Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

Latest comment: 47 minutes ago by P Aculeius in topic kwik


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/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{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 as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, 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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

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


October 2022 edit

most edit

One of the senses given for most § Adverb is:

3. superlative of many

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

Isn't the usage example already covered by determiner sense 3? I don't really get the difference, if there is any. I guess that "Most times when I go hiking" is an adverbial phrase, but the word "most" itself is not being used as an adverb. 98.170.164.88 06:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, its syntactical function in the usage example is that of a determiner, the same as that of many in “many times when I’m lazy”, or most in “Some people succeed because they are destined to, but most people succeed because they are determined to.” The difference is that one (determiner) is correct while the other (adverb) is incorrect.  --Lambiam 10:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it change anything if the sentence were worded
Most times I go hiking, I wear boots.?
I was the one who added the usex, but i realize now that my sentence doesn't illustrate adverbial use. Still, I think this is possible to interpret as an adverb if we simply omit the word when, since it will then make times function like sometimes, which is an adverb. Since only an adverb can modify an adverb, I'd say that the questioned sense does exist. Soap 16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here the word most modifies times, which is the plural of the noun time, sense 3.4. Adverbs do not modify nouns. The grammatical function of most times in the adverbial clause most times when is not affected by the omission of the relative adverb when.  --Lambiam  --Lambiam 19:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'm gonna say delete. 98.170.164.88 23:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we sure that times isn't a relic genitive of time? (connected to betimes, sometimes, ofttimes, possibly others) DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2023 edit

adult material edit

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

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Delete all, unless any of them pass the jiffy test. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't checked, but adult should cover this, even if it doesn't yet. Equinox 00:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

adult diaper edit

We recently deleted adult diaper as a sum-of-parts, likely influenced by this ongoing RFD. At first that made sense to me, but while I don't doubt it's the sum of its parts, there are other reasons why we list two-word entries. In this case, deleting adult diaper could lead the reader to believe that the little-heard incontinence diaper is actually the most common term for what adults wear, when this to me sounds like not just a medical euphemism but one that might not be understood by a listener (what other kind of diaper could there be?) Someone might recommend listing adult diaper as a collocation under adult or diaper or both, but this doesnt solve the problem .... a person on the adult page probably already knows what theyre looking for, and a person on the diaper page is still liable to think incontinence diaper is the term they want, as it's the only one we deem worthy of a separate entry. Moreover, there is still no policy regarding collocations and so anyone can delete them at any time; reducing an entry to a collocation seems to me little different than deletion. Lastly, there's a possibility of unexpected dialectal agreement here ... do people in Commonwealth countries who say nappy for the baby's garment always call adult diapers nappies as well? I wouldnt be surprised if people thought nappy sounded too cute to refer to what grownups wear, but perhaps Im wrong. In any case, I would like to restore the adult diaper page. One more thing I could add: it's possible I'm the one who created the adult diaper entry, as I was the one who added it to diaper; but if that's the case, I've forgotten about it. Best regards, Soap 11:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2023 edit

terminate edit

Senses:

Tagged with {{rfd-redundant}} by Voltaigne on 2 October 2022, not listed. These senses were added by Neel.arunabh on 16 September 2022. J3133 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for listing this and sorry for neglecting to do so. The transitive sense "to conclude" seems to me to be covered by the first sense "to end something". On second thoughts the intransitive sense "to issue or result" could potentially be distinguished from "to end, conclude, or cease; to come to an end" if it is intended to cover usages such as "the river terminates in a waterfall" or "the integer sequence terminates in three prime numbers". If so, some quotations would help to clarify the distinction. Voltaigne (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@J3133: and @Voltaigne: See the definitions at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terminate. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would guess that "to conclude" is meant to cover "to occur at the end of something", but it should be rewritten in that case since "to conclude" is rather opaque. The dictionary.com definitions don't seem to support "to issue or result" as a separate sense, though I'm also confused by why dictionary.com have "to end" (intransitive) and "to come to an end" as separate senses. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"To occur at the end of something" is intransitive.  --Lambiam 21:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambiam: Slightly confused by this comment—"to occur" is intransitive in that phrase, yes, but "to occur at the end of" (or rather "to occur at or form the conclusion of" in their wording) is substitutable for "to terminate", hence it being listed as a transitive sense at dictionary.com. (e.g.: "This scene terminates the play." = "This scene occurs at the end of the play.") —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, "the river comes to an end in a waterfall" or "the integer sequence ends in three prime numbers" are fine.  --Lambiam 21:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

786 edit

[] a lucky or holy number []”. Tagged by Sinonquoi on 10 February (“Nonsensical entry.”), not listed. Created by Kashmiri language on 9 February. J3133 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Abstain Keep.(see below for new rationale) The numerology sense is mentioned on Wikipedia at w:786 (number) and I think it is best kept there, since to explain the significance of the number to a naive reader in a dictionary would require so much background information that it would become an encyclopedic entry. Soap 16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im sitting this out for the time being, as the recent improvements to the page and the comments below have convinced me that this is a valid entry in and of itself. But I'm still reluctant to vote keep because numerology could also provide us with definitions for numbers like 19 (also significant in Islam), 616 (a variant of 666), 777 (used in Christianity), and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. That we haven't added entries for these already makes me wonder whether we've just never gotten around to it in all this time, or whether it's best considered outside our project's scope. Soap 12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im changing my vote to  Keep  as this is more wordlike than 19, 616, and 777. Soap 14:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for the above reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's ridiculous i think there was a subject here or maybe on wikipedia about how many numbers -- as numbers and not years -- should have separate entries ... delete it immediately this is just absurd ... Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The fact that this has an idiomatic meaning justifies its inclusion per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals, which is further supported by our recent decision to keep 666. Binarystep (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A lucky or holy number" isn't a sense, idiomatic or otherwise. We don't have "an unlucky number" at 4 and 13. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per my comment above. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, since the entry has been rewritten and per the evidence below. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as defined. It doesn't have a meaning: it doesn't explain what it would mean if you spoke or wrote this in a sentence. Equinox 21:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This book suggests it could be found in Indian Islamic books or letters as a shortening of the basmala, in which case we should definitely include it, but I don't know where to look for attestation. However, this book indicates that it is used in "truck art or other mediums vulnerable to the dirt and defilement of the outside world", in which case it may be difficult to find durably archived quotations. 70.172.194.25 00:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the pointers—I found an example in diplomatic correspondence (in translation) here: [1] though worth noting that the original (scan given on previous page) uses Eastern Arabic numerals. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Al-Muqanna: I think this is another example, in English and using Western Arabic numerals: [2] (it occurs in the front matter, definitely not a page number). This might be a similar example in Urdu: [3] (I can't see the whole page, but it seems to be at the top of page 2, so it wouldn't be a page number, and I'm not sure what else it could mean). Accordingly, keep. 70.172.194.25 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Equinox Keep (Change meaning to area code 786) because for example: 305, named after the 305 area code. So if you clicked on the Wikipedia link it would bring you to "Area codes 305, 786, and 645". So 786 would have a meaning. But change the "lucky number" definition because any number can be "lucky". Heyandwhoa (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't say "keep and change meaning". This RFD is for the sense given. Equinox 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

vandal edit

Sense: “(computing) A person who needlessly destroys, defaces, or damages software. The anonymous vandal was blocked after going on a vandalism spree.” Tagged by 2A01:598:99BB:D1EE:BDD5:A538:2EFC:98F9 on 20 February (today; “not really “different” from sense 1, only that the thing being vandalized is something digital”), not listed. This sense was added by Br00pVain (Wonderfool) with “(computing) {{rfdef|en}}” and the usage example on 24 December 2021. The definition was added by Inner Focus on 17 June 2022. J3133 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I agree, it's redundant, but perhaps sense 1 should be reworded since I think "other people's property" is too restrictive (apart from software, someone who decides to tear down a historic building that they own might still be described as a vandal, for example). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agree with your assessment and with al-muqanna have to agree also when we're namedropping different enwiktionary users Dan Polansky wrote on his talk page -- was it here or on cz.wiktionary that he found it << insolent >> for those with under 50 edits to comment, vote on discussions .. where he waited years ( ?) or in any case until he had thousands of edits .. someone made a remark about his edit totals -- essentially his wiktionary +talk edits were equal in percentage to his main-namespace edits to he was there to cause trouble -- or << rule >> , impose on other people there ideas of how the project should be run -- still unclear to me .. but i agree with you it seems completely extraneous can't this wonderfool find something better to do -- or people in general who add extra definitions and senses not only here but on WP -- i've been in that position actually, i know how it is, such foolishness, such a waste of time, if you want to make your mark on the world, why don't you go outside, why don't you develop yourself as an individual rather than anonymously editing an internet web site Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: A person who damages software is not likely to go on a "spree". I think this sense is confusing the Wiktionary or wiki vandal (who can damage a lot of pages quickly, but those pages are text content, and not software/code) with the traditional virus writer or "hacker" (who might do a lot of damage to programs and systems, but doesn't go on a "spree": it involves writing careful code and releasing it in one place). I also can't remember any situation where I heard a virus writer or "hacker" called a "vandal", and I'm very old (I remember Chris Pile!). Equinox 07:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(But cf. cybervandal, which like all those cyber- words is probably a fleeting 1990s coinage relating to Web sites. We know there was software and systems long before.) Equinox 07:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair when I mentioned people vandalising things that aren't other people's property above one of the thoughts I had was someone going rogue on Github or NPM or whatever, which could easily amount to a vandalism spree on software and doesn't even have to take much effort nowadays. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've deleted sense 2 and tweaked sense 1. Please revise further if needed. - -sche (discuss) 00:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved? (Sense removed; other sense modified.) - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2023 edit

