Open main menu

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "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 requests for attestation. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as "[[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 when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


September 2018Edit


I think "fortnight" in "Wednesday fortnight" is either a noun or an adjective, but not an adverb. If it is an adverb, that PoS should be added to "week" Helenpaws (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If evening isn’t an adverb this is neither. It is to be understood as an accusativus mensurae, adverbial accusative Indo-European languages use often for time and space. Sometimes one creates these for Arabic but I tend to do not because it is regular use and not lexical, no kind of conversion has taken place usually. Remove because of the analogy. We could add adverb senses to night etc. else. Also remove in the other day, Friday, Tuesday and everywhere else where it can be spotted. I have been surprised to find that it is found as an adverb sense in Tuesday. Now I find mid-March … oh no. Nobody ascribes adverb quality to März despite German uses the month names without “in” (not “in March 2018” but “März 2018”; and we can also say “den März 2018” though this is usually too much to be said; but point is these all aren’t adverbs lexically). Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
If you're making an analogy between "Wednesday fortnight" and "Wednesday night/evening", I see these as rather different. The latter is a night/evening, while the former is not a fortnight. This makes the classification as a noun more straightforward in the latter, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Not an adverb nor an adjective, delete. I moved the quote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I can see why these may appear to be adverbs. "I'll see you Wednesday fortnight" is elliptical for "I'll see you on Wednesday in a fortnight", where "on Wednesday" and "in a fortnight" are prep phrases that modify the verb "see", making them adverbial. I am leaning towards keep, since there seems to be a contained set of such words, i.e. this pattern doesn't work for all nouns (you can say "I'll see you on my birthday" but not *"I'll see you (my) birthday", and I don't think you can say "I'll see you June" or "I'll see you September" - they kinda sounds weird to me). Certainly, I wouldn't want to delete the other day meaning "recently". - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

high speed, low dragEdit

Sum of parts. Adjective sense defined as if it were a noun. Adverb defined as if it were some sort of verb.SemperBlotto (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed that, sorry ... I haven't written a definition for an entry that wasn't a noun in quite a while, perhaps ever. I will be adding attestation later today when I have a bit more time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
As for SOP ... that might be true in aviation, but as the attestations I've now added should make clear, it has an idiomatic, metaphorical meaning that would not be obvious just from those component words. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018Edit

ride the ... trainEdit

Uuuuggghhh. Serious WTF-age. Meh, we cooouuuld move this to train. --XY3999 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this first go to rfv? The WTF-ness does not determine the idiomaticity. BTW, you’ll also find surf the AI wave and jump on the AI bandwagon.  --Lambiam 07:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think there is no doubt that the expression "ride the ~ train" is verifiably in reasonably common use (though I question how precisely the present definition captures its meaning). I guess the question is more whether it deserves to be a dictionary lemma in itself, and, if so, how it should be presented. Do we normally allow lemmas to contain "..."? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This is more of a metaphor than anything fixed and lexical. You can {be on|be on board|board|catch|get on|get on board|ride|take}(or {get off|miss|skip}) the {huge variety of nouns/proper nouns- e.g. w:Peace Train} {bandwagon|train|? possibly others}. I'd call it a snowclone, but it's a bit looser than that. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Move to Appendix:Snowclones/ride the X train. That's how we normally deal with these. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
"snowclone" is a word that I had never heard of until I heard it here, but our definition says "A type of cliché which uses an old idiom formulaically placed in a new context", so for it to be one of those, would there not need to be an original or prototype idiom of the form "ride the ~ train", which the others copy? Is there one? Mihia (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Could the old idiom be ride the gravy train?  --Lambiam 16:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That seems more likely than ride the crazy train or any other alternative, yes. Move per MK. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a term I'm familiar with, is it American? I also think the pro-Trump usex should be deleted, even if tne entry survives. DonnanZ (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep where it is unless existence is in doubt, which is for RFV. I don't like Appendix:Snowclones; let's keep items in mainspace for maximum convenience. We have I'm ... year(s) old, although I prefer I'm twenty years old. An alternative would be to find a high-frequency representative term of the pattern, create an entry for that term to host the snowclone, and redirect other terms matching the pattern to it. The entry to host the whole snowclone could be ride the gravy train (now redirect); see also ride the * train at Google Ngram Viewer. If that approach would be chosen, the nominated entry ride the ... train could be redirected to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to the snowclones appendix. Per utramque cavernam 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit

