Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest 100 tagged RFDs

June 2021Edit

(comparable) At a lower or further place or position along a set path.
His place is farther down the road.
The company was well down the path to bankruptcy.
  • 1906, Stanley J[ohn] Weyman, chapter I, in Chippinge Borough, New York, N.Y.: McClure, Phillips & Co., OCLC 580270828, page 01:
    It was April 22, 1831, and a young man was walking down Whitehall in the direction of Parliament Street. He wore shepherd's plaid trousers and the swallow-tail coat of the day, with a figured muslin cravat wound about his wide-spread collar.

Dylanvt removed this sense (adverb; Special:Diff/62754912) and moved the usage examples and the quotation to “From one end to another of (in any direction); along.” (preposition; Special:Diff/62754915). J3133 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be fine as a preposition only in this sense, although sometimes one of the nouns is implied: The coffee shop? That's further down [the street from here]. (possibly with a gesture). Facts707 (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the above examples are prepositional, but there is a "static" prepositional usage, e.g. "He lives down the road" and a "kinetic" prepositional usage, e.g. "He is walking down the road". It may be possible either to combine these into one sense, with suitable wording possibly involving "or", or to split them, but the existing presentation, where e.g. "His place is farther down the road" is under the definition "From one end to another of", doesn't seem ideal to me. Cases such as "He lives further down" and "His place is further down", as raised by Facts, are tricky to handle. Mihia (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have the energy to undo the out-of-process deletion and close this as no consensus? Requires readding the sense to the proper location and moving the quotations back. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

November 2021Edit

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

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

  • Delete, SOP with "rise" sense 8 (just updated by me). Facts707 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

December 2021Edit

Undeletion of I can wait as can waitEdit

See Talk:I can wait. I wasn't around for that RFD discussion. I think this should be kept because the SOP argument doesn't hold up (despite the last consensus). Example sentence:

Person A: "I can't wait for this movie to come out." Person B: "I can wait."

"I can wait" in this sentence does not simply mean "I am able to wait". It has a deeper meaning, more like "I am not particularly eager to do something like you are." PseudoSkull (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I changed the vote to put the lemma at can wait, since, though much rarer, I'm sure it's possible to say "John can certainly wait." or something similar. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
There is also, “What’s the hurry? It can wait.” If this be SOP, I’m unclear which sense of wait covers this use.  --Lambiam 12:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
"to remain neglected or in readiness" General Vicinity (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I think "John can certainly wait" is unusable unless "I can't wait" or something has been said previously, because the regular sense of "wait" dominates General Vicinity (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
There's something to this, but I wonder if it shouldn't just be covered at wait. DAVilla 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Leaning undelete, with conditions. I think the definition that was there previously is SOP, but I think there was/is a missing gloss of the use of the phrase to mean that stalling will not be an effective tactic, e.g.: Shayla Black, His to Take (2015), p. 29: “You don't want to answer me? All right. I can wait. I've got all afternoon. How about you?” bd2412 T 23:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Undelete per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The sense suggested for un-deletion doesn't seem to match the discussion here, I do agree that can wait is the best place for the sense discussed here, but perhaps it should just be created from whole cloth. - TheDaveRoss 18:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Undelete in the sense "I am not particularly eager to do something like you are": I made a pro-keeping argument the last time and if some native speakers above seem convinced by that type of argument, let me add my voice to undelete the entry. If this gets undeleted as can wait, I can wait should better be a hard redirect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Can any admin undelete this? What's going on here? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2022Edit




Moved out of the other RFD upon DonnanZ's request. My rationale is exactly the same one though, see my comments at #growing. Most importantly, I don't deny that these present participles can be used adjectivally (like other things as User:Vininn126 stated), I simply deem that not inclusion-worthy for these 100% transparent cases (see my comment starting with "I oppose the inclusion of these "trivial part-of-speech conversions""). Please note that we RFD-deleted #spiring by consensus already so keeping any of these makes the dictionary internally inconsistent. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete, as per Fytcha. No one is denying they can be used adjectivally - just trying to not double mark information. Vininn126 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I meant completely separate listings, but this will have to do.
Definitely keep falling and surrounding. I'm not sure about the latter two at the moment, they need further thought. But I suspect not enough effort has been made by the user to study where a present participle is used, likewise for the adjective. It is far too simplistic to combine the two, and is a massive slap in the face for the many users who believe they are adjectives, and created the entries. So these RFDs deserve to fail. You shouldn't impose your own cock-eyed belief on the dictionary, it's not in the dictionary's interest. DonnanZ (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You're claiming that we are saying they aren't adjectives. We aren't. Please read my above comment. Vininn126 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Then keep them as adjectives! There is absolutely no sense in removing them. DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Except it's dupiclate information??? Vininn126 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not. DonnanZ (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
DonnanZ, I ask you to cease the bullying behavior and personal attacks towards me. I am not "imposing" anything, I am not "cock-eyed", nothing about my conduct is "worrying", nothing has "gone to my head", and neither do I think I have displayed "poor judgment" in the last couple of RFD discussions. I can't help but interpret your conduct as personal bullying towards me (likely motivated by your dislike for my RFD nominations) for the reason that there's absolutely no objective grounds for that unprovoked, off-topic, snide comment of yours made in #Big Red. Also, let me apologize for the snide reply I gave thereupon. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That's rather rich. You yourself are being a bully, I feel, pushing your own PoV as hard as you can. I was accused of that once, many years ago. I am not attacking you personally, just what you believe in. What's wrong with that? DonnanZ (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You haven't been. Many of your comments have been rather personal. Vininn126 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That's a matter of opinion. I will take back the comments even though they weren't meant to be personal, but I still strongly oppose the beliefs of you two and won't change my views. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it is time to discuss this at the Beer parlour as an issue involving general lexicographic principles, rather than by fighting this fight participle by participle – of which there are a zillion more and then some.  --Lambiam 10:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Agreed, will do. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

April 2022Edit

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

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

coalition calculatorEdit

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

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

May 2022Edit

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

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

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

June 2022Edit

first-person dualEdit

first-person pluralEdit

second-person singularEdit

second-person dualEdit

second-person pluralEdit

third-person singularEdit

third-person dualEdit

third-person pluralEdit

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

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

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

I've just cleaned it up and added another cite for that sense; does it look better now? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 00:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@Whoop whoop pull up: The cleaned up version is certainly better (though such systems are often not for fire control, but instead for sound mitigation). Both of the cites are for deluge system, so I am still not sure if deluge on its own means such systems. The term deluge system is SOP for a system which deluges. - TheDaveRoss 12:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Keep - I'm pretty sure it means the sort of thing you see in pantomime sword fights. For example, at 1:34 in this clip from Hook. Theknightwho (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete. The citations under etymology 3 should go to etymology 2 sense 2. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your logic at all. These are two different things. The usage in the clip I linked above isn't triumphal either. Theknightwho (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

(vulgar slang, intransitive, usually of a man) to masturbate.

SOP: have (to undertake or perform) + a wank (an act of masturbation). Theknightwho (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Make sure it's listed in Appendix:DoHaveMakeTake and then hard-redirect to the bare noun.​—msh210 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support msh210's suggestion. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 04:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep as a synonym of masturbate. Do not redirect to appendix; an appendix is unwieldy for lexicographical information. The entry does no harm and directs the reader to Thesaurus:masturbate for synonyms, and to masturbate for translations; no benefit in doing the same, just outside of the mainspace. The appendix even goes so far as to explain differences between various have an X and take an X forms from the same noun, absurd given the same information should and could be in the mainspace. The idea things are made better by moving information from the discoverable and specific-item-linkable mainspace to the less discoverable appendix space seems rather unconvincing. Label "sum of parts" if you must. Kept in RFD in 2006 by consensus per Talk:have a wank. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved from RFV. There is a selection of cites on the citations page, but it looks NISOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This is bizarre: an old 2006 import: "The act of one caring for or one's interest over something. You are always talking about your clothes, but that is not in my possession of interest." That sentence sounds unnatural to me and I cannot easily find any comparable sentence in Google. I think it might be confusion over a sentence like "you have nothing in your possession [that is] of interest to me", which of course doesn't work with this entry lemma. Equinox 15:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

cited. I put a selection of what I found on the citations page. It does seem to crop up in a number of legal or quasi-legal writings. Looks a bit SOP to me. What do others think? Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
To me, the fact that term this doesn't turn up in any legal dictionaries suggests strongly that it is SOP. Most of the collected cites seem to use it literally to mean "the fact of possessing an interest in something". The Ryan cite (which is patently not from 2022... Gutenberg has a version of that text from 1916) probably means "possessing (monetary) interest (on capital)". This, that and the other (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete - none of the citations show it being used as a technical term, but merely refer to the literal possession of a (legal) interest. Theknightwho (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete – it is just as easy to cite possession of intent, but this collocation too is just a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 10:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete: not, as far as I am aware, a legal term of art. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Not found in Black's Law Dictionary, the closest thing being a possessory interest. bd2412 T 21:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
    Definitely not the same thing, either. A possessory interest is a legal interest held by virtue of being in possession of something. On the other hand, anyone with any kind of legal interest can be described as having "possession of interest". I'd argue it's probably nonstandard, as it treats interest as an uncountable noun while using a sense that is countable (sense 5 / a yet unadded formal legal sense), but that doesn't make it special. Theknightwho (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

July 2022Edit

SOP. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep as a translation hub. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Inqilābī: Can you try to provide two qualifying translations then? I would be surprised if this is THUBable. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Inqilābī: The Bengali translation that you've added doesn't seem to qualify, seeing that it is শিক্ষা + মন্ত্রক. Neither does the Icelandic one: menntamál + ráðuneyti — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
To my native ear, it is a valid compound word. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Inqilābī: I don't see how that is relevant here. Even if it's a valid compound (I don't doubt that), it does not qualify per WT:THUB. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me that page. And I had misunderstood you. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep I usually treat it as a name: Translating Bildungsministerium into English depends on the specific government/country (and time). Is it Department of Education (e. g. US) or Ministry of Education (e. g. Singapore)? You could ask the same question in the reverse direction. Therefore it’s difficult/problematic to make this entry serve as a WT:THUB.
On the other hand it’s the lower-case version we’re talking about, i. e. not a name. I think ministry/department of (without education) has a certain idiomaticity to it. Although saying book department is legal, department of books makes it “obvious” we’re talking about a government entity (or similar) and not a section in a department store. However, I’m afraid an entry ministry of would not meet WT’s policies. I therefore vote to keep this entry. To be fair, all this aforementioned information could be rendered as a Usage Notes section in ministry [some {{usex}} are already there]. ‑‑Kai Burghardt (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep as t-hub. I see at least three one-word translations there. AG202 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@AG202: One-wordness is irrelevant. The Finnish and Swedish translations don't qualify per WT:THUB. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
You're right, I'll abstain here then. AG202 (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Err on the side of keeping. The Czech translation is interesting. diff shows a correction of a Bengali translation, showing that the translation may be not an entirely obvious thing. I would bet that more interesting translations can be found. As for utility via page views, this performs much better than noncholestatic.[1] If this gets deleted, the translator can use Wikidata:Q2269756: ministry of education, where the translations are not traceable to anything; here we have a chance to attest them. Also, from Wikidata, this will connect at least 8 terms of languages that form long solid compounds; this is not approved for THUB and is not so strong, but is not entirely without force. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