nasal vowel edit

SOP: "this vowel is nasal". PUC08:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete' Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oral vowel edit

SOP: “a vowel which resonates through the mouth (because the velum closes the passage of air through the nose)”. (Auxiliary request if the outcome of the motion to delete “nasal vowel” is successful.) Fay Freak (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nasal consonant edit

Might as well add this too. lattermint (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not entirely edit

SOP. PUC15:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn’t the response “not entirely” mean “she only made it to part of the wedding” (e.g. she was late/left early)? Or I guess it could mean “only part of her turned up” haha. I don’t interpret it as meaning “not exactly”, but this could be a regional thing.
On a related point, the quotation on the entry doesn’t seem to support this definition: “His analysis is not entirely unsound” means “his analysis is not completely unsound” (i.e. it’s partly unsound, but not fully); it doesn’t mean “his analysis is not exactly unsound”, which has a very different connotation, implying that “the analysis is actually fully sound [but might not look that way at first glance]”. There’s a much stronger argument for not exactly being idiomatic, to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. PUC13:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While few adults are likely to misunderstand the phrase, it is not strictly sum-of-parts, as the above example makes plain ... i can imagine a cartoonist using this to set up a joke. It seems odd, but I'd say that the fact that we're so used to this construction that we don't notice it's idiomatic is the very reason it must be idiomatic. I held off from this until now but I will still vote keep. Soap 05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete' Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, pragmatic omission. Fay Freak (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2023 edit

fuck it up edit

fuck up + it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Běijīng edit

Rfd-sense-- @Acolyte of Ice, J3133, LlywelynII At Talk:Běijīng, LlywelynII is really opposed to this term being an English language word. I personally am ambivalent-- J3133 made this English language sense and added three good cites (see Citations:Běijīng). Acolyte of Ice was against keeping it. I'm just not sure what to think!! I don't know if this is English or not. I'd love to see the smart people take a look at this one. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) (Modified)Reply[reply]

Delete: I don't think the word with diacriticals would be used in ordinary English text. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sgconlaw Thanks for your input! That makes 100% sense, and I really agree. I get it! But what about these three cites (Citations:Běijīng) that J3133 found?? Do they prove the Mandarin pinyin sense? Do they prove some Translingual sense? What is that linguistic phenonmenon in those cites, and how does Wiktionary deal with it? Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are bound to find some uses of pinyin diacriticals in English language text, but I don't think this should be taken as an indication that the use of such diacriticals are the norm in English texts. It could just be code-switching, or sometimes texts aimed at people learning Mandarin Chinese will include such diacriticals. I recall, for example, that the print version of the South China Morning Post used to do this—when referring to something with a Chinese name such as a person or a place, it would give the name in Chinese characters and add the pinyin transcription with diacriticals. But this is far from the usual case. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep (change from Neutral above): In this diff from March, I explored the three good cites that J3133 had used to make this sense. Today, I found three more cites which I added directly to Citations:Běijīng. I think that Sgconlaw has missed the point- these cites don't document the "common" version of Beijing- they document an alternative form that occurs in specialized literaure indpendent from the presence of any Chinese characters or parentheses. So I have changed my mind personally to believe that yes, this is a (as J3133 says) "rare" alternative form of Beijing. The fact that English does not use the diacritics for anything doesn't change that in my mind. Those six cites at Citations:Beijing show a linguistic phenomenon that I think is beyond 'Translingual' and beyond 'Mandarin'. So I agree with J3133's original creation of this sense in this diff. I would never have made that edit, but now that I have confirmed J3133's three cites and I have found three more myself, I think there's some "there" there. If you all decide against this, I totally understand! (I have no further comment to make on this issue; please vote as you will below.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would just comment that this may mean creating an English entry for many, many pinyin transliterations with diacriticals. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Pronunciation-wise, the version with diacritics suggests to me that it should be pronounced as if it were pinyin (with tones and phonemes not found in English and what not), which is different from the usual pronunciation of the English word Beijing without the diacritics. Also agree with Sgconlaw that this would result in many, many English entries for pinyin transliterations – I know this is rather of a slippery slope argument and perhaps these entries may never be created and cited, but it is obvious that this will be done very soon if someone (e.g. Geographyinitiative) puts in their effort. Wpi31 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: in some print Bibles (and maybe still today online) you can see ample diacritics on transcribed Hebrew names, and I think possibly Greek names. These are an aid to pronunciation, and may also provide a one-to-one transliteration from the original language. Does anyone know what this is called? Its possible I havent seen it lately because it's mostly used with children's Bibles. In any case, I think we could all agree that there is no need to create an entry for, e.g. Nĕbücḥadnĕzzär even if it appears spelled that way in three different Bibles or other religious texts. On that rationale I'd be leaning towards deletion, however I'm not sure it's actually the same thing. Putting tone diacritics on the name Běijīng isnt likely to change anyone's pronunciation of it in English ... since they represent tones, it wouldnt be English anymore if someone did pronounce them. Also, Im not too worried about the prospect of more diacriticked entries like this. Creating properly cited pages is a lot of work, and it will only get harder if we move on toi less common placenames. Soap 19:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I would view this as code-switching. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: this should be considered a direct rendering of Mandarin. It might also be worth noting that at least two citations are explicit about the non-English nature of their use of diacriticked text (i.e. what they record is not the nativised English pronunciation such as /beɪˈ(d)ʒɪŋ/, but instead Mandarin proper), so they in particular might not be good cites after all:
People's Peking Man p.xvii: "Rendering Chinese: [...] Where Romanization of Chinese is necessary, I use the pīnyīn system, complete with tone marks. Tones are essential to the Chinese language, and readers who hope to discuss this subject in Chinese will benefit from knowledge of the correct pronunciation."
Similarly, The Shortest History of China p.8: "Chinese is a tonal language—the contoured pitch at which words are spoken is integral to the meaning. When using Pinyin, I add diacritics to indicate the four tones of Putonghua in the first instance a word appears, as well as in the index, where you’ll also find the Chinese characters for individuals’ names." 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 12:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I vote delete per the aforementioned reasons pretty much. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Note that we voted (maybe it was just in RFD) to remove Sanskrit entries that were written in the Latin alphabet with diacritics, rather than include them as either English or Sanskrit entries. It was a while ago, and I'm too lazy to hunt it down, but I would think this should follow that precedent. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy We include pinyin entries under Mandarin, and I don't think anyone's proposing that we remove that. Theknightwho (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do, below. I'm sure others have as well. — LlywelynII 07:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The cites mentioned are in English, without an explicit intent to help the reader understand Chinese. I have a feeling that there are very few citations like these in English for other Chinese place names. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitationsFreak You would be wrong. The sources are explicitly (outside the quote) using pinyin to help the user with Chinese, as pointed out at length in the posts above yours. The tone marks have no possible meaning in the English language, except as a transliteration system of Mandarin (not English) pronunciation and the sources acknowledge that. They're just supporting using Mandarin to speak Chinese names, instead of using English.
More importantly, it will be possible for editors to create thousands or tens of thousands of these on the basis of random apparances of pinyin in English running text. It doesn't seem particularly helpful to do so, especially when you realize similar code switching happens in dozens of other languages and we'll need #French #German #Italian etc. entries for tonal Beijing. It's a waste of everyone's time and a misguided sense of formatting.
Alternatively, all pinyin entries need to be moved from "Chinese" to "Translingual", which is both more accurate and solves the problem coming and going. This is exactly the situation with using plants' Latin names in running text. — LlywelynII 07:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we don't count the Peking Man and Shortest History cites, there are still four cites that, as far as I know, use this spelling without helping the reader to pronounce this capital. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All pinyin entries are (or should be) under the Mandarin L2 label, which is honestly the most accurate. If we move them to translingual then anything that could be "codeswitching" could be under it, which wouldn't really make as much sense. AG202 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, if we're counting this as 'English', then it is translingual. Otherwise, you end up spamming every major Chinese city and every language with sinologists with pinyin "citations" in the running text of some speakers. — LlywelynII 11:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that I personally did not count this as English and specifically said that it should be under the Mandarin header. AG202 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I will not be happy if pinyin from Mandarin as spoken in mainland China were to be promoted against other varieties of Chinese. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Geographyinitiative and CitationsFreak. Binarystep (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Binarystep Fair enough for GeoIni but CF's points were demonstrably wrong, as detailed by others within this thread. These mostly are sources that are going out of their way to use Mandarin pronunciation (/code switching) within English. They don't repeat that at every usage, but it is mentioned and is their rationale. There's no other possible meaning of the tones, other than marking the Mandarin pronunciation; it's like treating macroned Latin as optional English because English also has some Latin phrases. Beijing is English. The form listed here is just Chinese in English running text. Et al. is a kind of English. Et ālia isn't. — LlywelynII 11:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without commenting on whether this really is English, I would remind you that the mere fact that there's no good reason to do something in English doesn't mean that English speakers don't do it anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. A foreign word or a rare misspelling of an English word. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is the same as writing an English sentence that includes a italicized Latin word. Furthermore the pinyin is already under the Chinese heading below. Readers will recognize the tone marks as being from Mandarin and will know that it's a some kind of romanization of a Mandarin word which causes them to look at the corresponding Mandarin entry. Since having a separate English entry does not further improve readers' understanding, this entry should be deleted. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per my comment on the talk page I see no real value in keeping the English section of the entry. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Acolyte of Ice: You have already voted. J3133 (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, my bad...it's been so many days I forgot lol. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Smaller settlements might be attested only with diacritics, even languages if mostly known by specialists, or should have diacritic forms as lemma forms. Fay Freak (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Vox and others. This, that and the other (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ground offensive edit