keep aheadEdit

SOP. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:3DEF:997D:6268:B6DF 12:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Is the second sense given (“To keep track of new developments in area of study or inquiry; to monitor a situation”) really correct? Can you say, “Good physicians keep ahead” when you mean, “Good physicians keep track of new medical developments”? If so, perhaps this is not truly SoP, but I think one would say (when using the collocation) something more like “Good physicians keep ahead of new medical developments”, in which case the “new developments” aspect should not be part of the definition. Also, how is stay ahead not as much or more SoP than this? Should it be listed too?  --Lambiam 13:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and all the other entries created by 2601:14D:C200:3C20:789A:23D2:4002:1BAE (talk). Per utramque cavernam 13:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
So let’s forge ahead and get rid of ’em; I look forward to it.  --Lambiam 18:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Not all of them, actually. Some of them give me pause, and some of them are found in other dictionaries. Per utramque cavernam 11:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I've converted it to a synonym of stay ahead. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP; not a phrasal verb. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: present in two idiom dictionaries[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

stay aheadEdit

SOP; not a phrasal verb. You can also keep abreast of recent developments, stay abreast of them, etc. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

come out aheadEdit

I think this is SOP: come out + ahead. It's just a common collocation. You can also end up ahead ([2]), which looks more or less synonymous; or come out first. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think (in case this doesn’t get deleted) that the def conflates two distinct sense, both of them SOP. First, you can come out ahead of where you started – you made a profit; never mind how others did – maybe there even aren’t any. Second, you can come out ahead of everyone else – maybe you suffered a net loss, like everyone else, but still, you did better than the rest.  --Lambiam 17:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A person can also come out on top. John Cross (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: present in three idiom dictionaries[3]. Note that this is not strictly per WT:LEMMING since that only allows general dictionaries. I would not know how to obtain the meaning from come out and ahead. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan Polansky. I think there is a gloss here where it applies to a silver lining coming from what could be expected to be a bad situation. bd2412 T 03:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thames RiverEdit

Sum of parts. Seems to have been created only to tell people not to use it. Equinox 18:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

River Thames is a redirect to Thames. We could do likewise for Thames River. On Wikipedia, Thames and Thames River are redirects to River Thames.  --Lambiam 21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Redirect. The usage note can go to Thames. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know what it means to claim that it is “technically incorrect” – and who is the arbiter regarding correctness?  --Lambiam 08:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
In the case of a geographic feature, those who live on, in, or beside it generally get to set the naming rules. No matter how many people read "Reading" off the map as reed-ing, if the inhabitants insist it's red-ing, red-ing it is. Local or national geographic boards also may have legal power to name things. If the English, particularly Londoners, agree "Thames River" is incorrect, I'd say it's reasonable to call it incorrect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's technically incorrect, just incorrect in language usage in Great Britain and Ireland. In New Zealand and Australia "River" follows the name, e.g. Clutha River. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It generally does in the US as well. But if the English insist that it's the "River Thames", most other English speakers are going to respect that as correct. (Likewise "Kolkata", "Côte d’Ivoire", and "Bejing", and only the first nation has any English-speaking tradition.) Maybe "technically correct" isn't the best way to write it, but I do think that most English speakers, if told that the English use the River Thames, would accept that as the correct name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I had a go at rewording it. DonnanZ (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
As for diff, where can I verify the following: "(nonstandard, not the customary language usage in Great Britain and Ireland)"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
You might be able to find evidence for it with a clever Google Ngrams search, or you could look for prescriptions in reference works. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Google Ngram did not show Thames River to be dispreferred by language users (River Thames, Thames River at Google Ngram Viewer); it probably was not clever enough. And as for the reference works, I would have thought it is the task of people entering that kind of information to tell us which reference work they used. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Local knowledge helps. I live near the River Thames, as well as a tributary, the River Crane. You can also refer to River Shannon and River Liffey, two Irish rivers. DonnanZ (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
River Thames, or R Thames, or River Thames or Isis in the Oxford area, is the name which appears on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps (published under Crown copyright). The same applies to other rivers; there are exceptions such as the Longford River, which is not a natural river. DonnanZ (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to do a Google Ngrams search that excludes hits that include the word "Connecticut"? Or exclude hits with American spellings like "center"? Many of the "Thames River" hits seem to be talking about the river in Connecticut. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Thames River:eng_us_2012,River Thames:eng_us_2012,Thames River:eng_gb_2012,River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at Google Ngram Viewer. Per utramque cavernam 16:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I modified the above GNV: (Thames River:eng_gb_2012*10),River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at Google Ngram Viewer, and I get frequency ratio of 10. That does not suggest "non-standard" to me; "much less common", sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Some facts: Thames River,River Thames,(Thames*0.07) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. A river in Connecticut has this name. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Most rivers are entered without "River", but this can be a grey area, e.g. Red River, Orange River. Seas are usually entered in full, Black Sea, North Sea, Mediterranean Sea, but there is also Mediterranean. I think there is a case for retaining "River" in certain entries at least. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The Grey River in NZ was derived from the surname, not the colour (see Grey), but may be worth an entry all the same. The same sort of thing applies to the Orange River. DonnanZ (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Japan Socialist PartyEdit