SOP. Graham11 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A member of one of the four minor orders of the Catholic Church.
Keep for a few reasons:
  • It passes the once upon a time test at WT:IDIOM as it’s irregular. For example, A cleric in minor orders could no longer see his vocation as a steppingstone to the priesthood. and Don Josef Galindo y Soriano was fiel ejecutor and don Francisco Galindo y Soriano the other cleric in minor orders (he also had a house on the town square).
  • It passes WT:TENNIS as it’s a profession.
  • It passes the in between test as it’s tightly bound.
Theknightwho (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Theknightwho What about it is irregular such that it would pass the once-upon-a-time test?
Re WT:TENNIS, provided that we mean profession in the sense of professional occupation (sense 2), it's more a class of professions (acolyte, exorcist, etc.) than a profession unto itself. Graham11 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s irregular because minor orders is a countable plural, which should take the definite article (“cleric in the minor orders”), but it doesn’t for some reason.
If you look at the quotations, they’re clearly using the term as the primary term for someone’s profession. In any event, most terms for professions that we have are classes of more specific professions (e.g. there are many kinds of lawyer). Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
What about these quotations? Some of them show the same characteristics outside of the nominated phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
And also “monk in minor orders”,[2][3][4] “prelate in minor orders”[5] and “commendator in minor orders”.[6]  --Lambiam 09:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm - should we have in minor orders as an adjective? Or convert minor orders to a proper noun? Theknightwho (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Technically I think in minor orders would be a prepositional phrase (like in Abraham's bosom, in broad daylight etc; it doesn't seem to meet tests of adjectivity), but AFAICT it'd be SOP as just "in" + "minor orders". I also don't see why "minor orders" would be proper noun, at least not in general, though you could capitalize it to express greater specificity and hence proper-noun-ness, like you could do with the Church or the Website or other things. (And if Talk:Church is to be followed, we could have near-duplicate entries for Everything, But Capitalized... but "church" and "minor orders" etc would still be common nouns AFAICT.) - -sche (discuss) 02:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Move to a collocations section in "minor orders". To one Theknightwho's points: it's not a profession ("porter" or "exorcist" could be considered a profession, but not "cleric in minor orders", since that's just a catchall term, akin to "healthcare professional"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It is a profession, as demonstrated by the quotes. A doctor doesn't stop being a doctor just because they become a cardiologist. Theknightwho (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to delete because it does seem to be a SOP catchall descriptor, and only about one-fifth at most (historically less) of all the uses of "(whatever) in minor orders", and about 1/17th at most of the various phrases "minor orders" occurs in. It's not tightly bound, indeed the parts can be scattered around a sentence, because it's just a description (and not the title of a profession, but a description of a class of professions):
  • 2009, Joseph Bergin, Church, Society and Religious Change in France, 1580-1730, page 64:
    Huge numbers of pre-teenage boys were administered the tonsure, the first of the 'minor' orders, which technically made them clerics and therefore capable of holding 'simple' benefices (that is, without cure of souls).
Btw cleric in the minor orders with the also occurs. - -sche (discuss) 02:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete as SOP (and mention as a collocation if desired). Reviving this discussion a bit: a better question is whether in minor orders by itself merits an entry, which @Theknightwho, -sche touched on above. I think in orders, meaning "ordained" (search e.g. "monk in orders"), probably does, since someone unfamiliar with church usage would otherwise need to either figure out that it refers to holy orders or scroll down to sense 13 of order to figure it out, and even then the definition given there isn't substitutable. Then, if in orders has an entry, I suspect it's harder to justify leaving out in minor orders since it's derivative of in orders and not just an ellipsis of "in the minor orders" as suggested above (the latter is used but is more obviously SOP). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)



Marcha RealEdit


O CanadaEdit

Poland Is Not Yet LostEdit

The Call of South AfricaEdit

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

I agree we should keep any that have additional senses, but I don't agree that we should have entries for national anthems based on the perceived importance of countries. Either they're lexically relevant or they're not, so I'm in favour of adding God Save the Queen/King and the Star-Spangled Banner to this as well, referring only to the national anthem senses. Theknightwho (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep all except The Call of South Africa, which is basically SOP and a purely encyclopic title and Poland is Not Yet Lost, same. The rest are either single words, or in the case of Marcha Real and O Canada, not immediately parseable as names of anthems. bd2412 T 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete unless (1) it is a single word; or (2) it has at least one sense that is not simply "national anthem of XYZ". Thus, "The Call of South Africa", "God Defend New Zealand", "Marcha Real", and "O Canada" should go. I agree with @Theknightwho that trying to determine the perceived importance of countries is inappropriate and unworkable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I would have no idea what "O Canada" intends, and "Marcha Real" (literally "Royal March") does not name any specific country, so the fact that it is the anthem of Spain is idiomatic to the phrase. bd2412 T 00:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
      • @BD2412: I feel the names of national anthems are essentially more suitable material for Wikipedia, and am minded only to make the two exceptions which I previously mentioned. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
        • I am not exceptionally attached to the two-word names. I find them idiomatic, but would not lose sleep over them if they were deleted. We might have a soft redirect from those to Wikipedia. bd2412 T 05:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
If we're keeping some of them, then we should keep all. I agree with Theknightwho that we shouldn't be giving increased relevance to the US & UK because they're the "2 most important Anglophone countries" (debatable). If the issue is that the others don't have additional senses, then send them to RFV. AG202 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete all for being encyclopedic. Binarystep (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@Binarystep: I can see that for most of them, but for Hatikva and Kimigayo as single words, we should be able to parse their meaning as words here. bd2412 T 03:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand how they're less encyclopedic simply because they have one-word titles. I'm aware there's precedent, since we also have pages for Thumbelina and Iliad, but that doesn't seem right to me. If these titles aren't being used as words (like Bluebeard and Godzilla), and they don't have unique translations (like Mona Lisa and Chopsticks), I don't see how they're within our jurisdiction. We don't include newer works like Rashomon or Ficciones, and I don't agree with any policy that'd give preferential treatment to older works for no reason other than their age. If anything, we should move non-lexical work titles to an appendix. Binarystep (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Binarystep: actually I’m happy for all names of national anthems except those that have an idiomatic sense to be deleted, including the single-word ones. We seem to be wedded to single-word entries for some reason, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Binarystep, Sgconlaw: Unlike Rashomon, which is a made-up word without prior meaning, Hatikva and Kimigayo are actual words with prior meaning. These are transliterations from the original Hebrew and Japanese, respectively. We do, as it happens, have an entry for ficciones as a word. bd2412 T 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not referring to their uses as words, though, I'm referring to their uses as the titles of artistic works. Binarystep (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how they can be separated out. They exist as words parseable in English because they are used as titles in other scripts. bd2412 T 19:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The policy is WT:NSE; we do include many names of specific entities, which was voted on. NSE are up to editor discretion. --18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete the multi-word ones, at least (God Defend New Zealand, Marcha Real, O Canada, The Call of South Africa, and I would add Poland is Not Yet Lost). We don't include (relatively) modern book titles like Swift's A Modest Proposal or Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, either. Single-word ones like Marseillaise seem at least more word-like (compare Iliad). Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/June#Names_of_national_anthems. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Oops, I mistakenly excluded the Polish anthem. Now added. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep all. Interesting how a battery of non-U.S. terms are nominated for deletion once again while the American equivalent isn't. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
If these are deleted, I will immediately nominate the two arbitrary exceptions on the same grounds. Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete all, this doesn't belong in the mainspace. PUC – 10:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@PUC Can you state a specific rationale, which would include at least one salient characteristic making this not belong in the mainspace? Otherwise, the rationale stated contains no specific content and is at the risk of making your vote discountable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep the single-word ones. Governed by WT:NSE, so this is up to editors. "encyclopedic content" is not a CFI rationale and does not give us any guide as to which NSE to keep and which to delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    Keep all to simplify the closure. The multi-word ones are less worthy of keeping, but no harm is done if we keep them as well, and we can per WT:NSE. Those who dislike multi-word names in a dictionary won't visit the entries by accident, seeing immediately what they are. Let this be deleted by deletionists if wished. And if we consider The Call of South Africa and its German translation Die Stimme Südafrikas, this is not a word-for-word translation since "Call" is not obviously "Stimme". Admittedly, considering translations as worthwhile would allow many names of specific entities; OTOH, if we allow Washington County without translations, then these are more lexicographically worthwhile than this county. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I see 5:3 delete:keep, which would be no consensus for deletion. Any more input to make the result less equivocal? (The word "encyclopedic" ought to be banned from RFD discussions as practically meaningless.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Given that several of the keep votes were qualified, it makes absolutely no sense to give a numerical tally for all the terms as a whole. Your unwillingness or inability to understand what encyclopaedic content is does not make it any less relevant. You just don't understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Competence is required for RFD closures, and I'm sorry to say that you lack it. Theknightwho (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The idea of "encyclopedic" content in relation to proper names is nonsense as it does not tell us which proper names to keep and which to delete. Thus, no one has ever explained why "God Defend New Zealand" is "encyclopedic" while "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not. Ideally, the words "encyclopedic" and "lexical" ought to be banned from RFDs, and substantive differentia ought to be invoked instead, until these words can be given anything resembling operational practical meaning that has anything like bearing on actual inclusion and exclusion. Until that happens, the word "encyclopedic" is just a thin veil behind which "I don't like it" is hidden, or something of the sort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Especially God Defend New Zealand. DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Can you state a rationale, in keeping with the strength-of-the-argument-augmented numerical consensus? Otherwise, there is the risk that the RFD closer will discount your vote. A minimum rationale is "Keep per person so-and-so." --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Send to RFV. AG202 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no doubt the term can be found used on its own,[7] even as a book title.[8][9][10] But is this lexical material?  --Lambiam 09:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Lambiam That wasn't the RFD rationale provided though, hence when I suggested to send it to RFV. However, seeing that it can be cited, I'd vote Keep, based on the fact that we have entries for every book in the Bible, including other books like 1 Maccabees which are also found in the Apocrypha. See also: Category:en:Books of the Bible. It would be very strange to have all of those but then delete this one (though it's up for debate on whether or not this is considered its own book, but that's another conversation). Also, the only RFD that I was able to find thus far at Talk:1 Chronicles, ended in consensus for keeping the entry. AG202 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete – encyclopedic material, not lexical.  --Lambiam 09:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete for sure, I agree with Lambiam. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

August 2022Edit

Rfd-sense: The reason for which something is done, or the reason it is done in a particular way.

This sense is redundant to sense 1. I have just changed sense 1 from

An objective to be reached; a target; an aim; a goal.


The end for which an action or activity is done, an endeavor is undertaken, an artifact or its feature is made or an entity exists.

so it is now even clearer than it was before that this is redundant. I have checked multiple dictionaries to see whether these could be different senses, and I do not see that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that you could find citations that unambiguously support each element of your rewritten definition 1. See WT:RFVE#purpose for more. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The definition of the main sense now reads "The end for which something is done, is made or exists." I still maintain that the RFD-nominated definition is redundant and should be removed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted, uncited and redundant. - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
While I am glad the sense is gone, my position has been that at least two delete votes are required to establish consensus, which did not happen here; the vote of the closer does not count toward that tally unless the closer voted previously. Would anyone consider posting an additional delete vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is either sum of parts with inception (sense 2 - something recursive, multi-layered) or worse, it's a sum of parts with Inception (the movie) - most of the citations use a capital I and seem to be explicitly referring to the movie. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Strong keep. Sense 2 of inception is a decade-old definition that most people wouldn't be familiar with, making inception flashback a non-obvious term. Additionally, if the term is actually Inception flashback, it's definitely not SOP, as the film's title isn't a dictionary entry in the first place (and is being used idiomatically). Compare Abraham Lincoln hat, Albert chain, Archie Bunker house, Buster Brown suit, Charlie Chaplin mustache, Claudine collar, Davy Crockett cap, Davy Crockett hat, Eisenhower jacket, Fanny Murray cap, Fu Manchu moustache, Gandhi cap, Hammer pants, Hannibal Lecter mask, Hitler mustache, Ike jacket, Jason mask, John Lennon glasses, John Lennon spectacles, Juliet sleeve, Kanye glasses, Little Bo Peep dress, Mao jacket, Mao suit, Mickey Mouse cap, Mickey Mouse glove, Mickey Mouse hat, Nehru jacket, Peter Pan collar, Polly Crockett hat, and Zapata mustache. Binarystep (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
If "it's a new term" makes it not SOP, then "inception + literally anything" would be a phrase. I also think there is a difference between a item named after something or someone, and the SOP naming of an aspect of a thing. You can find lots of semi-idiomatic uses of "Star Wars plot" (just look at reviews of the film Eragon for instance - "it's definitely a Star Wars plot plopped into the LOTR world") but it means "a plot like Star Wars" and users would be better served looking up Star Wars on Wikipedia. Similarly, plenty of examples of "a Metallica riff" (a riff that sounds like Metallica) or "a CSI procedural" (a police procedural in the style of CSI). I would consider these SOP. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

If "it's a new term" makes it not SOP, then "inception + literally anything" would be a phrase.

WT:FRIED. If a term's meaning is ambiguous, it's not SOP. Additionally, there are a finite number of phrases using the word inception in this way, so we won't have entries for "inception + literally anything". We should, however, have entries for attestable phrases with this format, similar to how we have Mickey Mouse cap, Mickey Mouse glove, and Mickey Mouse hat, but not Mickey Mouse eyebrow or Mickey Mouse face.