SOP. PUC19:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, even though we need one directly onto Moscow, for it gives room for too many other ground … compounds. Fay Freak (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

words cannot describe edit

SOP. PUC18:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, collocation, pragmatics, not useful as a dictionary entry. Fay Freak (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PUC: We also have there are no words to describe and words cannot define as alternative forms. J3133 (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2023 edit

leave someone unread edit

SOP. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said on the talk page (and how it was in the entry before you changed it), this might simply be leave someone on read. – Jberkel 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps {{misconstruction of|leave someone on read}} could be used. Einstein2 (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that sounds good. The second cite is from a podcast, so it might just be a transcription error there, but I've seen this form mentioned on reddit as well. Jberkel 09:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just don't see evidence that this is a misconstruction of anything—see for example [4] Ioaxxere (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This articles takes some time to define both phrases, it's not that transparent (referring to someone's messages, not the person). – Jberkel 15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Here someone states, “I guess I'm still on read.” And here someone asks, “Which here wants to remain on read?” It thus appears that leave someone on read = leave someone +‎ on read.  --Lambiam 20:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. If I were using this de novo, I'd mean leaving the author's works unread, e.g.: "I've looked at the UK's 'Inklings' group, loved Tolkien, had mixed feelings about Lewis, and couldn't get into Williams at all, so I left him unread." Likewise for email or social media posts. – .Raven (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. If one leaves ”someone” unread it means the ”works he has written”. The ivory tower would recommend me Hegel but I left him unread. Dating experts recommended me to watch Star Wars but I left it unwatched. Hypebeasts recommended me shitty NIKE shoes, but I have left this meme brand unworn / it is yet unworn by me. And so on. Not all combinations are equally likely, but this does not make some idiomatic in the sense that a dictionary entry is required. Fay Freak (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

marine toilet edit

Err, SOP, right? Skisckis (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Devil's advocate: "marine" means sea-related. Not all boats go to sea. Equinox 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but when they don’t then one is less likely to use toilets on the boats but more likely to use a better toilet in a land building. Just a natural likelihood distribution, hence the name. Does not reach the threshold of idiomaticity. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to reopen this and say, based on the current definition (and even on the corresponding WP article), my !vote is delete. I am sceptical that "marine toilet" could be attested in reference to the toilets of purely freshwater-going vessels any more often than "marine" in general and in other phrases could be attested in reference to such vessels. - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-poiesis edit

Not convinced it's a suffix. Forms ending in -poiesis can be analysed as compounds of poiesis. PUC09:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This is just as little a suffix as synthesis in amorphosynthesis, autosynthesis, baryosynthesis, biosynthesis, chemosynthesis, cosynthesis, ecosynthesis, electrosynthesis, glycosynthesis, heterosynthesis, hyposynthesis, ketosynthase, liposynthesis, mechanosynthesis, narcosynthesis, neosynthesis, nucleosynthesis, oligosynthesis, osteosynthesis, photosynthesis, phytosynthesis, proteosynthesis, psychosynthesis, pyrosynthesis, radiosynthesis, retrobiosynthesis, retrosynthesis, thermosynthesis and tomosynthesis.  --Lambiam 16:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is somewhat similar to -phobia, -genesis or -lysis, most of which are treated as suffixes despite the existence of a corresponding common noun with the same meaning. The noun poiesis is rarely used independently, and according to OED2, its first attestation is from 1934, compared to 1900 for hemopoiesis and 1918 for lymphopoiesis, which suggests that a derivation from poiesis in these terms is unlikely. Also, Collins, M-W, Dictionary.com and OED2 all contain -poiesis as a combining form. Einstein2 (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2023 edit

smackers edit

Rfd-sense: "(humorous slang) Money."

It's just the plural of smacker ("dollar"). Money is uncountable in this sense; smackers is not. DCDuring (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I almost agree with that but we should rewrite the definition of smacker along the lines of the one already in Collins dictionary, namely 'a pound or a dollar' (or 'a dollar or a pound' if you like) as it can certainly refer to pounds. I remember a parody song on the radio about the divorce between Liam Gallagher and Patsy Kensit where the lyrics parodied the Oasis song 'Don't Look Back in Anger' - it went:- "Oh Patsy can wait, she wants it all on a plate and there's just no way (can't remember the next line). She wants 5 million smackers, I heard her say". Of course she did then go on to win 5 mil in the divorce settlement, I can't find that online but I'm sure I could dig up some cites with this meaning. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I've found and added some cites where 'smackers' and 'smackeroonies' is used to mean pounds to Citations:smacker and Citations:smackeroonies but this word and all its variants doesn't mean money in an uncountable sense. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rfd-sense No, I often hear and call money "smackers". — This unsigned comment was added by 81.111.205.155 (talk) at 13:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Moved from a new section. J3133 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

have one's pockets on swole edit

"To have a lot of money" SOP of pocket (financial resources) and on swole (swollen, enlarged). Ioaxxere (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure that I can articulate why, but this doesn't "feel" to me like it's simply "pocket" + "swole". I also tend to be more lenient when it comes to combining multiple figurative senses together. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is only one figurative sense. swole is a dialectal variant of swollen. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both "pocket" and "swole" are being used in a figurative sense. "Swole/swollen" refers to physical enlargement, and only by extension (i.e., figuratively) to the enlargement of financial resources, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - readers unlikely to deduce meaning from parts. Facts707 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, double metaphor. Fay Freak (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

elder edit

One who is older than another.

Respect your elders.

