Talk:wax lyrical
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
SoP: from wax#Etymology 2. Wiktionary:Feedback#wax lyrical shows that user was not served well by this entry. User would have found what was needed at wax, especially since "wax lyrical" was in usage example. wax lyrical is the 6th most common adjective collocating after forms of "wax" per COCA (17), but wax poetic (77), wax nostalgic (35), wax eloquent (30), wax philosophical (28), wax rhapsodic (18) weren't deemed worth including in an entry that has waxed whimsical in its choice of points to cover. I note that "poetic", "rhapsodic" and "eloquent" are near enough in sense to "lyrical" to make a "set phrase" defense untenable. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- We don't have this sense at wax unless I'm missing it. I'd have thought this was both common and idiomatic - having the relevant sense at wax doesn't automatically make it unidiomatic. I'd have said this is. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well we need to cover this somehow, surely "to become expressive of emotion" and "To talk about something with much interest or excitement" are not exactly the same. FWIW I've only just learned about that sense of to wax today. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination.—msh210℠ 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- wax#Etymology 2 to "become" (which has "to wax lyrical" as its usage example), to "grow". Whether of not we have the sense, it is not idiomatic. It is still used productively in some speech and more writing, finding new adjectives to partner with. If the sense seems to be missing, then we have another illustration of what it is that we need to include more of: finely wrought senses of words. The same definition of wax that would serve to help define "wax lyrical" would help with "wax chagrined", "wax orotund" as well as the others above and whatever will find use in the next decade. I don't think our definitions should be tuned too specifically to narrow semantic groups of complements. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, DCDuring has made a solid argument. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- wax#Etymology 2 to "become" (which has "to wax lyrical" as its usage example), to "grow". Whether of not we have the sense, it is not idiomatic. It is still used productively in some speech and more writing, finding new adjectives to partner with. If the sense seems to be missing, then we have another illustration of what it is that we need to include more of: finely wrought senses of words. The same definition of wax that would serve to help define "wax lyrical" would help with "wax chagrined", "wax orotund" as well as the others above and whatever will find use in the next decade. I don't think our definitions should be tuned too specifically to narrow semantic groups of complements. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This was previously deleted in 2009 (Talk:wax lyrical), I was all set to create it when I found this out. It appears in at least three dictionaries - Merriam-Webster, Collins, Lexico - and I think there is a good case for restoration (and I had a quote lined up). DonnanZ (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Go for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- On one hand, User:DCDuring made a good point during the old discussion that this sense of "wax" can be used with all kinds of other words: "wax philosophical", "wax technical", "wax eloquent", not to mention the more common "wax poetic" (which, however, I see we do have an entry for), ... so it does seem SOP. OTOH, there is the lemming argument. Abstain for now (I'll probably !vote later). - -sche (discuss) 06:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- It only took about a week to delete it, far too quick. I think we allow at least a month these days. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep (=Undelete) per non-binding WT:LEMMING: M-W[1], Lexico[2], Collins[3] and Farlex Dictionary of Idioms[4]. And considering the definition of "wax lyrical" in M-W and the definitions in lyrical, I don't see how this is a sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep/Undelete set phrase. Mihia (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I waited a fortnight before restoring the page, which is far longer than Mglovesfun took to delete it. He was hardly impartial, having voted for deletion first. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- No big deal, but I would have preferred for it to be restored rather than recreated, so as to preserve the page's history. PUC – 11:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to restore the previous history. Talk:wax lyrical is still there however. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Only admins can do it. PUC – 11:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, I couldn't do it anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Only admins can do it. PUC – 11:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to restore the previous history. Talk:wax lyrical is still there however. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK, (I continue to be on the fence about whether or not there should be an entry, but as long as one has been recreated,) I restored the history; you can see the difference between the old and new content (in case you want to revive any of the old content) here. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why's this still in RFD? Please remember to move this conversation to Talk:wax lyrical. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Undelete.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)