I also think there is a difference between a item named after something or someone, and the SOP naming of an aspect of a thing. You can find lots of semi-idiomatic uses of "Star Wars plot" (just look at reviews of the film Eragon for instance - "it's definitely a Star Wars plot plopped into the LOTR world") but it means "a plot like Star Wars" and users would be better served looking up Star Wars on Wikipedia. Similarly, plenty of examples of "a Metallica riff" (a riff that sounds like Metallica) or "a CSI procedural" (a police procedural in the style of CSI). I would consider these SOP.

These terms are often more idiomatic than they seem. Take Star Wars plot, for instance. Is it referring to the franchise as a whole, or a specific work? The term only refers to plots reminiscent of A New Hope, but that's not necessarily obvious at first glance. CSI procedural is another one that should arguably be added if it's citable, since procedural doesn't mean police procedural on its own. Even if I were to concede that these specific examples are SOP, inception flashback is a bit different in that it refers to an element not present in the thing it's referencing. It'd be one thing if the term was e.g. inception dream (defined as a dream within a dream), but as it is this term is significantly more idiomatic than your RFD suggests. Binarystep (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Two of the three cites provided are capitalized, which means that the writer was referencing the movie directly. We shouldn't have entries for Sixth Sense plot twist or Star Wars opening crawl, because the terms are transparently
"an X in the style of the X in Y". - TheDaveRoss 12:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Not a set phrase as I initially believed. Binarystep (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

September 2022Edit

Rfd-sense: Charles Dickens, English novelist.

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

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

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

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

United Nations General AssemblyEdit

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationEdit

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

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

Albanian Orthodox ChurchEdit

Alexandrian Orthodox ChurchEdit

Army of the Republic of VietnamEdit

Assyrian Church of the EastEdit

Bulgarian Orthodox ChurchEdit

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day SaintsEdit

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

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

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

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

Interjection: "Used to scold a misbehaving child or pet." A lot of adjectives can be "shouted" this way; we don't have an intj at naughty, for example. Equinox 00:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nom. "Interjections that are just applicable words, uttered by themselves" is a bit of a grey area, I see we have good#Interjection, but we deleted fire (because you can equally shout "bomb!" or "gun!", or "halt!" or "stop!" or "aim!"), and I'm inclined to agree with Equinox that this is just the adjective like "naughty!" or "beautiful!" or "lovely!" or "ridiculous!". - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I think scolding is quite a specific use (though I’d say I’m much more likely to say “bad” to a pet, whereas “naughty” seems more appropriate for a child). Theknightwho (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You could also view it as simply an elliptical form of "you are bad" or "that is bad", as a person might mutter "...hungry, hungry...", or Vampire Willow said "bored now", omitting the subject and verb. Equinox 11:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
True, and there’s no change in the morphology. “What are you eating?” “Cake” is not really any different syntactically, and semantically they’re both being used in response to something. They’re just statements with obvious context. Leaning delete. Theknightwho (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: The difference is that your example uses cake as a response rather than an interjection. Most people wouldn't simply yell "Cake!" unprompted, nor would others interpret such an exclamation as "I am currently eating cake". Binarystep (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete Leasnam (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that it's specifically used to scold is an important bit of context, in my opinion. You wouldn't yell "Bad!" to mean "this yogurt has gone bad" (unless you were trying to be humorous, at least). Binarystep (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
You very well might. You're near the fridge and your girlfriend is handing you things to check. "This one's okay. That one's bad. Good! Bad!" etc. It's all about context. Nothing to do with this particular word "bad". Equinox 17:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep per above. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Interjections are a delicate area, since virtually any word can be used as an interjection in the right context. We don't need an interjection sense at "Dave" because sometimes people call out my name to get my attention. In this case I think it is essentially an elision of "bad dog" or "bad Susie" or whatever is being scolded. I am also skeptical of the argument that this can only be used to scold. - TheDaveRoss 16:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete for the reason given by the nominator. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Err on the side of keeping: in Czech, I cannot call "špatný" or "zlý" on a child or a dog, which would be an analog. It's not terribly useful for decoding, but it does document verbal behavior that is not guaranteed to be there from the definitions alone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I think the mention of naughty early in the discussion strengthens the case for keeping this word, as it shows us that there is a category of words that can be used this way, and a category that cannot. I would hope for example you would not use evil this way, even though it has essentially the same meaning. I could probably write a whole essay on why the word bad can mean what it does while being mild enough to use as an interjection aimed at small children, with naughty perhaps right by its side, while evil belongs in an entirely different category. Soap 19:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • RFD-kept: 4 keeps and 6 deletes; all votes provided something like a rationale except for one delete, which could be therefore discounted, but the result would be the same. If German pfui is really correct, that is not an obvious translation of "bad" outside of an interjection, cementing the rationale for keeping. (WT:VPRFD). --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

SOP much??? Flackofnubs (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep as lexicographically useful: allows us to say that this is more common than "bullet list", and this could be "list with bullets", but "bulleted list" is the lead. The translator may use bulleted to find a translation of the adjective, but it is the whole phrase that needs translating, e.g. into Dutch lijst met opsommingstekens. I was trying to find Polish translation and the best I could quickly find is "lista punktowana", but that is rare in Google Books; "wypunktowaną lista" also finds almost nothing in Google Books, but is used in Wikibooks. This illustrates the translator's problem: the translation is not an easy sum-of-parts job but rather requires quite some labor. And it does feel like Talk:free variable. Whether it may meet WT:THUB is unclear, though. It would be better to have a standard way to mark entries as arguably SOP for the reader, e.g. by saying "sum of parts" as a label before the definition, than deleting useful content whose usefulness is not articulated into a specific testable rule made part of policy. Policy-wise, we have WT:CFI's unvoted "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Impressed by Dan's verbosity but I don't see a point inside it. Equinox 17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Dan (a non-native speaker) says "it's not a bullet list", but of course it isn't, because a "bullet list" in English would be a list of bullets, not a list that has bullets. Equinox 17:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Tbf we do list bullet list as a synonym of bulleted list, and I have seen it used as such. AG202 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Web says: "What exactly is a bullet list? The simple definition is that a bullet list is a series of items with a heading broken up by dotted points. These lists can be used for anything you need them to, whether it's as informal as an agenda or as formal as a business plan at your workplace." If this is wrong, bullet list needs to be deleted as wrong. But web search finds more places using "bullet list" as a synonym of "bulleted list"; are they all wrong? And this only reinforces the notion that we are dealing with useful lexical information here. In a RFD for the Dutch translation, we are now discussing which one is the most natural, most fitting for a Dutch speaker. This all shows this is eminently useful. One should not look at it from the standpoint of a native speaker who knows which term is most natural anyway, but rather of a non-native speaker and a translator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The fact it can be either interpretation makes it plainly SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Thadh (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Is this a WT:JIFFY case at all? AG202 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
It might.
Free variable: Consider Talk:free variable, and from linguistics, transitive verb and the content of Category:en:Verbs, 19 items. The question is what is the most natural location for the definition of these notions. It seems "bulleted" is predominantly used with "list" per google:"bulleted", so the definition in bulleted is there mostly for "bulleted list". Like "transitive verb", "bulleted list" is not syntactically fixed, and can be found e.g. in "bulleted and numbered lists". The free variable argument was sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected. We still have many free-variable terms, especially in math, e.g. continuous function. Talk:acute angle was restored via consensus, yet it is covered in acute. Talk:prime number was kept via consensus. Dictionaries sometimes define terms supported by the free-variable argument, and often don't. continuous function is less useful than bulleted list: the translations are sum of parts.
Setness: WP says "Lists made with bullets are called bulleted lists." It explicitly defines this as a term. One can say "are called bulleted." but more often does not. More at google:"called bulleted".
Synonyms: bullet list can be entered as a synonym at bulleted list, but not at bulleted.
Translation: Covered above. I'll add that I tried to find a German translation (I speak German) and failed. Some contexts use Aufzählungsliste as a contrast to a numbered list, but I don't feel confident to enter it. A German speaker could enter that as a translation if confident. An exercise for the reader: pick a language you know or are learning and try to find the best translation by considering the translation of bulleted together with "list" and see how far it gets you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Dan. Binarystep (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I will add that bulleted list is as often visited as bulleted and much more often than noncholestatic.[16] Users do find a reason to look it up. Also, Diuturno added an Italian translation and JackPotte added the French one; they cannot be expected to show up in the RFD and protect the entry from User:Wonderfool (Flackofnubs) and from non-differentiating deletes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Possibly SOP. GreyishWorm (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  • RFD-kept: no consensus for deletion (at least two deletes needed per my interpretation). And the nominator being banned person Wonderfool is an aggravating circumstance for the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    Reverted. Let there be some discussion, at least. Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete. Covered by sense 3 of carnivorous. Old Man Consequences (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

October 2022Edit

SOP. PUC – 13:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

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

SOP: see uterine sense 2. PUC – 18:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