This sense was removed by Mechanical Keyboarder on 28 April, with the edit summary “redundant”. We still have the translation table. J3133 (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where it was, diff. It might have been considered redundant to sense 1, "An older person". DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah this is difficult. I strongly support keeping the deleted sense ... it's definitely not redundant ... but Im having a hard time explaining why. Maybe it would've been more clear if we hadnt used the word older in the deleted sense with its literal meaning and in sense 1 with its idiomatic meaning of someone who is advanced in age ("elderly"). Further complicating things is that I think elder can also be used both ways, e.g. an elder child can be six years old, but the elders of the community cannot. Soap 09:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mechanical_Keyboarder] shows only 53 edits. Hardly an experienced user. DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My Oxford Dictionary of English has:
(one's elders) people who are older than one: schoolchildren were no less fascinated than their elders.
(one's elder) a person who is older than one by a specified length of time: she was two years his elder.
Turning to Collins, my copy says, "an older person, one's senior", before covering tribal and religious elders. Online. Collins says: "A person's elder is someone who is older than them, especially someone quite a lot older: The young have no respect for their elders.
On this basis, I recommend that the deleted sense is reinstated. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge senses? The definition of the first sense, “An older person”, is problematic. We give two senses for older: 1. “comparative form of old: more old, elder, senior” and 2. “elderly”. A user who is not proficient in English cannot know that in “An older person” the comparative is meant; used as a noun, elder – whether “an elder” or ”someone’s elder”, does not mean “an elderly person”. (The person referred to may of course happen to be elderly, but this is not conveyed by the term.) That said, like the deleting editor, I suspect that the intention of this definition is the same as that of the deleted sense, so instead of simply reinstating it, I think they should be merged into something unambiguous, such as “Someone who is older (than another person).”  --Lambiam 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to merging with the first sense. I can't imagine saying, of an older person, "see that elder across the way?" it has to be relative [someone's elder, my / your elder]. +sj + 20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is really an RFV question, isn't it? I think of the YouTube series "Elders React", where the participants were referred to as elders in a non-relative sense, in the same way as the word seniors is used. Here and here are some uses of elders in a non-relative sense. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. My first reaction was that these could be merged with sense 1 as ~"An older person (especially relative to someone else)". But could they, really? Maybe the difference in what "older" means in one vs the other, as Lambiam points out, suggests it's better to keep the senses separate like this (though I would move them next to each other for clarity and redefine this one more like "(in particular) A person who is older than someone else, in relation to that person"). - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colon Street edit

Another street that fails our CFI for place names because it lacks figurative senses. (Previously nominated as a member of Category:en:Roads but not discussed directly.) — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 03:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as policy requires unless a figurative meaning can be established. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decided to not add a street entry I discovered today to the category in question, due to the category's toxicity. DonnanZ (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, I refrained from adding the category to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to solicit other people's input about this, and the previous discussion at Talk:Avus: if a user is trying to add/hide edits they know are policy-noncompliant, are we in the position of needing to remove the user from the Autopatroller user group so their edits show up in the patrol log again...? (The street in question above may've been Broadmead or Dundas.) - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, @Donnanz, I don't know what you are trying to achieve by deliberately flouting policy. Either accept the current policy, or propose a change in policy through the proper channels and abide by the result, whichever way it goes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@-sche, Sgconlaw: If Broadmead, which I didn't create, never had the category in the first place (you can check the entry's history), I can't be accused of deleting it and flouting policy. DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for historical interest, which wasn't taken into account. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mathematical function program edit

SoP. Also barely attested, but probably keepable at RFV. This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete, transparent (although it is unusual to refer to a subroutine as "program"). I doubt this would survive RFV; I see a use of the term mathematical function program library,[5] but this is a program library of mathematical functions, where a program library is a collection of subroutines.[6][7]  --Lambiam 13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2023 edit

family pajamas edit

SOP? What's your poisson? (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep If these really include pets, it's definitely not SOP. No one would get that just from knowing the definitions of the two words. And I do see advertisements showing the full matching set including dogs. Soap 23:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps we should move the content to the (currently red-linked) given synonym famjams, and reduce this to a synonym. Then we lose less if it's deleted. Equinox 13:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. "Famjams" doesn't look attestable and I don't care about the content. Ultimateria (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like a legitimate compound formation with family. Leaning keep. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, I support fashion and the creativity it sustains. Certainly this is opaque enough to be looked up. Fay Freak (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

instance dungeon edit

Redundant to instance senses 9-10. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word instance has other meanings in video gaming, though admittedly Im thinking more about game design than game playing. (If I search Google for instance of an enemy I see people using six different game engines asking similar questions.) It does seem at least that not every instance is a dungeon in games such as STALCRAFT, so it's possible that some games prefer the longer form instance dungeon to make it clear what they mean. This is just a comment, though. Soap 09:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a video-game sense of instance (which we have), but I don't think "instance of an enemy" is using that sense. In programming if you have a type of object (e.g. defined by an OOP class) then any object of that type is an "instance". Equinox 13:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay thanks. It sounds I picked up a programming term and thought it was related to video games specifically. As for the existing senses we have at instance, yes, I saw those, and at first I thought they were too specific, but I suppose "dungeon or other area" is broad enough to cover the uses in non-RPG games like STALCRAFT. Soap 15:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, gaming is dumb and we have been decadent enough to give space to a pertinent videogaming meaning at instance even. Programming creativity always gives wiggle-room to variation. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

back pedal brake edit

A synonym for something with an idiomatic name, which shouldn't save it from being SOP in itself Lesscot, J (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is the verb backpedal or back-pedal, though. My Oxford includes for back-pedal: move the pedals of a bicycle backwards (formerly to brake). DonnanZ (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, I am not into the technical details but people should bike more and I feel like some dyel nincompoop would move to delete terms for exercise equipment I added because he does not see the point when I did see the idiomaticity. Fay Freak (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dumb argument Denazz (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

corporate social responsibility edit

Deleted as SOP in 2012, maybe time to re-evaluate. Jberkel 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Tellingly, the only quote we have at social responsibility is "corporate social responsibility", and it seems to be much more common in this combination. – Jberkel 13:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as term of art. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a meaningless corporate buzzword. Corporate PR media is frequently laced with facile, promotional, or vapid jargon in this vein. AP295 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. If it's in use in the language in question, isn't just a transparent combination of other terms, and isn't a term for a specific thing like the name of an individual, we have an entry for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One can just as easily say it should be deleted as SoP. Descriptivism is all well and fine but if it means wiktionary must include meaningless corporate jargon (if it's not SoP in the first place) then I have to question the value of descriptivism as such a strict, dogmatic approach. AP295 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Naturally I shall follow the rules. I only mean to say that it does not seem ideal to apply absolute prescriptivism or absolute descriptivism. Descriptivism might be easier to justify, but if it's followed strictly and to the point that the language is debased as a result of integrating any sort of nonsense just because people use it, then clearly that's not a responsible approach. In other words I feel it's a bit of a cop out if it's taken to the extreme, because it requires one to enshrine every popular buzzword or stock phrase as long as it's arguably not SoP, regardless of whether such words and phrases are subversive, or politically expedient, or generally a bastardization/distortion of the language at large. It seems like common sense that neither are ideal when they're set in stone. AP295 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as a term of art. We don't delete things because some people can't be bothered to learn what they mean or because they don't like them. We're not a propaganda outlet. Theknightwho (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as SoP (corporate + social responsibility). — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

white edit

Rfd-sense: (board games, chess) The person playing with the white set of pieces. - in any competition that there is a white team this "sense" can be used, ("white was up three points to two"). While it is true in chess that the sides are referred to as white and black, the same is true in go and many other games which have white or black pieces, and when there are other colors those are also referred to by name. It doesn't seem like a distinct sense of white. - TheDaveRoss 16:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The person playing with the white pieces is clearly distinct from the white pieces themselves, whether chess or go (or some other game) is being referred to. —-Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, I guess. The fact that it is a metonymy is not a particularly strong argument by itself, especially as it can probably be applied to other colour names besides "white" and "black". I'm more convinced by the fact that lemmings have seen fit to include this metonymy as a separate sense or subsense. This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not sure on this one... Should this same sense be added to red, since checkers uses red pieces? What about yellow, blue, red and green when playing parcheesi? You could probably find any given color in some board game where it would be appropriate to refer to one player as that given color... – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Overlordnat1. Nothing about this sense's existence in multiple board games invalidates it; it is very common in chess particularly. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 20:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, RTFM and not a dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

take its toll edit

To me this is NISoP, as the quotations seem to me to show. DCDuring (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree this in principle could be SoP, but the relevant sense of toll is worded poorly (loss or damage incurred through a disaster), whereas the definition here does not reference a disaster per se. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kube edit

