", "knitting", "woggles", "pinny" (?).

Accordingly, I suggest this be moved to [[knickers in a knot]] or, more radically and inclusively, to [[knickers in a]] or even [[in a]]. There could be a number of hard redirects to it. Indeed, [[knickers in a]] would not usefully exist without such redirects. Another alternative would be to delete it and rely on usage examples or citations at [[knickers]], [[bunch]], and [[twist]]. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)