uterine brotherEdit

SOP. PUC – 18:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

uterine sisterEdit

SOP. PUC – 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete all. Ultimateria (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Delete. More examples of suffixes -oX that can be handled as just -X or if need be -o- + -X: -ogony; -ologist; -ometer; -ometry; -onomics; -onomy; -onym; -onymy; -ophilic; -opoly; -osis; -ostomy; -otic.  --Lambiam 12:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The proposed treatment is in keeping with WT:MWO: It has no -ometry, -ostomy, -otomy, -onomy, and -ology. But it has -ocracy. It has -onymy, traced by Wiktionary to ὄνομα, so the -o- is not the interfix but rather part of the etymon. It has -osis. By contrast WT:OED has no -otomy, but it has -ocracy, -ology, -ologist, -ological, -olol, -ometer, and -ometry, all as combining forms. It has -osis. I propose to follow MWO for minimalist treatment. -onym is a special case, etymologically. Why MWO has -ocracy I don't know. We can investigate whether -osis is a special case as well. We can expand our suffix entries with notes that some derivations are sometimes analyzed as containing an -oX suffix but that we chose to analyze it as -o- + -X. That should do and help up avoid double suffix entries and double categories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I added sources to our -o- entry. MW has speedometer as an example using -o-; AHD has acidophilic. We analyze both entries using -o-, not using -ometer or -ophilic. If we keep -otomy, some editors will invariably keep using it in etymologies, resulting in inconsistent treatment. As for whether -o- is a morpheme, that does not seem decisive: it is a "linking element". Perhaps it is "speedo-" and "acido-" that are the morphemes; it is not clear why "-ometer" and "-ophilic" should be more of candidates for morphemehood than "speedo-" and "acido-". Category:English terms interfixed with -o- has over 1,400 entries; many cases of similar analysis/etymology can be found there. However, some should perhaps be analyzed using Xo- combining forms: archaeography could be analyzed using archaeo-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The entry for -o- even admits that it is not a morpheme, and you are still basing your argument on how our categorisation structure works, which is wrong. As for why it doesn't attach to speed or acid, that's because they aren't prefixes and don't behave like them. Basic stuff. Theknightwho (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Our entry on -o- is no authority and does not even say "not a morpheme". Furthermore, so what if -o- is not a morpheme but perhaps a "morph" or "linking vowel"? It is an element of analysis. Suffix -y attaches to "skin" to create "skinny", and similarly, -o- could attach to "speed" to create "speedo-". Affixes do attach to free morphemes. Linking elements -n- and -o- are accepted in German, Czech and other Slavic compounding etymologies, avoiding the need to create combining form entries such as Wolken- for Wolkenkratzer, Bundes- for Bundestag or modro- for modrooký. Thus, modrooký = modrý + -o- + oko + -ý. What is to be avoided is duplication, not only of categories but also of suffix entries. The minimalist approach is well enough sourced to be a linguistically acceptable option. Is the proposal here that -o- should not be used in our English etymologies? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s not relevant that it doesn’t use the exact words “not a morpheme”, as it says it’s inserted between morphemes - a completely unnecessary statement for anything that is itself a morpheme. You’ve also provided nothing to suggest it is a morpheme, so we cannot assume that it is one, either. This is relevant, because it determines whether the suffixes that include it are alternative forms; evidently, they are.
The idea of avoiding duplication in alternative forms also goes against our approach everywhere else on the site, as you very well know. Given your heavy focus on categorisation, I can only conclude that this is yet another misguided attempt to sweep anything awkward under the rug when it goes against your own over-hasty analysis and attempts to pigeonhole everything based on whatever your latest category obsession is. That is a terrible approach to building a dictionary. Theknightwho (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
(outdent) 1) Search for google:"linking morpheme" finds linguistic sources using the term to refer to linking elements. They do think linking elements are morphemes. 2) The claim that it is not a morpheme is not backed up by any linguistic source so far; it is based on an uncertain inference from wording. To describe an interfix as connecting two morphemes is natural (it follows from its definition) and does not really imply it is not a morpheme. 3) If it is not a morpheme but rather a glue-like element used to link morphemes, then like glue it does not attach with priority to one of the connected surfaces. 4) If we accept "inserted interconsonantally between two morphemes", this does not imply -o- creates -oX but rather that it is inserted between X and Y to create words. This description does not imply -ometer as an intermediate product. 5) Spellings like cool-o-meter are a hint at this kind of analysis. There is no need to create -o-meter alongside -ometer to account for cool-o-meter and clap-o-meter. 6) I propose to keep analyzing speedometer as speed + -o- + -meter rather than changing it to speed + -ometer. To make sure this analysis is consistently applied, having no entry for -ometer is the most practical option: when there is no -ometer, it is not available in etymologies. I propose to follow a) Merriam-Webster, b) Wiktionary current predominant practice, c) the result of Talk:-oscopy, d) even OED to a large extent (see next point). 7) A minimalist approach is practical and would serve the readers well. Looking just at the neo-classic compounds starting with "acido-" that we have and that are in OED, we would need -ocyte, -ogenesis, -ogenic, -oleous, -olysis, -ophil, -ophile, -ophilia, -ophilic, -ophilous, -ophyte and -opore (-ophilic is the only bluelink, created in 2018, used in zero etymologies‎). Not even WT:OED has any of the forms; it has e.g. -genic. OED on "acidogenic": "acid n. + -o- connective + -genic comb. form." So even OED does not consistently and fully play the -oX game (it has -ology). My proposal: let's take the practice that we follow in all but a few cases and apply it consistently. Let's go by the Occam's razor heuristic. Let's not invent (a + (b + c)) when (a + b + c) is fine and does not prefer the former over ((a + b) + c). Let's not create a plethora of -oX forms that we never had and most of which are absent from most dictionaries, e.g. per -cyte at OneLook Dictionary Search vs. -ocyte at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Calling it "uncertain inference from wording" only makes sense if you're intentionally refusing to understand why I don't think it's a morpheme, as you've failed to engage with my explanation. 3 is completely false, because it ignores the option to simply model the two variants as alternative forms that depend on whether the stem ends in a consonant or vowel; you cannot argue that there are two variants of the stem, however (and examples like archaeo- are not relevant, as they are prefixes where my argument also applies). The existence of terms like cool-o-meter is also completely irrelevant, because (a) that only exists with the suffix -ometer, and (b) is riffing off the English word meter (something which measures). Just because you don't like the fact that acidophilia doesn't neatly fit into your model doesn't mean that you have to model the existence of a semantically irrelevant morhpeme in order to explain it. Much simpler to take the usual approach of noting that the suffixes often have phonetic variants that depend on the final consonant of the stem. An approach that is, in fact, a lot more common in linguistics than yours.
As for "taking a minimalist approach", you've failed to explain why we should only take that approach here, while we don't anywhere else on the dictionary. As someone who is usually highly inclusionist, it is one of the more glaring examples of the way you will argue totally contradictionary positions depending on what you want in any given moment (such as trying to brush any awkwardness under the rug to make categorisation easier while using the WT:LEMMING argument to argue for exclusion; the latter of which is something that you explicitly said you should not do on more than one occasion). Calling my approach (a + (b + c)) is also a pretty obvious misrepresentation of what I'm saying, too. Theknightwho (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you could provide some external sources to support the notion that -o- is not a morpheme and that the -oX approach is more common or "usual" in linguistics. I provided sources for existence of -o- as an element of analysis (multiple dictionaries including MW and OED), sources lacking most -oX forms while having -X forms (multiple dictionaries including MW and OED), and anyone can search for "linking morpheme" to easily find academic sources online. I find my analysis compelling and well backed by sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you could engage with the main substance of my point instead of fixating on the word "morpheme"? It just comes off as though you've only read the first sentence of my reply, because you haven't addressed my main argument(s) at all.
Continuing to use WT:LEMMING to argue for exclusion, despite explicitly saying that you would not and should not do that in the past, is not a good argument by the way. Theknightwho (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, as for "An approach that is, in fact, a lot more common in linguistics than yours": if that is true, it should be easy to provide at least one external linguistic source. I am eager to learn more from external sources, to broaden the perspective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, you're avoiding the substance of my argument. It's intellectually dishonest. I also said that modelling suffixes as having variants is more common than inferring the existence of a link - it was a general point you've not only hyper-fixated on for disingenuous reasons, but obviously misinterpreted in order to feel like you've "won". Egotistical nonsense. Theknightwho (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Why not share with us your sources for common enlightenment? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
You seriously want me to source the use of epenthesis with suffixes, and how it doesn't involve the creation of a morpheme? That Wikipedia article should help.
Go on then - please explain what the morpheme -o- means in -otomy. If it's a morpheme, it must have some kind of semantic value. By the way: the fact that linking morphemes exist does not inherently mean that -o- is acting as one. We even define it as an interfix, too, and interfixes are not morphemes (unlike infixes). Theknightwho (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't trust Wikipedia. When a Wikipedia article is well sourced, it is possible to trace a statement to the sources it traces to. What needs external sourcing, not Wikipedia, are the claims that are subject to disagreement, e.g. "interfix is not a morpheme" or "the -otomy analysis is more common in linguistic sources". As for semantics of morphemes, cranberry morphemes have no known meaning. I played the sourcing game by tracing -o- existence to multiple external sources, by tracing interfix to multiple external sources, by creating empty morph and tracing it to multiple external sources, by pointing out to "linking morpheme", where the tracing to external sources is available in Google search. There is empty morpheme (semantics-free morpheme), but I found only two sources to trace it to. I will quote one of my sources, boldface mine: "Interfixes (also called linking elements in English and Fugenmorpheme in German) refer to the phonetic material some-times found in compound words at the constituent boundary."[19]. The source may be wrong; I don't know. If you give us an external source claiming that an interfix is not a morpheme, we will have a more complete picture of what sources are saying. Without it, we have your claim against the claim of multiple sources found by searching for "linking morpheme", and as far as I am concerned, the multitude of external sources win. I may well be wrong, the sources may be wrong, you may be right, but that's the sourcing game. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
You have seriously (and I think disingenuously) misrepresented what a cranberry morpheme is, which is a morpheme that has an opaque meaning to speakers because it exists in fossilized constructions. You also don't seem to understand that morpheme and morph are not synonyms.
The concept of an empty morpheme is also controversial, and it also doesn't appear to be relevant here given that we can explain the presence of an -o- here as being a purely phonetic element.
Given that Wikipedia has plenty of sources, as you can already see, and the fact that you are calling a single paper that you've pulled from Google a "multitude of external sources", I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, as you are clearly not engaging in good faith. Theknightwho (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure, let's talk about me. Good idea. Now, let's try something different. Should Wiktionary be allowed to mark up Czech word mrakodrap (skyscraper) as mrak (cloud) + -o- + drapnout in its etymology? If so, does it mean that Czech etymologies are allowed to use -o-, although it has no semantics and therefore is, allegedly, not a morpheme? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep. It is spurious to analyse the intermediary "o" as a morpheme in its own right. This is clearly an epenthetic alternative form. To delete because of categorisation issues is also totally wrongheaded - that problem is obviously possible to solve in other ways, and is an issue that exists in many languages. Plus, the idea of regulating content based on how well it conforms to our current categorisation system is the opposite of how we should be approaching things, and therefore something I will never support. Theknightwho (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep per the above. AG202 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. PUC – 11:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • A question for the RFD participants on the fence: should English -o- be forbidden from English etymologies/morphologies of neo-classical compounds going forward? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be transparent: arm's length + transaction. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I might have have thought differently if arm's + length transaction were a possible misinterpretation, but it isn't. Theknightwho (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Delete. Not a separate sense. However, I miss in the current definition of sense 1 the aspect of failing to timely move on to a further destination, which is also present in the quotations for sense 1.  --Lambiam 11:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the senses given for most § Adverb is:

3. superlative degree of many

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

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

pre-alpha versionEdit

beta versionEdit

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

Weak delete. I work in this industry (occasionally): there are alpha and beta (and sometimes other) releases, and alpha and beta candidates, and just "alphas" and "betas". Same thing. It may be the case that these terms all derived from "alpha (etc.) version" (in which case we might want to keep it, as "mobile phone" despite "mobile"), but in that case I think we ought to have some strong sourcing. Equinox 01:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Ambivalent on this but the OED considers "alpha" and "beta" in the software sense as clippings of alpha testing and beta testing (rather than version), which seems plausible enough since their citations for the latter go back to the 1960s. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Could be a case of WT:JIFFY or similar thus, difficult to know, but maybe for parsimony as we can arguably cover the ideas on the pages alpha and beta alone weak delete. Fay Freak (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Err on the side of keeping: these are the headwords I would use for lookup. In Macmillan. Mark using "sum of parts" label if desired. Very good page views[20]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. pre-alpha is currently a red link, btw. Ultimateria (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I can vote without an account here, but as someone who looked up the word through Google and the Wiktionary definition was exactly what I was looking for (and I was very perplexed by the deletion message), I obviously want to keep this. -- 00:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

November 2022Edit

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

Doesn't strike me as SOP: Fiber internet which is transmitted using fiber-optic cables does not fall under the umbrella of cable internet even though a SOP interpretation says so. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Really? Cable Internet is just Internet transmitted over cables; why would it matter if they're fiber-optic or coaxial? Benwing2 (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't make sense and that it's a ridiculous and annoying misnomer but it do be like that sometimes: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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

The "Citizen Kanes" cite looks promising, but phrases like "the Citizen Kane of horror movies" really shouldn't count. Binarystep (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
So if I see "The movie was no Citizen Kane" somewhere I can't come here to find out what it means? Drapetomanic (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
You would be better off going to Wikipedia and learning more about the movie than a single-sentence definition can tell you. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Same for Einstein then? Drapetomanic (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Einstein is much more generally applied and understood independently of context, I'm not sure Citizen Kane is. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Then we should look for some kind of test. Drapetomanic (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. PUC – 13:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: the non-proper-name uses (the X of, Xes) need to be covered in some way, whether via the current common noun sense or as part of proper name sense indicating what the entity is noted for. (The proper name sense in Joan of Arc ought to be restored: it was deleted using low-quality rationale.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Leaning keep. It's not transparently SOP: per the OED, at least, run of luck is specifically a series of gambling wins, the more generic use to mean any spell of good fortune (not listed at our entry) is a later transferred sense. There, it has a sub-entry as a noun phrase under luck (alongside stuff like devil's luck—mere collocations are shunted to their own separate list). We also have the very similar lucky streak. There's another more general historical aspect, since etymologically it appears that the sense of run as a series or a spell might have been generalised from its use in gambling: "run of fortune" is attested from the late 17th century, whereas the more general concept in reference to events is 18th-century. Compare etymonline. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. The collocation is not reserved to gambling contexts.[27][28][29] One can also use the synonyms streak of luck[30][31][32], run of fortune,[33][34](déjà vu)[35] and, to complete the list, streak of fortune.[36][37][38] Furthermore, the luck can be qualified, as in run of good luck or even of bad luck.[39][40][41] I see no reason to think that the use of run in the sense of “series of like items” originated in gambling.  --Lambiam 12:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Lambian: Just to note, my argument above was a historical one—it is obviously used outside of gambling contexts, but this now-SOP use is transferred and not the original sense according to the OED. The "series of like items" sense of run is also listed as a subsense after "spell of luck" (similar earlier attestation is to continuous and abstract referents like "the run of time" and not a discrete series). The OED is only one source, but it seems reasonable enough and I'd want another citation to feel comfortable rejecting it out of hand. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not have access to the current edition of the OED, but the 1933 edition of the OED defines a sense of run as: “A course or spell of (good or ill) fortune, esp. in games of chance.”[42] The first three supporting citations, which are ordered by date, are:
The rest contains, in order, the collocations “a good or bad run of luck at cards”, “a long run of evil fortune”, and “a run of ill-luck”. With the 1933 OED definition, “run of luck” is definitely SOP. In my opinion, this sense is actually merely a specialization of a sense defined by the 1933 OED as: “A continued spell or course of some condition or state of things”. The aspect of fortune and the role of games of chance, if applicable, are conferred by the context in each of these quotations.  --Lambiam 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The current edition is rather more detailed, yeah, but the 1933 would then seem to in fact support that it originated in gambling, no? All of those early uses relate to gambling. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the full passage containing the third quotation is interesting and seems to support the contention that "run of luck" in fact originated as a term specifically related to gambling: [43]. Note that it's introduced without prior context—the reader is expected to infer that it refers to gambling and not just any old luck—and also that it's italicised in a way suggesting that it's a term of art. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
These six quotations are uses of the term run. Obviously, they have been selected by Murray to support his definition, involving fortune – and a good source of discussions of fortune is provided by games of chance. So what we have here is a selection effect. Only two contain the specific collocation run of luck. We see either stand-alone uses of run or in various transparent combinations: with at dice, of luck, of evil fortune, and of ill-luck. As I said, IMO these are SOP uses of run in a more general sense. This sense of run is old enough. For example, a book from 1677 has “a run of 20 Years”,[44] viz. of the Ark residing in the house of Abinadab. Why shouldn’t one expect to see it applied to other spells or courses of something, including good or bad luck (in gambling)? The collocation “a constant run of Fortune” occurs in a book from 1694,[45] unrelated to games of chance. Is there a reason to think this is by extension of a sense originating in gambling, instead of simply being the more general sense?  --Lambiam 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this burst out sense 2 + crying? The former entry already gives a usage example with "burst out laughing". You can also say things like "burst out bawling", "burst out weeping", "burst out in tears", etc. 19:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