Rfd-sense "(computing) An individual container of the Kubernetes orchestration system." Jargon specific to a particular system, not particularly relevant for a general dictionary. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Jberkel 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Not sure why we shouldn't have jargon. The real question is whether it's attestable. cf (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2023 edit

stem mutation edit

Originally this entry claimed it was a synonym of apophony / ablaut, meaning an internal vowel change like get vs. got. That's trivially false: of the first 5 relevant results I found on Google Books, 3 of them were talking about consonant changes (e.g. "nominal morphology of conservative Adamawa Fula is characterised by ... nominal stem mutation based on a system of initial consonant alternation" [8]). That leaves it just defined as a change in the stem, which looks SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since nobody's bitten on this so far, I'd also point out that "stem mutation" is attested in other contexts like biology for genetic mutations in a plant stem or in stem cells [9], so it doesn't seem to restrict the meaning of "stem". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

justifiable homicide edit

I created this apparently, but it now appears SOP to me. Why single this particular crime out? Compare justifiable crime, justifiable theft, etc. If we must, let's simply add a legal sense at justifiable. PUC08:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It's a legal term of art for a particular legal defense. Imetsia (talk (more)) 21:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term of art should probably be a sense at justifiable unless I'm missing something specific to homicide? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is the proper legal defense of w:justifiable homicide, but there isn't anything similar for "justified robbery," "justified arson," etc. In addition, justifiable homicide generally refers to homicide committed in the attempt to protect one's life; not homicide that is otherwise "justifiable" on other philosophical grounds, for example. Black's Law Dictionary distinguishes, moreover, between "excusable homicide," "innocent homicide," and "justifiable homicide" as three separate entries with distinct legal criteria for each one. Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there is "justifiable force"/"justifiable use of force", "justifiable discipline" (corporal punishment), and even "justifiable battery" (see this case). The SOP argument isn't about being "justifiable" in a general philosophical sense, it's that "justifiable" is a legal term with specific application that extends beyond homicide (as is "excusable"): cf. the wp article on justification and excuse. "Innocent homicide" is simply homicide without criminal guilt, which can be either excused or justifiable. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Imetsia, and as a lemming of Black's Law Dictionary. To be clear, a "homicide" that is "justifiable" is not necessary a "justifiable homicide". If you come out of your house and see a hooligan smashing your car windows with a crowbar, and you shoot him dead, you can articulate a justification for the shooting and call it "justifiable", but that does not meet the legal definition of the phrase. bd2412 T 17:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm, but would the court say "the defendant's homicide of the hooligan was justifiable"? I don't think so; AFAICT, for a given context (e.g. laws about deaths), the definition of "justifiable" resides in "justifiable", i.e. I would expect that the range of things that can be called "justifiable homicide" and that which can be called "homicide which was/is justifiable" is the same. Is there evidence to the contrary? It also seems like the range of homicides which could be called "justifiable" (or "justifiable homicides") is likely to vary by jurisdiction (it wouldn't surprise me if some jurisdictions have considered "honor killings" justifiable homicides / a justifiable type of homicide, for example). I am leaning towards delete per Al-Muqanna. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @-sche: Good point. I have restored the previous sense and converted this discussion into an RfD-sense for the original (now first) sense. If there is a question as to whether the second sense exists beyond the existing citation to Black's Law Dictionary Sixth (which defines "Justifiable homicide" as "Killing of another in self-defense when danger of death or serious bodily harm exists"), this would be an RfV issue. bd2412 T 21:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @-sche, bd2412: I don't think those senses should have been introduced. The core definition of "justifiable homicide" is simply homicide that is justified according to the law. What sorts of homicide are justified have varied according to time and place, and the specific content of the laws pertaining to it shouldn't be considered definitional. Antebellum sources comment, for example, on the killing of a master by a slave in self-defence being "justifiable homicide" in England but murder in Georgia. Recent histories of law describe the evolution of "justifiable homicide" in England; for example, the killing of felons engaged in arson was apparently rendered "justifiable homicide" in the 14th century. Here are three other sources on contemporary context beyond the two sentences in Black's Law Dictionary:
    • Gardner and Anderson, Criminal Law 13th ed. (2018): "Justifiable homicide is defined in the common law as an intentional homicide committed under circumstances of necessity or duty without any evil intent and without any fault or blame on the person who commits the homicide. Justifiable homicide includes state executions, homicides by police officers in the performance of their legal duty, and self-defense [] "
    • Partial Defences to Murder (2004 report by the Law Commission of England and Wales): "Historically English law distinguished justifiable homicide from excusable homicide [] In modern scholarship a good deal has been written about the concepts of justificatory and excusatory defences. Essentially, justificatory defences are those which recognise that the conduct was legitimate in the circumstances e.g. self-defence."
    • Oxford Dictionary of Law 8th ed. (2015): Lawful homicide (sometimes termed justifiable homicide) occurs when somebody uses reasonable force in preventing a crime or arresting an offender, in self-defence or defence of others, or (possibly) in defence of his property." —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, adding two separate senses for two of the types of homicides that are considered justifiable only highlights that the only meaning of the term is "homicide that's considered justifiable by the relevant jurisdiction"; rather than adding a few dozen more senses for everything every era and region has considered justifiable (honor killing, killing someone who sexually harassed you in ancient Iceland, 'standing your ground' and going over to attack and then shoot someone who's Black in Florida, etc), I think it makes more sense to recognize that it's SOP and delete the entry. (This reminds me of the discussion over having 'legal standard' definitions of things like 'mayonnaise', 'margarine' and 'murder', where I raised the same issue, that we'd have dozens of senses that just amounted to "mayonnaise, but when it conforms to US law 3702561", "mayonnaise, but when it confirms to Irish law 9234567"... compare this revision of murderreadable version here— with various jurisdictions' different criteria spelled out...) - -sche (discuss) 01:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't think that gets you around the issue of homicides that would be considered justifiable by some person (e.g., shooting a con man who is on the phone with your grandmother and about to get her to transmit her life savings), but which would clearly not fall within any legal definition of the term. Honor killings, for example, are not deemed "justifiable homicide" in any jurisdiction, nor is homicide committed pursuant to "stand your ground" laws within the definition of "justifiable homicide", even though it is legally excused. In short, your rationale is misinformation. bd2412 T 03:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some person who considers a homicide "justifiable" also considers it a "justifiable homicide"; some court which considers something to not be a "justifiable homicide" also considers it to not be "justifiable"; AFAICT, for any given context/speaker, the use of the collocation "justifiable homicide" and the use of the word "justifiable" is consistent, because each one's use of "justifiable homicide" just means a homicide which they consider justifiable. The restrictions on what is or isn't "justifibable homicide" reside in "justifiable", in what the person considers is or isn't justifiable (and conceivably to some extent also in what the speaker considers is or isn't "homicide").
I initially reconverted the conversion of the RFD to an RFD-sense back to an RFD, but I wonder if we should have a separate RFD (since this one is getting input from only a few people) about merging the two just-added senses... there are many things which some person would (or conversely would not) consider murder (or theft, or justifiable homicide, or justifiable use of force, etc) which a court in Vermont would not (or conversely would) consider murder (etc), and then there are different things which a court in El Salvador would or would not consider murder, but obviously listing each one on a separate sense-line like we did for a while was not the right approach, and likewise taking "some jurisdictions consider murder by police or in self-defense justifiable" and turning it into three senses does not strike me as the right approach. - -sche (discuss) 16:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with the contention that a person who considers a homicide "justifiable" also considers it a "justifiable homicide"; firstly, this is a convention about how a specific phrase is used (and note, a set phrase, as "justified homicide" or "justifiable murder" would both be incorrect). Can you provide citations showing use of the phrase "justifiable homicide" to generically mean any homicide that is considered "justified" by a given person? Secondly, compare grand theft auto. It could theoretically generically mean any theft that was "grand" in the general sense of something being grand and "auto" in the sense of being automatic, but if someone steals your automatic typewriter and you as they run away you yell, "stop! That's a grand theft auto", does your use of the phrase indicate that the theft meets the definition of "grand theft auto"? bd2412 T 01:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three senses now? It looks even sillier. PUC10:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first of the three senses can be deleted, as it is not attested. The other two reflect distinct legal meanings of the phrase, as a set phrase, over distinct periods in time. bd2412 T 20:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

abstinence edit

Two strange senses here. We've got:

  1. (not being RFD'd): The act or practice of abstaining, refraining from indulging a desire or appetite. (with a bunch of subsenses)
  2. ? The practice of self-denial; self-restraint; forebearance from anything.
  3. ? (obsolete) Self-denial; abstaining; or forebearance of anything.