Doesn't seem to fall within our purview. We don't have entries for Democratic Party and Republican Party; see Talk:Republican Party and Talk:Democratic Party. Per utramque cavernam 19:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination does not refer to any item of WT:CFI. This could be deleted via editor discretion, per WT:NSE. Rereading now Talk:Democratic Party, I now realize that the claims of SOP made in support of the deletion were wrong: both Democratic Party and Republican Party are democratic, but only one of them is called Democratic. Anyone remembers German Democratic Republic or Holy Roman Empire, about the latter of which Quine opined that it was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire? Is the Japan Socialist Party socialist? Who knows. As for WT:COMPANY, it does not have a consensus support, and it is questionable that political parties are companies--not in my universe. The same talk page shows that other political parties have not been deleted yet, e.g. Conservative Party and Labour Party. A 2015 keeping is at Talk:Transhumanist Party. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Democratic Party and Republican Party could have been kept via WT:LEMMING, per Democratic Party at OneLook Dictionary Search and Republican Party at OneLook Dictionary Search; it is a pity I did not realize that in the deletion discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should have entries for specific political or corporate entities, books, buildings, people, etc. except in some very rare circumstances. That's stuff for Wikipedia. Equinox 06:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Single-word names of companies have pronunciation, and in non-English languages inflection, both classes of lexicographical information. A related question is whether we should have species names and whether that is a job for Wikispecies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Having lexicographical information is not (IMO) sufficient to argue for inclusion. That way we could include every Pokémon, every (single-named) character from literature ever, every product made by a company. To me (perhaps someone who doesn't belong to this modern pop-culture world) it's absurd even to contemplate. Equinox 07:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a point in what you say, and I'm not keen on covering every Pokémon either. That said, Tesco (redlink) is not part of any pop-culture world; it is part of everyday experience of shoppers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
CFI has no notability criteria, so Tesco is no different from (to give some hypothetical examples) Sam's Hardware, Al's Pizza, Joe's Diner, etc in various small towns. There's also no time limit, so a business that used to be on a corner that's now a subway station would be fair game. The main objection I have, however, is that it leaves an opening for people to use our dictionary to promote their own businesses- we won't know who they are if they didn't tell us. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
They would need to meet WT:ATTEST for their Joe's Diner, and there would not be much to state for promotion in a dictionary definition. By contrast, Wikipedia is a real venue for business promotion; indeed, companies are not excluded from Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
If their local paper is archived, attestation isn't much of an obstacle. As for motivation: anyone who does much first-line patrolling sees people trying to sneak in references to their businesses all the time (not to mention spambots). Wikipedia can handle promotional edits because it has notability and referencing requirements- we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that you know better than I do what you are talking about as for people trying to promote their business. We might create notability guidelines for companies. Current CFI basically forbids companies, even though there is no consensus for that (cca 50:50). where there is a will. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think this is the sort of thing someone should expect to find in a dictionary as opposed to an encyclopedia. Tesco is at least a single short opaque word, but this is (not a single word and) transparently the name of a political party. - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Iceland is also a UK supermarket chain that specialises in frozen food, but it doesn't get a mention. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not saying Tesco merits inclusion, only that Japan Socialist Party has even less merit than Tesco. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the Iceland supermarket deserves a mention either … DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I have only just discovered the {{no entry}} template, which is used for Walmart. Could it be used for Japan Socialist Party? DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep, as Dan notes editor discretion is allowed, this seems unusual as there was a fierce factional dispute about what English translation to use (this is the former name). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete as encyclopedic; I don't see how the name dispute brings lexicographical significance. — surjection?〉 10:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