SOP. Delete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

SoP, as pointed out by Equinox. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 23:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep. This is a set phrase, so SoP as interpreted by the nominator is a fallacy. DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
There are many “set phrases” like this: beyond comprehension, beyond description, beyond help, beyond hope, beyond recognition, ... . Being a set phrase does not mean the phrase is idiomatic. In these cases, the meaning is each time IMO a transparent combination of sense 6 of beyond and that of its object, as shown in the usex for sense 6: The patient was beyond medical help.  --Lambiam 20:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hmm-yeah, I would only go for the more common ones, like this one. DonnanZ (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't even call them set phrases, you can substitute past (or also past the point of) as a synonym of beyond with no loss of meaning in each case so both parts are freely variable. They're just collocations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete – SOP.  --Lambiam 10:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
"beyond help" is very common; "beyond hope", "beyond forgiveness", etc. are findable and not uncommon. I would delete. Give language-users some credit. We should also finally ban Donnanz from talk pages as a tongue without a brain. Equinox 07:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
??? @Equinox: This comment was hardly necessary, as I tend to ban myself. But as I created this entry, I am entitled to defend it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The vultures gathering for lunch might like to look at beyond#Preposition derived terms. DonnanZ (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
"Beyond redemption" and maybe "beyond belief" (though ?"past belief" sounds odd to me) are SOP for the same reason, but other than that the blue-linked terms there do in fact look like set phrases since they're either terms of art (e.g. beyond a reasonable doubt), the second part is used in a way it isn't otherwise (e.g. beyond one's pay grade), or the first part is invariable (e.g. beyond seas). This seems like a perfect use case for the collocations subheading in any case. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per WT:LEMMING: in M-W. Tag as "sum of parts" via label if wished. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lambiam. Theknightwho (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. This is similar to saying how many ‘football fields’ an area is and I don’t see why we should delete either sense at either entry. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The nominator added this sense to the entry, and must have had second thoughts about it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
It's because some of the Chinese equivalents were nominated for RFD, so I assumed that similarly this one may not satisfy CFI. – Wpi31 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
We should probably keep this one then[46], though I don’t feel qualified to vote on Chinese entries myself. We should also define ‘football pitch’ to be the area of a soccer pitch, IOW a typical 1.76 acres according to Wikipedia (see[47] - this this author works on the basis that a pitch is 1.79 acres if you do the maths) and perhaps also have another sense at ‘football field’ defining the area as 1.76 acres (if such a sense can be attested of course). The current definition at football field is based on the area of an American football field (1.32 acres) --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
We know the park exists, we need to verify this sense is used, if any quotations can be found, preferably in English. It's really an RFV matter. If some decent quotes can be added, I would keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Read my first comment, it's definitely attestable. There's like dozens, if not hundreds, of uses in different constructions in SCMP (the local newspaper). – Wpi31 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
PS: My concern is that it would imply any other place names can be used as a unit of area, provided they are attestable (e.g. Wales, as mentioned in https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-46737277). – Wpi31 (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
If an article said something was ‘three Waleses in area’ then that might be a concern but I don’t think anyone says that. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
You can add a quote from the South China Morning Post, but independent sources are also needed. DonnanZ (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Any locally well-known geographical feature can be used for area comparisons, like, in NYC, “the size of three Central Parks”,[48][49] in England, “the size of three London Olympic parks”,[50] and even “the size of four Belgiums, plus Crimea”.[51] Likewise for volume comparisons: “the equivalent of three Lake Eries”.[52] This does not make Lake Erie a “unit of volume in North America”, irrespective of how widespread attestible uses may be.  --Lambiam 13:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Just used by Tolkien in that book from the year 2021(?!?!) Flackofnubs (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Leasnam (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  Done Leasnam (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Leasnam This seems rather abrupt, no RFV? No waiting a few days for any discussion about whether this should be kept as a hapax legomenon? - TheDaveRoss 16:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Restored. Leasnam (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know, WT:CFI implies that we don't include hapax legomena for WDLs, even if the hapax is from a notable work. This is written at the top of Category:Hapax legomena by language, and is confirmed by the fact that there is no English subcategory. 20:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The category may be empty, but we assuredly have some. The idea that we ought to include a word which appears in three My Little Pony fanfics which will never be read by anyone, but we ought to exclude words which are intentionally included in the most-read books in the language may indicate a misalignment of policy. There is a pretty good chance someone may encounter dwimmer-crafty and be curious what it means. Policy can be wrong, and when it is we should keep the words it would exclude, or exclude the words it would keep. And perhaps fix the policy. - TheDaveRoss 21:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This should be at WT:RFVE. AG202 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I suppose the first order of business is to RFV, although yes, if it's only used by one author it'll be deleted. We used to allow words used in only one work, but voted to remove that in 2014, see diff, voted linked in edit summary, so English terms do actually have to have been used (three whole times) and not just coined by a celebrity. If there are citations, we may nonetheless return here to RFD, because the current definition is basically "crafty in the art of dwimmer", and this works for the one cite given, and is arguably SOP. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
SOP is a more compelling argument to me. - TheDaveRoss 14:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
lol classic Leasnamism. Equinox 13:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
<<lol classic Leasnamism.>> lol classic Equinoxism. Leasnam (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022Edit