These are cited to the Shorter OED, which I don't have, but don't seem to correspond to anything in the full OED, which just distinguishes self-restraint (+ subsenses) and the practice of abstaining from a specific thing. I don't see what the distinction between our senses is meant to be, nor how the third one could be obsolete. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Al-Muqanna: I agree that senses 2 and 3 seem redundant to sense 1. Perhaps the terms “forbearance”, “self-denial”, etc., can be worked into sense 1. As for the difference between senses 2 and 3, perhaps the editor was trying to distinguish between uncountable and countable senses. The better way to do this is as follows: “(uncountable) Abstaining, forbearance, or self-denial; (countable) an instance of this.” But if the senses are merged into sense 1 this is unnecessary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

py chiminey edit

Do vee vant schpellinz like zees? Also py chiminy Pinch88 (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need to consult @PseudoSkull. DonnanZ (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is useful, because I originally couldn't make out what it meant when I was reading a book that had that phrase in it. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep if it passes CFI. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm against including phrases like this, as I've intimated elsewhere, since in the vast majority of cases, these phrases are just eye dialect spellings of existing phrases, with no independent meaning. pasghetti is one of the few exceptions, a phrase that is used by adults to sound cute, and therefore can't be reduced to merely being a child's word for spaghetti. So I ask ... is py chiminey used by people without an accent in order to make fun of German immigrants? Perhaps it once was.
We could flood the site with hundreds more words and phrases like this so long as we can turn up three cites across the whole corpus of English literature for each one. But I'm reluctant to vote delete based on what might happen, so I want time to think some more about this. Whichever way this vote goes, it will help me firm up my opinions on the wider category of eye dialect spellings.
One more comment ... archive.org is impressing me with how powerful its search is in comparison to that of Google Books. py chiminey isnt cited now, and searching Google Books turns up mostly results about chimneys (forget about using plus signs and quote marks, as they dont seem to do much), but the new archive.org text search turns up plenty of hits for this exact phrase, so this would easily pass CFI if kept at RFD. Thanks, Soap 11:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soap, this is useful to know. What specific search function are you using on archive.org? Searching books in general just returns an error for me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this link goes directly to the search results i was looking at. from the front page, use the main search tool (not the Wayback Machine) with "search text contents" selected and with the phrase in quotes. If that's what you've been doing and it returns an error, I can't help, but I notice the site is slow for me especially with large PDF's, so maybe their server resources arent as powerful as Google's and they sometimes fail to complete a search. Soap 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A problem with Internet Archive is that older books are often badly OCR'd and the search function won't work there because the scanned text is garbled. That might be the problem Andrew's having. In those cases you often need to view the full scanned text, ctrl+F for plausible strings in the mess, and then plug in what you find to the search function in the main view to get the actual location. I imagine they also won't turn up in full-site searches. Google's OCR is generally better, errors are usually limited to the normal stuff like reading long s as "f" etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Off-topic, but what's going on with the /b//p/ here, it does seem weird (expected in word-final position, final obstruent devoicing). Or is it simulating aspiration, /bʰ/? Jberkel 12:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English stereotypes of how a German accent shifts English sounds often seem perplexingly backwards to me; a similar case is the English use of mid to signal a German pronunciation of the (German!) word mit. It's like a cross between eye dialect and Mockney: changing words to signal "this speaker has an accent" even if that means changing the words in diametrically the opposite way to what the speaker's accent does.- -sche (discuss) 09:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and one of those cites has pisness for "business", so the /b/ > /p/ thing seems like part of a pattern. There are some dialects in the Alps where all stops are devoiced, which could have theoretically provided a sound basis for the stereotype, but I think in some cases writers need to "make it wrong on purpose" because subtleties of speech don't carry over as well in writing. The fact that pisness and mid appear in the same cite suggests accuracy isnt always a priority with writing. Makes me think also of a stereotypical pan-Asian accent where L and R are always switched, meaning the speaker somehow gets them both wrong instead of merging them both into one sound. Soap 10:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm leaning keep if it's attested (RFV), on the grounds that we keep all kinds of dialectally- / pronunciation- motivated respellings, and these are not predictable (indeed, as Jberkel's and my comments above indicate, it's unexpected). This is on a spectrum, IMO: on one end of the spectrum are things like Winterpeg (changing the spelling to highlight Winnipeg's coldness) that are clearly includable, on the other end is baaaaaaad (changing spelling to mark intensity / drawn-out pronunciation), which we explicitly decided to make redirects. I think this and e.g. dwagon are pretty low-importance, but still includable (and I think py... is slightly more includable than dwagon since dwagon is theowetically a systematic change, weplace all rs with w, wheweas py... doesn't seem to follow a consistent pattern). - -sche (discuss) 09:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just pointing out that baaad exists as an independent page, among many others in Category:English elongated forms. I didn't look into the history behind the category, but I figured they'd be treated as ordinary words, meaning anything with three cites passes, and that because the spelling is flexible it's not required that they all have the exact same number of extra letters. Soap 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soap: According to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Repetitions, baaaaaaad would be a redirect to baaad (three repeating letters). J3133 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I read the prior discussion just now for more context ... to be honest, that could have been deleted, but I won't poke the dragon ... and I won't worry about the elongated forms getting deleted since it seems we decided that they belong so long as they're cited, just like I'd assumed. I just misinterpreted the comment above to mean that they were supposed to be redirects to the standard spelling. This also gives me more material to add to an essay ... as I implied at the beginning of the discussion, I'm actually against including py chiminey and similar phrases, but I didnt place a vote because my objection is to the policy rather than to this individual entry, and we presumably won't be changing the policy without a long drawn-out vote in which at least two thirds of the community vote for a stricter policy. Soap 11:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it actually is systematic: voicing is switched, so that b>p and f>v, etc. It's just that it's only sprinkled in for effect so it won't obscure the meaning too much, and it's in addition to the changes that the average reader of the period who didn't know German would already be aware of. This convention is used even by writers such as Mark Twain, who had studied German and knew better. In this case, by jiminy is a phrase that has never been used much in real life but was often substituted in written reported speech for tabooed oaths. It's unintelligible to modern readers because it's the intersection of two artificial conventions that are no longer used. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While searching for evidence to support the now-failed triste, I came across this strange passage by Walter Scott that supposedly represents the speech of a Highlander: “Put what would his honour pe axing for the peasts pe the head, if she was to tak the park for twa or three days?”[10] Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is rubbish, but keep per above. It can probably be attested. But I am not convinced that this bizarre ethnic stereotype can be sensibly called a pronunciation spelling. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as it is merely attempting to reproduce the idiosyncratic pronunciation of a specific speaker. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. - TheDaveRoss 14:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

take edit

Rfd-sense: "An intensifier" (currently sense 54, marked "intransitive, dialectal, proscribed"). The example is "I took and beat the devil out of him", and a prescriptive citation is also given, saying "In the sentence, 'He took and beat the horse unmercifully,' took and should be omitted entirely."

I think this is simply sense 1 "To get into one's hands", used transitively, and the extra sense is just an excuse for stylistic grouching about it being redundant in those sentences. If it were actually an intransitive intensifier you would expect cases like "she took and turned bright red", "he took and sat down forcefully", etc., which does not seem to be what's actually being described. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm leaning keep; I've added a few more cites (spanning more than a century) where nothing is being gotten in hand, picked up or received, like "Then I took and went back to the hotel." where it serves a similar role to went itself in go sense 6.2, "(intransitive, colloquial, with another verb, sometimes linked by and) To proceed (especially to do something foolish). [...] He just went and punched the guy." Merriam-Webster has this too BTW. - -sche (discuss) 09:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Indeed, with the right search terms I can find them both used, a redundant redundancy: "Next night his gran'ry 's burnt. What do he tak' and go and do? He takes and goes and hangs unsel'.") - -sche (discuss) 09:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@-sche: Thanks, I think the "took and turned on me" one you added is convincing. Now I'm just not sure whether those should be considered the same thing as the original examples, which still appear transitive or at least ambiguously transitive to me. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

renewable resource edit

SOP? KLFThe Moomoo (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It does not match the current definition at renewable: "sustainable; able to be regrown or renewed; having an ongoing or continuous source of supply" versus "replenished by natural processes at a rate comparable to its rate of consumption by humans or other users". The latter is much better albeit too verbose. Fossil fuels could even be "renewable" per the middle part of the definition at renewable, while solar energy and its derivative wind energy could arguably fall that part. It can be deleted once the definition there is acceptable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

renewable electricity edit

SOP? KLFThe Moomoo (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete' Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