This was somewhat surprisingly speedy deleted but if we look at Citations:legitimate rape then the two 2012 citations and the 2015 citation are independent as only one of them mentions Todd Aikin, so I propose we restore the article on that basis. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the discussion would probably have to centre on whether the term has a non-SOP meaning rather than the independence of the citations. If the gloss is just "a genuine, legitimate act of rape" like the Citations page has it then it's presumably SOP and the fact a politician once used the term doesn't seem like it's lexically significant. Incidentally I would probably remove the 2016 one there since it looks like it's "legitimate (rape victim)" and not "(legitimate rape) victim". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Unless there are some cites provided which show that this isn't SOP I don't think we should undelete. The "term" was notable because it was patently offensive (in what scenario is rape "legitimate", or "illegitimate" for that matter) in addition to the offensive context (if a woman is actually raped her body will magically reject a pregnancy, so no women who become pregnant as a result of rape have actually been raped). Really it is just SOP in the manner it was initially used. - TheDaveRoss 19:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
It was considered notable enouh to be named the American Dialect Society's most outrageous word of the year in 2012 [53]. I agree it's borderline but its probably no more SOP than regret rape, the phrase uses sense 3 of legitimate (genuine) rather than sense 1 (legal) after all. Of course rape is never legal but the very fact of it's illegality may perhaps lead to confusion in the minds of some people who hear the phrase. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Al-Muqanna and Dave, I'm not seeing a basis for undeletion at this time, as it looks SOP. One might say it's not a legitimate dictionary entry, or at least people have legitimate arguments that it's not something a legitimate dictionary would include as a legitimate lexeme. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep it deleted. Legitimate definition 3, "authentic, real, genuine", covers it. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Ultimateria (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Tagged (as assumed misspelling), not listed. Equinox 19:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep. See for example here, here and here. In each case the term neutroclusion occurs in combination with mesioclusion and distoclusion. The first reference states explicitly that the names of these diagnostic conditions are formed with the ending clusion; I suspect this is the coining publication. The selection of that ending is unetymological (occlusion is not ob+ *clusion) but apparently deliberate. The variant neutrocclusion is less common.  --Lambiam 03:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Lambiam. Binarystep (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
If kept, please note the points above, regarding non-standard spelling and reasons for it. Equinox 13:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • RFD-kept: no consensus for deletion. The nominated spelling is more common and even if it were ranked as a misspelling, we do keep common ones per WT:CFI#Misspellings, so no valid deletion ground identified. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    Striking the above closure, because the required month has not passed. Theknightwho (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    As per RFD header, "except for snowball cases". It follows early closure is possible in snowball cases. Since the nomination has no plausible ground for deletion (common misspellings are kept anyway), and since there is also clear numerical consensus, there is snowball's chance in hell that this will be deleted, and therefore, the closure is in keeping with policy. Anyone who does not want to play little games like the above can reclose this, or alternatively, it can wait here for one more month; no problem. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    Lol. Theknightwho (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dan's struck vote should be counted. DonnanZ (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    His vote hasn't been struck, because he didn't vote. Had he voted it would have remained. I don't think it will matter, anyway.Theknightwho (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    You blocked him a few hours later, his contribution is as good as a keep vote. Behave yourself. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    You might be fine with having editors that call (several) other users “harassers”, “frauds”, “incompetent”, “enemies of open society” and “forces for harm” (if they agree with you), but most of us aren’t. The fact you are so outraged at the fact I want to keep discussions open suggests a pretty obvious bias here, but the kind of extreme disruptive behaviour that Dan has brought (and which you are encouraging) is simply not fair on everyone else. I’m not engaging in this any further. Theknightwho (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    As I see it, you're like a boy with a new toy (adminship). Fortunately there are some level-headed senior editors still around. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    Whatever makes you feel better. Theknightwho (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not generally a fan of speedy keeps or speedy closures but let's just give it a couple of weeks and keep this. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of the record and the reader, let us compare this RFD nomination to that of #Bevis Marks. "Bevis Marks" (to be archived to Talk:Bevis Marks) was nominated for RFD on 28 December and speedy-deleted on 31 December over two boldface keeps, in 4 days. In Bevis Marks, Donnanz and Dan Polansky (me) protested the process violation yet no administrator undid the deletion. In Bevis Marks, user account "Theknightwho" did not undelete the entry to prevent process violation but rather stated "Keep deleted" with zero rationale. We see what looks like a contradiction: in Bevis Marks, mere 4 days are fine for closure in the deletion direction despite 2 keeps, whereas in neutroclusion, 14 days are not fine for closure in the keeping direction.
  • There is another matter, and that is the RFD header. For many years, the RFD header used to say that one week is the minimum for RFD, and said nothing about speedy deletion; and that made a lot of sense to me, and it still does. This was changed in 2021 in a diff without a trace to objective verifiable evidence of consensus. As far as I am concerned, the 2021 edit is invalid, and I have no reason to believe this diff is supported by consensus, in part since it makes the process worse (by my assessment), and in part since there is no evidence of numerical 2/3-supermajority, and in part since no rationale for the process change was stated (that is, it was not stated why the process change is good). As far as I am concerned, therefore, the minimum RFD period is 7 days, and no RFD can be closed before 7 days, and in clear cases, RFDs can in fact be closed after 7 days. We must always hope rationality will prevail, and never give up. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • RFD-kept again per obvious consensus. Since a month has passed now, the nominal (unreal) rationale for unclosing the previous RFD-kept no longer applies, and we can advance the RFD page and help make it smaller. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'd love to know what's "unreal" about following the procedure given at the top of the page. Theknightwho (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is "sic" in square brackets. The brackets are not part of the word. Equinox 09:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It's also not correct to treat it as an alternative form of sic since the square-bracketed one can't be used in every situation where the plain form can—which is just a consequence of what square brackets mean. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
If it could, we would have a recursion problem... Equinox 17:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete. This entry seems rather strange to me, it's no more justifiable keeping this than it would be creating round bracketed sic (which I don't propose doing). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons above. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete per the above. PUC – 12:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It induces cringe (for which we have an entry already). Compare (real phrases I have found in Google Books search) "sorrow-inducing", "terror-inducing". Equinox 13:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether this is subject to WT:BRAND, WT:COMPANY, or, for that matter WT:FICTION. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 09:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Very difficult to see how "ABC News" could satisfy the last paragraph of WT:BRAND, and I don't see any plausible way WT:COMPANY could apply either. The initialism listing at ABC#Proper noun is enough. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. WT:BRAND would be for RFV; speculating what would happen there is epistemically inadequate. WT:COMPANY is essentially defective, lacking superficially plausible rationale, and not voted-on. The dictionary will not get better by deleting the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete per Al-Muqanna. Theknightwho (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no BBC News. DonnanZ (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete Leasnam (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Given as "alternative form" of then again, but seems a rather grammatically different beast, and SoP. Equinox 09:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Weak Keep then again and but then both mean on the other hand or however but you wouldn't say on the other hand again or however again. You could say but on the other hand, though but however is much rarer and unidiomatic, perhaps even grammatically unsound. The phrase could plausibly be thought of as but+then again but not really as but then + again but I'd say but then again is idiomatic rather than SOP and keep it, personally. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how this is an interjection. Equinox 10:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Just want to point out it's in the OED. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Stuff like this seems pretty interjection-y to me: "They were poor, but they were rich in faith, and when they died they shouted, 'Victory, victory!'" [54] "In the severest moments of the death-struggle, there was no intermission of the cry. 'Victory, victory, victory,' was still repeated." [55] "when in the rear of the army, and he heard the cannon, far from being frightened [] he cried, Victory! Victory!" [56] etc. Inclined to keep. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Then freedom is also an interjection: [57], [58], [59].  --Lambiam 22:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
In a hortative sense (as in your example 3, or a Braveheart caricature) I think "freedom" can be usefully defined as an interjection, yeah, with similar reasoning for "victory". The second example I am ambivalent on, I don't think that use is generically different from saying "A man!" when you see a man and the like—I selected the "victory" examples specifically because they're cases where it is not just an observation of a victory. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
If this is an interjection, I am going to an interjection sense to pwned, and headshot. Fay Freak (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
And goal (football cheer) and walkies (calling to a dog) and loser (shouting an insult) and and and Equinox 23:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Here’s another one for our growing collection of interjected nouns: success.[60][61][62] And then there is waiter.[63]  --Lambiam 20:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Lovely. These are all unambiguously interjections syntactically: the question is which ones merit inclusion in a dictionary as such. The OED thinks victory does. The problem with the slippery slope idea is that we already have a good number of interjection lemmas that can be dismissed on similar grounds as any of these, e.g. (picking some random examples) apologies, condolences, battle stations, newsflash, checkmate, heads. So we might want to think about what the actual test(s) for inclusion are for an interjection, rather than simply stockpiling examples (of which we already have plenty)—unless it's just about lemmings. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Are there any formal linguistic tests for interjections? — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess it's not really something like that hinges on fine points of grammar like the participle vs. adjective discussions that people enjoy having: if you're shouting out a word by itself then it's an interjection by definition, even if it's also some part of speech (these are called "secondary interjections" in the literature). The question's just what the point of listing it as one would be. FWIW I don't get the conniptions about listing stuff like walkies or freedom or whatever as interjections if they're attestable and someone cares enough to add it, we're not short of space. The one category I'd probably exclude is "vocatives" or generally just exclaiming because something exists/happened (goal etc, and imo checkmate). I won't die on the hill of victory anyway, it just might be worth having a beer parlour discussion or something. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The information of whether a given lexeme has been used hortatively within the corpus doesn't strike me as lexical information of that word. Additionally, having a distinct interjection section for these semantically indistinguishable cases isn't really worth anything from a usability perspective either. I'm casting a weak delete for now. I also think we should consider creating a new binding policy page for our parts of speech and their specific inclusion criteria. First English participles/adjectives, then German adjectives/adverbs and now interjections. We'd do ourselves a favor by writing down the consensus somewhere so that we don't have to relitigate everything or, even worse, end up in an internally inconsistent state (as we currently are with respect to ex- terms). Related: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/January § skill issue and whether a noun phrase should be included as an interjection only because it is frequently uttered in isolation. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Leaning towards keep. If text appears as "Victory!" it would be an interjection. DonnanZ (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep if it's in the OED. That is, err on the side of; clear case it is not. (Oder so. Ist Deutsch erlaubt or streng verboten? Na ja, es gibt nicht unbedingt viel Sinn, in einer englischen Diskussion auf Deutsch zu schreiben. Aber macht Spass. Also lieber ignorieren und meine Fehler entschuldigen.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably not a valid WT:THUB, see Talk:outside a window. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 12:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a noun in English. It would be a prepositional phrase, which can function as either an adjective or an adverb. 20:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Does it have an idiomatic meaning? If not, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    It's certainly not idiomatic in English, but as a THUB it doesn't have to be. I can't speak for the translations. Justinrleung, who speaks Chinese, seemed to side with Surjection in the above discussion, which may mean there is nothing special about "outside a window" in Chinese as compared to e.g. "outside a door". The Finnish, Japanese (first), and Vietnamese translations seem SOP, as they link to their individual components. So that leaves potentially Korean and Japanese (second). Those still look SOP to me, though. 01:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    As you must know better than me, the Finnish translation, ikkunan ulkopuolella, is also non-idiomatic; compare oven ulkopuolella.[64]  --Lambiam 20:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

SoP: blow = leave a place, joint = place. We have both. (If kept, we need to consider the choice of entry title: can't you also "blow THAT joint", or "the new joint", etc.?) Equinox 19:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

One can find "blow the joint", "blow the scene", "blow this burg", "blow this chicken coop", "blow this dump", "blow this place, "blow this pop stand", "blow this popsicle stand" "blow this scene", "blow this taco joint", "blow this taco stand", "blow this town". A number of informal or belittling descriptions of where one is can be substituted. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Unneeded translation hub since elbow pit exists, and the term "bend of the arm" is rather opaque anyway as people have pointed out at Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/December#bend of the arm. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be a poor translation of armveck by the entry's creator, crook of the arm is much better. But that is SoP to some. DonnanZ (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Previously deleted. SOP Flackofnubs (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Where's your Christmas spirit? DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Could probably be kept as a WT:THUB using the translations in charcoal. The question remains what the relative frequency of that sense of charcoal and charcoal drawing is (see last bullet point of WT:THUB). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, this is self-drilling + screw. We probably should keep one and delete the other, or expand one. Flackofnubs (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

A synonym of self-tapping screw. DonnanZ (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Not quite a synonym, more context provided from WP. Keep anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
These kinds of technical terms have exacting, often even safety-relevant, distinctions, the collective system making the individual terms more inclusionworthy than their trivial technical nature would suggest, thus are beneficial to collect. Perhaps Wonderfool should discern it with a real job, but I may also be projecting. Weak keep. Fay Freak (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • RFD-kept: nominated by a banned person. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    Nope, sorry, you can't do that. Flackofnubs (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Tough. DonnanZ (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I’m striking out the obviously bad faith attempt to close this. Theknightwho (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a vendetta against Dan. So my conclusion doesn't count? DonnanZ (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
No - I am preventing Dan (and you, given you're now engaging in the same behaviour) from abusing RFD to get what you want. Theknightwho (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
What is evident is that for any of Dan's keep votes you go out of your way to vote delete. Is that rational behaviour? DonnanZ (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Nope. I don't vote on most of them. Theknightwho (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
As I thought, irrational. Three keep votes, one delete. We'll see if that changes in the next month. DonnanZ (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Haha what? Theknightwho (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Probably WT:THUBable. German has Bohrschraube among others. Other Germanic languages also seem promising, e.g. borrskruv. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A street in London. I remember similar entries being contentious. Perhaps you'll enjoy debating the entryworthiness of this particular one Flackofnubs (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep in the absence of any deletion rationale beyond trolling. Equinox 13:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I guess this avoided the mass nomination above by not being in Category:en:Named roads (I've added it). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This may have been the red rag that enraged the bull. DonnanZ (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: has no figurative meaning, and so does not comply with "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Place names". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Reading between the lines, WF is, out of devilment, only interested in sparking a debate without being concerned about whether it is deleted or not. So, as Equinox guessed, WF has given no good reason for deletion. Therefore, Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. I'm afraid that is an insufficient argument for keeping the entry in view of the extremely clear policy previously adopted. If it is felt that the policy should be changed, feel free to start a discussion or vote. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Another admin needs to Speedily undelete Sgconlaw's poor decision. DonnanZ (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Doesn’t look like a community consensus to keep the term will form, it’s only you gaming to see whether you can create a different appearance of consensus after waiting five days with no one voicing disagreement. WT:CFI says “Most manmade structures, including … individual roads and streets, … may only be attested through figurative use.” So Sgconlaw’s decision to delete this random-ass streetname, too insufferable even for Wonderfool (though him to give deletion rationale was expected), is correct. Fay Freak (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not a "process violation" (nor a "poor decision"—on what basis?). There is a clear policy—"Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Place names"—that was arrived at through a formal vote which was called specifically to resolve the issue of, among other things, road name entries, and this is an entry that is not in line with that policy. It is not the "unidiomaticity" of the entry that is the issue; the entry is a road name that has no figurative meaning and so does not comply with the policy. There is little point in editors engaging in formal voting on policies if the matter has to be relitigated for each entry. By all means start another formal vote to amend the existing policy if that is what is desired, but until that has been done the policy stands. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It is a process violation since policy does not trump consensus: if it did, Wiktionary never would have had hot words before they were approved, yet Wiktionary did have hot words. The same is true of translation hubs: using your logic that policy trumps consensus, Wiktionary would not have had translation hubs before they were finally formally approved years later, and yet it did have them. Therefore, the common-law principle (as opposed to statutory law) establishes that consensus trumps policy, not the other way around. Your view that CFI overrules consensus is further refuted by the 2014 vote I linked to. You ought to unstrike this nomination, undelete the entry, and let the sovereign of the English Wiktionary decide, which is we the editors, not CFI, per arguments just presented. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
No. Please start a new formal vote to amend the existing policy if that is desired. It makes no sense that policies formally voted on (especially one as fundamental as WT:CFI) can simply be ignored in this way. (@Chuck Entz: as a long-time admin, feel free to advise on this.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
You pretend you did not read a single word of mine, as per lack of specific response. Unacceptable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Please start": I am not anyone's subordinate here and do not accept any commands or imperatives; you ought to desist from using this phrasing going forward. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: obviously it is a suggestion, not an order. If you do not desire to start a formal vote, then don't. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It is an imperative. A suggestion: "It might be a good idea to do X"; "you may want to do X", and the like. (What's new about consensus? Still 50%-majority, by the "usual" meaning of it, as you say?) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Put differently, Sgconlaw closure is an attempt at an anti-constitutional revolutionary coup, where the constitution, like the Britain's one, is an unwritten one and involves long-term established practices of which ample evidence is on record spanning years. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
As for "Doesn’t look like a community consensus to keep the term will form": I see 2 boldface keeps. And consensus to keep does not need to form; consensus to delete needs to form. Speculations about process outcomes are no substitute for a process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Whether Bevis Marks is worthy of inclusion or not, I feel Sgconlaw's behaviour here was irrational and uncharacteristic, and the decision, which goes against usual RFD procedure, should be reverted. DonnanZ (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
We have used speedy deletions before, for example, for self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds when they are clearly against policy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
But in the case you quote, there were no boldface keeps, so speedy was at least plausible. Of course, per long-term text in the RFD header, a RFD discussion should be open for at least a week, but that was changed via a coup in 2021 or 2022 (I don't remember which year). By contrast, here, you deleted an item over two boldface keeps. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
No substantial reason contrary to WT:CFI has been provided for the "keep" votes. Claiming that the nominator has not provided a sufficient reason for deletion isn't enough when it is clear that the entry violates CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
You still keep on pretending to have not heard a single word of mine. I showed the common law to be that consensus trumps policy, not the other way around, and you did not address that. An entry that clearly does not meet CFI can be kept if there is consensus to do so; thus, an entry that met the hot word standard was kept even when CFI did not cover the hot word standard. And the reader does not need to trust me on that; it is all on record. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete or keep deleted or whatever per Sgconlaw. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep Deleted. I would note that speedy deletes are allowed, though I wouldn't have done so myself in this case. As for Dan, everything he says can be discounted by his own precedent of doing so to WF: like WF, he is a formerly-banned user who likes to play games. @Dan Polansky: you were blocked for a reason, and you don't seem to have learned anything. Please stop being contentious and disruptive. You're on very thing ice here: IMO you shouldn't be closing anything that's not an obvious snowball slam-dunk. You are not RFVE's Supreme Court. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
LOL: I prefer Dan to WF. But I don't want to give him a swelled head. DonnanZ (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I was blocked in 2022 for fabricated reasons, as I documented on my talk page. There was talk about "POINTING", where there was obviously none. As for closing RFDs (not RFVs) today, I am closing them in keeping with approved policy, and I have years-long history of uncontested closures of RFDs, and the only closures that were contested were in 2022 by a certain editor who likes to pick fight with me; the closures I made were then reclosed to the same effect as I did. I recommend anyone to review the closures I made today and examine them on policy substance to see whether there is any issue with them; I believe there is none. Also, since I have not seen Chuck Entz do any RFD closures for years (not even the other editor who likes to attack me), we have no idea what kind of closures Chuck Entz would like to see, or the other editor. "RFVE's Supreme Court": again, not RFV; more inaccuracy from Chuck Entz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"like WF, he is a formerly-banned user who likes to play games": to liken me to Wonderfool in any way is a top of insolent rudeness from Chuck Entz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
(weak) Keep deleted - this should've been kept open for a bit longer to see if idiomatic uses could be found but I can't see it passing if it is reopened. The unusual name and etymology of this street name, relating to the mark(boundary) of land owned by the abbots of Bury St Edmunds and not, as one might suspect, a Jewish surname (Marks/Marx) along with the historical significance of the street means that it would be a shame to keep this deleted but that's just the way it is. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW I would support having an appendix space for compiling etymological info for toponyms that don't pass CFI (though it would probably need its own looser CFI). Place name dictionaries that focus on etymology are a thing, much like thesauruses. For my own part, I vote keep deleted. While I think Sg's decision was probably hasty, this is not a significant street in London and it's unlikely on the face of it that there is any figurative use, and nobody has suggested one. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The question of whether the string Bevis Marks has a figurative meaning associated with it is an RFV issue strictly speaking, but if we're only talking about the literal street name, we of course have to delete it under our current policies. The point that @Overlordnat1 and @Al-Muqanna have raised does have merit in my eyes and perhaps it's even worth considering amending our CFI to include attested place names that would otherwise fail the CFI but have interesting etymologies (for a sufficiently robust definition of interesting). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Fytcha: Technically, I think that the most reason why certain kinds of structures have been categorized as allowed and others as usually disallowed (the wording of the CFI shrewdly says “most” of them are) is that one group of places has typically “interesting” historical development and thus origins and variation of meaning to describe while other structures are arbitrarily named by city councils or other bureaucrats after their favourite rappers or prostitutes, for blank utility, in which individual buildings are even similar to individual persons. So your consideration is already part of the CFI. As a rule of thumb, the inclusionworthiness of a place depends on whether its whole existence as a concept has been invented on file. Fay Freak (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023Edit