non-Arabic edit

non-Portuguese edit

non-Spanish edit

non-Italian etc. edit

Not sure if we are prepared to have a plethora of lemmas of “non-X language”. We definitely haven’t finished creating entries of every language and lect names yet, and I can’t imagine the vast number of attested SoP entries that we will potentially bring forth by affixing non- to them all, a number that might be at the least as high as half of the aforesaid language/lect names; and I would strongly suggest including such terms in quotations/usexes in the relevant entry instead, as a decent way of representing such terms rather than have them as lemmas. I personally vote delete, but thoughts? We currently seem to be tolerant towards similar ethnic and national lemma like non-Arab, non-Canadian etc., but the language ones feel more weird and unnecessary. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of these non + proper adjective entries (though not "non-Arabic", a recent creation) seem to be Polanskyisms reflecting his personal interest in matters of hyphenation and capitalisation, and I agree they probably don't contribute much. There is an argument, though, that non- can be affixed productively to basically any adjective, and it's not clear that the orthographic convention that it always takes a hyphen before a capitalised one should determine whether the product counts as an eligible word. There are other things that can generate arbitrary and less controversial words (like verb + -er). So I don't have strong feelings about it at first glance.
I'm not sure the "etc." in the proposal is helpful: we should define the scope of the RFD clearly and of the four you list only "non-Arabic" is specifically glossed in terms of language. Are you proposing to delete all non- + nationality entries? Does for example non-Asian count? What about other proper adjectives like non-Bayesian? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I nominated only the language entries / senses here. "Etc." indicates an exhaustive list of all “non-X language” constructions. And well, in my opinion productivity alone shouldn’t necessarily determine whether a term is suitable to have its own entry, and probably other criteria such as dating of a term may be considered as well: ”non-X language” terms are probably a rather recent coinage, whereas terms affixed with un- or dis- tend to date back to the formative period of the language itself, making the latter more legitimate as lemmas. (un- and dis- are still productive in contemporary English of course but newer coinages with un- and dis- for specific domains could always be challenged in RFD.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strictly speaking, these are the correct spelling forms, and should be kept for that reason. IMO, nothing else will do. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inqilābī: To be clear, non-Portuguese, non-Italian, and non-Spanish are currently defined in terms of the adjectives "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", not in terms of languages like non-Arabic is. Google Books shows they're not used primarily in reference to languages either (e.g., "non-Italian immigrants", "non-Portuguese European merchants"). If definition in terms of language is the reason for nominating them then it seems to be spurious in those cases. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clearing it up. Since the definitions aren’t precise, I assumed they were defined in the sense of the language. Now I am confused myself, and will leave other people to interpret the definitions while still sticking to my nomination for deleting ”non-X language” terms LOL. So per your analysis, only the nomination of non-Arabic is valid now. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can try googling "Arabic * non-Arabic". You might be surprised by the results. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donnanz: Well my personal take is that the number of citations doesn’t necessarily reinforce the legitimacy of a term that feels very SoP. Phrases as non-Arabic speakers and the like could be easily added as citations to Arabic or even non- without any loss of valuable lexicographical information from Wiktionary. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: we don't seem to be entirely consistent as far as whether we keep things like this, although we often do. Various similar discussions are Talk:non-French (deleted), Talk:non-Japanese (kept), Talk:ex-chancellor (kept), Talk:ex-pilot (deleted), Talk:ex-stepfather (kept), Talk:ex-alumna (Spanish, kept). - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confusing things further, at non-English it seems the discussion and decision were about deleting the general sense and the specific language sense was left alone, whereas this discussion seems to be taking the opposite angle. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right… This time, I wanted to nominate the specific language sense instead of focusing on random senses, because the language senses feel more SoP than ethnic/national senses. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete non-Arabic (the others have been struck so I suppose they are no longer being considered right now). But I would prefer something like a BP discussion about whether to have such things in general, rather than piecemeal RfDs that go different ways for different non-glossonyms. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2023 edit

history book edit

SOP; compare chemistry book, sociology book, etc. There may be an idiomatic sense out there (compare “the history books” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman.) but this is not it. PUC18:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as it stands, although there may be a possibility for a better entry about what future generations will see in "the history books" etc.: often it's just a metaphor for history. Equinox 18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a quote only yesterday, so there's something about "history books" that's idiomatic. You can't say it's plural only though. And @Equinox: I think you have butchered the def - it was better before. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, SOP, man should know from his linguistics books. Actually one should know from primary school 😱 – does this mean “primary school” has an “idiomatic” sense of “primary education“? No. This is what Equinox means with “metaphor”. There are figurative senses we must not include. Somewhere the relations are too close and the margins are fuzzy, vagueness. Separate senses must be contoured. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but improve the definition, and withal add a {{&lit}} sense. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. There is for the history books, essentially for the book(s), but I don't think that should be handled at history book (singular), and generally less fixed metaphors involving history books are probably going to be sum-of-parts. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the definition provided is wrong based on the citations provided. There are history textbooks for school (which the definition suggests) and then there are general-readership books on history. I don't think that when someone refers to a sports performance as entering the history books, they mean that it will be included in school textbooks. bd2412 T 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it could be treated as an antonym of ash heap of history / trash heap of history, and we could base our definition off of that: "A notional place where …"? PUC09:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That particular figurative sense only works in the plural. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with moving the entry to history books if necessary. PUC14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can also find the singular, google books:"entered the history book", albeit mostly in low-quality self-published books and/or books by non-native speakers. I would delete the entry as it stands ("history book" just defined as a book about history), but "history books" defined as "a notional place...[etc]" as discussed above, with "history book" as the {{singular of}} that, seems more inclusible. - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dynamics edit

Rfd-sense: "Forces that stimulate growth, change, or development. The changing dynamics in international politics led to such an outcome."

I don't think this sense is plural-only—you can say for example "the dynamic of China–US relations"—dynamic#Noun just maybe needs a better gloss. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ex-senator edit

And ex-minister. Like ex-king Jewle V (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

be at edit

SOP. Compare "be on", "be in", etc. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ex-serviceman edit

and ex-servicewoman. SOP Jewle V (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely keep. It seems to be the Commonwealth synonym of veteran, with most usages currently in Indian English apparently. The term is also cited by other dictionaries [11] [12]. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep both. Used in NZ too. DonnanZ (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably keep, because serviceman feels very dated, while ex-serviceman is still in use in Australia, although veteran also gets plenty of use here. I believe the usual gender-neutral collective term is ex-service personnel. This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I see this vote, in my perspective, this vote illustrates a major flaw in the rigid and absurd SOP dogma on Wiktionary which is: that any English language word with a prefix and hyphenation is suspect, while an equally SOP word without a hyphen is not suspect. Would you bring exserviceman? And there are unhyphenated mash-ups of words that are legitimately hyphenated like pro-democracy that Wiktionary treated the unhyphenated form of as more correct. Pitiful. As I see it, this has lead to years of lack of coverage of hyphenated words in English on this website; disgrace and infamy. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A hyphenless word like exserviceman has one part (the word itself), while "ex-serviceman" has two (ex- and serviceman). CitationsFreak (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's absurd, infamous, disgraceful, or some other moral enormity: the justification of WT:COALMINE, in as much as it's withstood attempts to abolish it, is that it's a somewhat useful index of lexicalisation and despite occasional silly results nobody has yet come up with a better one. The policy does not at all, of course, dictate that prodemocracy should be the main lemma. COALMINE entries are often not lemmatised at the single-word form (see stubble field, treated just above). There are other, more humdrum reasons why hyphenated (and for that matter multiword) terms are poorly covered on Wiktionary: mainly that they tend not to be covered by the other dictionaries and corpora many of our English entries are based on in the first instance, so their coverage depends on one of our limited number of individual editors deciding to add them when they happen to remember them or when it takes their fancy. But this is, at the end of the day a project involving real people who are all freely volunteering their time, and shouldn't be insulted just because they happen to have different views about entry inclusion or are more interested in some things than others. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that printed dictionaries see fit to include these (I checked my own copies of Collins and Oxford) make them an exception. DonnanZ (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donnanz We don’t make exceptions for that reason. Please learn how CFI works. Theknightwho (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do though (sometimes and unpredictably)... WT:LEMMINGAl-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through Oxford, the only other ex- (meaning former) examples I can find are ex-con and ex-service (related to ex-serviceman). Others included, ex-directory, ex-voto and ex-works (direct from the factory) don't mean "former". DonnanZ (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WT:LEMMING and maybe WT:ONCE. CitationsFreak (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lavalier microphone edit