"An edit of multiple items at the same time, or in sequence." This is SoP, similar to a "batch rename" or a "batch deletion", etc. etc. I assume someone added it just because it's (sometimes) a wiki term. Equinox 23:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts. Fay Freak (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete. You can also batch delete, batch rename and batch a whole lot of other things. Best documented at batch. I'd delete batch-edit too. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. Flackofnubs (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep - it’s generally used idiomatically, I feel. Theknightwho (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Just attributive aorist + tense. Not comparable to future tense, past tense since the latter have trans-linguistic meanings whereas "aorist tense" is just "the tense(-aspect) of the aorist", whatever that implies in a given language (perfective in Ancient Greek, habitual in Turkish, etc). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Relevant precedent: we deleted Talk:relative future tense, too. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

government of a benevolent tyrant.” benevolent tyrant was RFD-deleted (“A tyrant who rules through benevolence.”) J3133 (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep since apparent contradictions in terms should be kept, and their usage documented, to render lexicographical service to the users. (I guess I will be outvoted, but that is fine.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Synonym of benevolent tyrantbenevolent tyrant was RFD-deleted (“A tyrant who rules through benevolence.”) @Al-Muqanna wrote in the discussion, “I've not come across "enlightened tyrant" in historiography, however, and the definition there suggests it's SOP.” J3133 (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

enlightened tyrannyEdit

Synonym of benevolent tyranny” (“government of a benevolent tyrant.”) J3133 (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete both per my comment that J3133 mentioned. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep since apparent contradictions in terms should be kept, and their usage documented, to render lexicographical service to the users. (I guess I will be outvoted, but that is fine.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Kanye West, American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and fashion designer. The legal name of an individual person defined as that person. Seems like WT:NSE doesn't explicitly prohibit this case but this should be rather obvious nonetheless. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 10:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep. It seems odd to me, on the face of it, that whether we're allowed to have an entry depends on the external vagary of whether he's decided to change his legal name, and there are of course plenty of cases of ancient authors and the like whose whole name is one word (e.g. Sophocles). I would lean towards a stricter reading of the policy. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I imagine there's a pronoun use missing here, like when talking to God. Our Holy Father, may Ye please provide me with better health Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    If it's attestable... traditionally "ye" is plural and God is addressed in the singular, though it's a plausible variant. I couldn't find any cases where it's capitalised for "may Ye" from a quick search. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    That's merely capitalisation of ye. DonnanZ (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    We have entries with specific glosses for Thou, He etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep per Al-Muqannaʿ. There was a principle that if something has passed inclusion criteria at one point in time then it cannot lose its status, whereof WT:JIFFY is an instance. Also it’s useful, more than many obscure nicknames we include, as his name is uttered with regular frequency in fashion discourse and short names cause comprehension difficulties. Fay Freak (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 07:41, 8 January 2023.

The sense targeted by the IP looks like it's a synonym of such-and-such. DonnanZ (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the complaint is that sense 2 ("Some thing or things") is redundant to sense 1 ("A placeholder name for a person or thing"), in which case I agree, delete, or merge. such-and-such has "placeholder or generic thing", which might be a better definition. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Nothing for that sense in Collins and Oxford hard copies, but I notice it crops up in phrases like "at so-and-so a" (time, place etc.) which could be replaced by such-and-such. Probably best described as non-standard. A quote or two would be useful. DonnanZ (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a meme, I don't think we should have an entry on it. 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep - we don’t delete things on this basis. Theknightwho (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
You should move this to RFV if you don't think it should be included. - TheDaveRoss 20:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep - all forms of this have 3 cites. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Rfd-sense (mathematics) a vector whose value in every dimension is zero. i.e.  . It's just a special case of the second (more general and correct) definition. The word has only one discernible sense. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

SOP. PUC – 16:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: embarrassingly SoP. (We don't even have "women-centric", which is itself rather obvious in meaning given the hyphen break). P.S. It strikes me that this and the eminently keepable Bechdel test would be a good example of how an important cultural topic is not always a useful dictionary phrase. Equinox 23:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
women-centric seems to be in vogue though. DonnanZ (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete per SoP above. Leasnam (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: SoP. J3133 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete SOP. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I love to defend entries from deletion, but I see no chance for this one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

WT:BRAND. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep in RFD: the requirements of WT:BRAND are requirements on existence of certain kinds of quotations. Entry created by @Atitarev; entry edited without RFD nomination by @Equinox, @J3133 and @Adam78. In terms of general/universal lexicography (word documentation), the entry has valid lexicographical content. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    Did you mean you are against WT:BRAND? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think Dan is saying that WT:BRAND is a criterion to test quotations so this should be handled at RFV rather than RFD. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yes. To explicitly itemize: 1) RFD is inapplicable; WT:BRAND-related deletions are for RFV. 2) WT:BRAND does not trace to any credible arguments supporting it as a rationale, and therefore, WT:BRAND is not supported by Wikipedia-consensus, where Wikipedia-consensus is the concept of consensus as understood by Wikipedia. 2.1) Wiktionary ought to undergo a cultural change in which Wiktionary-consensus becomes more like Wikipedia-consensus, strongly incorporating the element of the strength of arguments, and in particular, those who make no pretense of making arguments ought to be dismissed as decision-making participants. 2.2) some steps toward 2.1 were already taken, e.g. in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes, linked from WT:VPRFD. Ironically, it was me who argued that consensus has to be determined numerically, not based on the strength of the argument. In part, I was wrong: at a minimum, those who make no pretense to make arguments (e.g. by saying "Delete" with no rationale) can be dismissed, and lack of argument is easy to deterministically/algorithmically and objectively determine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    The wording of WT:BRAND is supported by the following votes. A careful reader will note that vote 3 explicitly approves the full text of the section:
    1. Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-08/Brand names of products 2
    2. Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product
    3. Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2
    Because these were formal votes, the result of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes is completely irrelevant.
    Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    That is a good point. However, the formal vote that decided that formal votes ought to completely dismiss the strength of the argument (which I opposed) did not provide any credible arguments for doing so. Therefore, the meta-vote itself fails to comply with Wikipedia consensus process, and in so far as the principle of the strength of the argument is taken seriously, is illegitimate. Those who want to push the strength of the argument principle can do so, in so far as that reveals their true and free will and their being members of the rational universe in which mere numbers of very stupid or inarticulate people supporting something do not count. Incidentally, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2 is a perfect example of a gross violation of Wikipedia-consensus process: the voters make no pretense of making any arguments at all. On the strength of the argument principle, the conduct of that vote participants is unacceptable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    There's also Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes. You seem to be trying to argue that anyone who supports closing discussions based on the strength of argument should, by extension, want to ignore any formal votes which don't meet that standard; ignoring the fact that those votes still passed, whether we wanted them to or not.
    In any event, we can't start nullifying votes retroactively by changing the rules on how they should have been decided many years later. Sorry. Theknightwho (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    It is exactly that 2019 vote that I referred to above as "meta-vote", and about which I pointed out that it fails to comply with Wikipedia-consensus process by its disregard of the strength of the argument principle and that, from the standpoint of the strength of the argument, is illegitimate. Wiktionary editors do in fact have the option of rejecting the results of votes that fail to comply with Wikipedia-consensus process; whether they ought to take that option is another matter, but they do have the option or they can reject such votes as illegitimate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    As for "sorry", internal emotional states of discussion participants have no logical bearing on correctness, plausibility, verifiability, falsifiability, or strength of arguments. Put differently, such an internal state is irrelevant and does not need to be revealed as part of a RFD discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    Reading Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes reminds me of the time when I was working on FreeMind, the free-as-in-freedom mind mapping software, and one of the users in our fora posted to the effect that FreeMind is a rare sign of the presence of the intelligence on the planet. In a kind of analogy, the vote shows that there is some rare presence of intelligence and Wikipedia-consensus spirit in the English Wiktionary, and it belongs to me, not to the other vote participants. That is an arrogant thing to say of oneself, but the objective evidence in that vote is very clear in that regard. It is the inferior behavior of the great majority of the English Wiktionary editors that makes me arrogant, comparing myself to what is arguably much more inferior than the general Wikipedia editor, who necessarily respects the strength of the argument principle in Wikipedia Requests for comments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    They can reject such votes by passing a vote which overturns them. This just seems to be a (particularly tortured, even for you) way of arguing that we should ignore consensus that you don’t like. Theknightwho (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    Editors do have the option to ignore numerical-consensus as an opinion of those who do not even pretend to have anything resembling an argument and to insist on Wikipedia-consensus as the only acceptable process on wiki. That is a fact; they do have the option, whether they ought to take it or not. (I am repeating myself since there is not much else I can say to the above pseudo-argument. Maybe I should say nothing and leave it to the reader.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    The fact remains that the only way they can exercise that option is by passing a vote overturning current policy. It's not a pseudo-argument just because you don't like the fact that certain policy exists. I suggest you stop conflating your personal feelings with objective fact, because it's an absolutely typical move of yours to start claiming that people aren't making arguments when you don't have an adequate response. Theknightwho (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    Clearly untrue, as per things I said. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    Would you consider starting a BP discussion as nullifying WT:BRAND is such a big deal? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    In BP, the stupid and/or dishonest people who supported WT:BRAND without a proper rationale/strength of argument would shoot my proposal down like a breeze, consistent with their long-term problematic behavior. In recent discussions on various subjects, editors freely revealed themselves as free of anything resembling a strong argument, in a completely unashamed way. But I do not entirely give up on my fellow co-humans or co-persons or Mitmenschen or whatever they really are, in their ultimate unknowable being. Maybe BP would be worth a try. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    Also, I thought a RFV naturally becomes RFD if an entry has its only sense RFVed. No? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    There's a difference, ... we've had plenty of single-sense RFV's, such as sleepwell ... it does seem to me that RFV would make more sense since a brandname has a pretty clear-cut definition. Nobodys debating whether KakaoTalk exists ... I dont know how to explain it, but .... to keep a brand name in the dictionary, we want to see that it's used as a *word*, not just a name. Soap 21:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    Brand names are words or word sequences, just like all proper names. That is obvious, and the repeated claims to the contrary are cases of pathetic lying or pretending to be very stupid. The obvious can be articulated: brand names have pronunciation, etymology, inflection (not so much in English but e.g. in Czech), part of speech, referents (like other proper names), etc. Put differently, brand names are words or word sequences by duck test: that which has all signs or characteristics or behaviors of a word is a word. But maybe I, a non-expert, am wrong and there are authorities explaining that this reasoning is incorrect. If so, it should be possible to trace the statement that some brand names are not words or word sequences to authoritative sources; I would ask those who support that statement to do so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    RFD deals with deletion of entries "for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested" as it says at the top of the page. RFV handles attestation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
For some context, KakaoTalk (aka Kakao or KaTalk) in South Korea is the primary messaging tool, it's probably much more common than Facebook, Skype, Twitter or Instagram for which we have entries. It's also common with anyone who has to communicated with Koreans, since many people in South Korea don't even have any account on other platforms or don't care about them.
From the Web: "According to Kakao Corp, in Q3 2022, there were 53.5 million active users worldwide and more than 47.6 million were based in South Korea." Or "It is found on more than 90 percent of phones in South Korea." --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Send to RFV. AG202 (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
What sort of verification was required for Facebook, Twitter, Skype, etc.? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Nominally, Facebook, Twitter, etc. need to meet WT:BRAND. However, editors have the option to treat WT:BRAND as invalid given its failure to comply with the Wikipedia-consensus process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2 was referred to above as establishing that the WT:BRAND rules were established in full conformance to our (Wiktionary’s) consensus process. We are not Wikipedia. The discussion took place on the talk pages. I do not understand the claim that editors have the option to treat this as "invalid".  --Lambiam 11:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Its possible that they were such obvious non-candidates for RFV that nobody's bothered to send them there. Im sure we could easily find the required three citations using Facebook as a common noun outside the context of Facebook, and likewise for Twitter. Im not as familiar with Skype but Im sure that sooooooomewhere we could scrape up three cites and probably a lot more. KakaoTalk may be more difficult to support if its primary language is not English. Soap 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Skype would be trivially easy to cite as a verb. Up until the pandemic, it was still being used as the generic word for video calling (at least in the UK). Theknightwho (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
RFV issue. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 09:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Dan Polansky seems to suggest that the fact that I edited the entry means I approve of it. No way! Sometimes I'm too busy to RFV/RFD, or feel sadly sure it would pass. Equinox 23:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep or move to RFV (though that would be pointless as it would clearly pass in any case if we moved it). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WT:BRAND. (In the unlikely case that someone manages to find three CFI-conforming uses of the name in a context that does not reveal it is a messaging app, the entry can easily be recreated.)  --Lambiam 12:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete on the ground that WT:BRAND has not been satisfied, as Lambiam has expressed it. If it is felt that WT:BRAND should be modified in some way, then a formal vote should be started in line with Wiktionary:Voting policy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably SOP. There are a few military meanings of front, which may or may not be a valid argument for keeping (or for deletion, for that matter) Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators ought to block Wonderfool User:Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais already, protecting the project against this little playful devil. This RFD ought to be dismissed; Wonderfool ought not be allowed to create RFD nominations. Wonderfool's social standing ought to be demolished. Wonderfool ought to pledge to stop using multiple accounts, stop editing irresponsibly, and pledge to become a respectable adult citizen of the English Wiktionary. Wonderfool ought to stop being a playful child in the sense of little funny mischievous rascal and become a responsible adult; age-wise, it is probably about time. Wonderfool is one of the most useful and productive editors the English Wiktionary ever had and ought to do much better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I replaced the original Webster link, which no longer worked. DonnanZ (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Might be one for RFV since I can't find any examples of this in actual use outside of dictionaries. In earlier specialist military dictionaries it's used as an adjective or adverb, and refers to the whole formation, not a single rank, e.g. [65]. There may be a game of telephone at work: the gloss copied from Webster's 1913 is "The rear rank of a body of troops when faced about and standing in that position", Worcester's 1847 has "a company or body of men when faced about, and standing in that position", citing Crabb; Crabb 1823 has "a term applied to a battalion, troop, or company, when it is faced about, and stands in that position". For the RFD as such, I would say keep since the meaning of the term, judging from the source I linked which essentially defines it as the troops individually facing backwards without the formation itself being rotated, is not really straightforward. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for scrapping my effort. DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Definition's word for word from Webster's and seems to be wrong so I'm afraid there's no reason to remove the notice @Donnanz, it's re-pointed to the right entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Re-pointed to a load of other stuff too. Anyway, it seems to be archaic, I don't know what was in vogue in 1913, the year of my father's birth. DonnanZ (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

When originally made, it was claimed "This is the only occurrence of the word extraordinaire in the English language." That has since been disproved, which leads to this RFD. Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete as SoP. That claim can't possibly have been true, even at the time it was made. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete. Here is a use of extraordinaire from 1949: “Bop City, jazz music theater – restaurant extraordinaire”.[66] —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talkcontribs) at 11:45, 18 January 2023.
  • Delete as above, the justification is nonsense. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

SOP: null object + pattern sense 1.10 (which I just added). This, that and the other (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

DeleteJberkel 00:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Capitalisation is also wrong. Equinox 00:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Meaning "pornography", very transparent SOP, also used for other mature content which is not pornography. - TheDaveRoss 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep, I think. Ostensibly the term means "material that is suitable for adults", but because it is really only used to refer to pornography (perhaps euphemistically) and not, say, movies and novels where the characters are adults, points to the fact that it is idiomatic. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    You are looking at the wrong definition of "adult," this is the sense "intended for use only by adults" e.g. "adult content", "adult movie", "adult magazine", "adult website", "adult language" etc. - TheDaveRoss 16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I would say keep. It's from sense 3 of the adjective, and sense 2 of the noun material. It may be "material suitable for adults" but it's also "material unsuitable for children". DonnanZ (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
We also have adult content, of which this is a perfect synonym. I think these should be kept because of their function as euphemisms; only one sense of adult is ever meant, even though all senses of the adjective could potentially apply. This, that and the other (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how far should we extend this? We could also create entries for adult bookstore, adult comic, adult comic book, adult literature, adult video, adult video game, and adult website, among others. Definition 3 of adult could theoretically be applied to any media-related noun.
I suppose the fact that these terms are euphemistic could make them less SOP, but I'm not entirely convinced. Binarystep (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you on all but adult bookstore, which Ive just now created. I think it's good that we're taking these on a case-by-case basis. Another good example is adult beverage, because there's no other context where the word adult means "containing alcohol".
As for this discussion, I can see both sides .... I'd even say the nominator undercut his argument by stating that it's not just for porn .... that makes it less sum-of-parts and means we might just need to clarify the definition instead of deleting the page. Yet, I could apply the same logic to adult and say we should rework definition #3 to clarify that it doesn't just mean porn. For now I abstain. Soap 13:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Side note: I found "adult drink", "adult root beer float", etc. prominently on Google. On this basis, I'm going to add another sense to the adjective at adult. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I haven't checked, but adult should cover this, even if it doesn't yet. Equinox 00:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
If someone is said to be "noted for creating adult fingmippets" and we know that a "fingmippet" is a work in some creative medium, it will be obvious which sense of adult applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: OK, I’m convinced so I’m changing my vote. I agree it is sufficient if the relevant meaning of adult is in that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The reason I felt the need to create a page for adult bookstore is that it's not sum-of-parts ... knowing what adult and bookstore mean would not tell you what an adult bookstore is. An adult bookstore, so far as I know, sells primarily sex toys, with video and books being less profitable. I worded the definition conservatively out of caution. I don't think adult movie is sum-of-parts either because, while less common, there are movies with no sex but such graphic violence that they are also restricted to adult viewers in theaters, and adult movie as presently defined does not encompass that (and I believe the current definition is correct). As for adult star .... well, few native English speakers will misunderstand the meaning, but I always think of English language learners first .... for someone with an incomplete grasp of the language, it's very easy to misunderstand this as simply meaning someone who is both an adult and a star. I still don't have a strong opinion on what to do with adult material, and I promise I wont just vote keep just because Im in favor of keeping the other three .... I'd say all four of these phrases are different from each other, really, and should be treated as such. Soap 22:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Definition is "alt letter case of adlet", I don't think alt letter case entries are needed or useful when it is just the first letter being capitalized -- that is an alt letter case which applied to every word (aside from some proper nouns) in the language. - TheDaveRoss 16:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If you type "Adlet", adlet would still show up if this is deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The point of entries like this is that the initial is optionally capitalised in running prose, and not just in the cases where the initial is (almost) always capitalised. This looks attestable for "adlet"/"Adlet", as in this example, but can be RFV'd if desired. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep per Al-Muqanna. Binarystep (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Obvious SOP Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine a ship with fifteen masts. Send to RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Even if it passed RFV (which it wouldn't), it's still SOP. Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
That means some more logical entries are also SoP. I prefer RFV for this. DonnanZ (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The Irish Rover had fifteen masts Drapetomanic (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be at least two references: "Common School Education https://books.google.com books 1889 · ‎Education - By the time my grandsons are grown up, or maybe even sooner, They'll go rushing 'cross the ocean in a fifteen-masted schooner." AND "Marine Review - Volumes 19-20 - Page 21 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com › books 1899 · ‎Marine engineering ... need be no limit save draught to the building of large schooners and he sees no reason why a fifteen - masted vessel should not be built is necessary." But I think it is SOP and better suited to WP. Facts707 (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
FTW, we also have the following: Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
And I made eleven-masted just for fun :) Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you would need to look this up (SOP), and the definition is too specific really. Drapetomanic (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure yet - thinking about audible guides, human guides, etc. Can we say that such a guide always uses symbols? Facts707 (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
If the guide is a written text, and the glyphs forming that text are considered symbols, the guide uses symbols. It can use these to tell you that Portuguese bom dia is pronounced “bAWNg DEEyea”.[67]  --Lambiam 12:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Undelete Tetris-like per WT:COALMINE: Tetris-like is much more common than the attested Tetrislike. This should not need a RFD but since an administrator deleted Tetris-like on 1 November 2022 with the rationale "Previously deleted/failed RFD or RFV", we need to use a formal process to undelete the entry. WT:COALMINE is rather controversial yet Wiktionary:Votes/2019-08/Rescinding the "Coalmine" policy resulted in 3-21-3 fail for rescinding it and there is no newer data as far as I know. If someone wants to challenge COALMINE one more time via a vote, that is surely an option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Undelete, although it now (since November) requires an admin to do it. It passes COALMINE, and the notion that you can't use a hyphen in entries with -like is completely barmy. DonnanZ (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Undelete per WT:COALMINE. J3133 (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Undelete per all above. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Undelete. WT:COALMINE. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Undelete per all above. Binarystep (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023Edit

Not dictionary material. —Svārtava (talk) • 06:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)