Is this SOP? You can also just call it a lavalier#Noun... we also have "lavaliere microphone" as a usex of lavaliere#Adjective (note the spelling variation). - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WT:JIFFY? The earliest attestation for "lavalier microphone" I can find is 1946 (in Sales Management vol. 56), "lavalier" by itself seems to be a later development (OED has 1972, I can see some in the 60s). In early sources "lavalier-type microphone" seems to be common. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as WT:JIFFY. I also edited the def here and at lavalier. This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

up to something edit

We have the relevant senses at the preposition up to. I'd previously thought that this should be merged with be up to, but that should be deleted too. DCDuring (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It is an idiomatic expression, "something" that can't be defined, and it has been WOTD. There's translations too. DonnanZ (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think keepWT:FRIED, the meaning of the components is restricted in a way that's not obvious pragmatically. It's not entirely watertight: there are very sporadic cases of things like "up to something good"—"they're up to something good" has two legitimate hits on Google Books. But I can't find more divergent examples that might be hypothetically possible like "up to something" meaning "ready to do something", and unqualified it certainly seems to imply scheming. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. SOP with sense “Doing; involved in” of up to + context relating the facts substantiating a suspicion. One can also talk about doing tings; which is SOP especially the way I defined ting, together with peng ting; but here “something” does not even have a connotation justifying such gloss, but such senses depend even more on context, which does not mean conversely that combinations are not SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is it's not dependent on context in English. "He's up to various things" is neutral without context, "he's up to something" is not. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per my "figure it out" rationale. Deleting this makes sense only if we assume the reader already knows which sense of up to and which sense of something are being used in this context. But someone who knows those things doesn't need to look them up in a dictionary. Soap 18:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Al-Muqanna There's something at work here, but I don't think it's lexical as much as pragmatic. Pronouns starting with "some", under certain circumstances, seem to have the implication that 1) It would be reasonable to expect that the referent would be known. 2) It isn't. 3) Therefore, one can't trust what one is being told. Examples: "Someone was in the house that night." "He knows something." "They found out somehow".
In this case, you get a similar connotation if you say "I don't know what he's up to". The question "what are you up to?" can have that connotation, as can "what are you doing?", though there are other readings, depending on the context: one might answer "oh, not much, just puttering around", or, flippantly, "two pints a day" or "chapter 5". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also assumed something like that before actually searching, but in fact on a (non-exhaustive) search I didn't find a single unqualified instance where it meant something other than scheming/mischief, so it seems rather more fixed than your examples. Other dictionaries often also highlight scheming as a distinct sense: the problem is that they rarely distinguish between up to something as such and up to... (an object) in general (Farlex Idioms is an exception, explicitly distinguishing "up to (something)" and "up to something"). So the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms simply notes "this usage can mean 'devising' or 'scheming'", but their example there is the only one that actually uses the word "something". Longman has a sense line "doing something secret or something that you should not be doing", which again has the only usex with "something" actually in it. All of this isn't totally conclusive for a fixed phrase, but certainly seems suggestive hence my "leaning". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFD-kept. PUC20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

be up to edit

SoP = be + up to.

Other copulas can be substituted for be (eg, seem). The up to entry has the relevant sense of up to. DCDuring (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to up to. --(((Romanophile))) (contributions) 03:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to up to, senses “Doing; involved in” and “Within the responsibility of […]”. Fay Freak (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many uses involve the sense "Capable, ready or equipped for".  --Lambiam 11:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect. PUC11:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirected. PUC20:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

feel up to edit

This was redirected without (so far as I can see) its own RFD or any other related discussion. It also went through RFD in 2017 and passed.

  • Keep per the rationale added late at the prior discussion ... someone who's learned the idiomatic meaning of feel up might see feel up to and think it means something related, when it does not. Additionally there is a possible translation in Icelandic, nenna, which we could not add if we redirected this to up to. Soap 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I analyze this is as “to feel capable”, one of the senses of up to, that’s what “confidence” refers to. The difference between inclination and capability is in the end unreal, we recently merged overly fussy distinctions at up to. Wiktionary:Tea room/2023/August#up to. Delete or hard redirect. @PUC, but I see he redirected feel up to. So why is it less SOP than “feel confident”? Only because you want a usage note to say “Feel up to is broken down like feel + up to and unrelated to feel up. (grope someone in a sexual manner)”. Fay Freak (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, SOP of copulative feel + up to (a task). Compare:
    You say you feel better, but are you really better?
    You say you feel strong enough, but are you really strong enough?
    You say you feel up to it, but are you really up to it?
 --Lambiam 11:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirected. PUC20:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

supply-side edit

I think it's just one of these "noun being used adjectivally" things Jewle V (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meh, don't think it's a particularly useful entry but there are cases of it being used in a way that's solidly adjectival and not just an attributive noun (which is what I guess you mean), see the cites I added. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hypatia edit

I thought WT:CFI did not permit names of individual persons. This certainly seems like a "name of a specific entity". But the wording seems to allow inclusion of a person with a one-part name. At the very least, the definition is encyclopedic, not a dictionary definition. Probably a definition like "A female given name of Greek origin". Maybe also it is a surname. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name has been given to a few women, such as Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner. Hypatia Tarleton is a character in GBS's play Misalliance. The name is derived from Ancient Greek ὕπατος (húpatos, highest, best).  --Lambiam 11:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I've added an ordinary given name sense and converted this to rfd-sense. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CFI only says "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic [like] Walter Elias Disney". In practice, we so far seem to also exclude modern mononymic people, like the millions of truly mononymic Indonesians (Suharto, Sukarno, etc, who literally do not have any other parts to their names) and people who have but don't use last names like Madonna. However, we include a lot of old mononymic people (including the ancient equivalents of Madonna, people who did have full names but are just best known by mononyms), like Cicero and Virgil and Confucius... - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, in the absence of any further input from anyone else, I say weak keep unless we're going to start getting rid of ancient mononymic people like that (see also: non-mononymic people, like Gengis Khan) more systematically. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in conclave edit

SOP. PUC14:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The omission of the article is surprising, no? Isn't this part of a closed class of phrases like in force, in step, in secret, ...? (Note that, unlike in camera, in vitro, ..., this one is not Latin. That would be in conclāvī.) This, that and the other (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn’t it a predictable construction when an uncountable noun is involved? I’m thinking of examples like in amazement, in horror and in joy. The main thing to make clear would be that conclave can be used in this uncountable sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it uncountable in any other situation though? "Conclave is ..." for example. This, that and the other (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

leonine share edit

As I mentioned at Talk:lion's share some time ago, we're missing a figurative sense at leonine, but I believe this is SOP: compare leonine deal, leonine contract. PUC14:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as this is not currently SoP because it is not adequately explained by leonine. You should have added your new sense there first. Equinox 22:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be literary rather than figurative, and not very common in any case. Keep, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If actually cited, I suppose it could be included as (jocular) Alternative form of lion's share. Ƿidsiþ 08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

stature in life edit

Sum of parts: stature sense 2. Various other obvious "X in life" are possible, e.g. success. Equinox 22:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. For this to be seen as a sum of parts, life needs to have some meaning such as “society” (leading social circles). We do not list such a sense, and neither do leading dictionaries.  --Lambiam 11:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps we should? Compare standing in life, maybe also position in life. PUC09:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read this phrase as "[social] stature [one has attained] in [one's] life", parallel to phrases such as "achievements in life". This doesn't require an extra sense at life. This, that and the other (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Delete. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have “social life” at “life”. Maybe it is not informal after all. Allists underestimate in how much humans sustain themselves by social interaction. Accordingly, we can delete, though I find the present entry flattering as an elevated synonym. Fay Freak (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

stray dog edit

You're not gonna like this RFD nomination, and will probably crush it, but here goes: SOP crap P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SOP, compare stray cat, but I'm a bit hesitant here. Abstain for now. PUC09:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am never going to like gonna. DonnanZ (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you tryna say? PUC12:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have one non-SOP translation so far (the Romanian; the German Streuner just means "stray") which makes me wonder if there would be more for a potential THUB here. This, that and the other (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@This, that and the other: What about Dutch zwerfhond of straathond? Not super convincing examples as they can be fairly literally translated, but...
In any case, I'll say keep after all, as I think it's a useful entry. PUC10:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'd say that would count. "Street dog" is not a literal word-for-word translation of "stray dog" per WT:THUB. So keep as THUB. This, that and the other (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Ƿidsiþ 08:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well-gowned edit

Sum of parts ("wearing a fine gown"). Equinox 19:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: "all words in all languages". PUC19:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Is it any different from well-dressed ? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's definitely in the same vein. DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm leaning towards keep. Most of its usage relates to a period that finished around a century ago. A well-gowned woman was usually well-to-do, and could afford fine gowns. DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the definition says nothing about being well-to-do, it just says "wearing a fine gown". You're considering a definition in your own head that isn't in our entry at all. That's not how to handle an RFV. Equinox 14:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's my assessment after reading available material. I did see two quotes available on Google Books. DonnanZ (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]