funeral storeEdit

What do we think about this one? - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious SOP. KevinUp (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Something I have never heard of. Is it an American thing? I would say keep it. In Britain an undertaker has an office where one can arrange a funeral, show a death certificate, and choose a coffin from a catalogue. It ain't no "store". DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This puts a funeral store right in the middle of 1927 Swansea.  --Lambiam 20:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is meant there, it appears to be a mortuary. Is that the only British link to be found? DonnanZ (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Possibly a store for storage, not for selling things. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Some more: [4]; [5]; [6]; [7].  --Lambiam 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
A couple of those are for "mortuary and funeral equipment", which doesn't fit the definition of the entry. The other two may be isolated copycats. DonnanZ (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
In the good ol' U-S-of-A you might not get free health care, but you can absolutely accessorize your coffin. - TheDaveRoss 16:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete – a fūnus-related store. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, do we speak Latin all of a sudden? I think there is a good case for keeping this for the benefit of non-American users. DonnanZ (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep. They don't sell funerals. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Pace User:Tooironic, they sell things for funerals just like a google books:"Christmas shop" sells Christmas-themed things (without selling the holiday itself somehow), a google books:"wedding store" sells things for weddings, a google books:"party rental" store rents tuxedos etc for parties, etc, etc... and it's not even a set phrase, "funeral shop" and "funeral shoppe" are also attested, as is "mortuary store" (about half the hits I see are for a store selling things, with the other half referring to storage spaces). (And pace Donnanz, I don't get the impression that it's common in American English and absent from other dialects; as Lambiam points out, they exist in the UK and other places; it just seems they're not very common anywhere — because it seems like funeral homes usually handle the sale of urns, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 09:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete per -sche. Per utramque cavernam 10:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to keep this but do not know which card to play. I sometimes like things explicitly disambiguated: having a def like "A store selling products and services for funerals, such as caskets or urns" is nice. In Czech, we don't seem to have *"pohřební obchod" so the entry also clarifies the term exists in the first place, SOP or not SOP. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't necessarily think that we need to keep this entry, but I do feel that our entry for store does not adequately convey that a "[foo] store" can mean a store that specializes in selling products in the [foo] category. bd2412 T 00:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    If anyone comes up with wording to convey this, note that the same general thing is true of "shop" (as in "Christmas shop") and probably some other words ("business"?) and could also be added there. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The O2Edit

Was tagged rfd but not added to this page. --Pious Eterino (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If kept, move to O2 (as we have Eiffel Tower, not the Eiffel Tower). Equinox 15:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
In this case the word "the" helps to clarify the meaning as it is used for the building but not for the company. John Cross (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"The" can be displayed in the headword: ((en-proper noun|head=the O2)). No need to put it on entry titles. Equinox 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep It is the name of a building which is well known throughout the UK. John Cross (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Advanced Encryption StandardEdit

This is purely encyclopedic. - TheDaveRoss 14:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A long time ago I nominated Twofish? (or Bluefish? or some such "named crypto algorithm") on the same grounds, and it was kept: I felt it was something like a trademark, and not quite a dictionary term. I will say delete because I still feel that way and this one is pretty much an SoP phrase, even though there could theoretically be other "advanced encryption standards" that aren't AES. Equinox 05:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Governed by WT:NSE. What makes it different from Twofish is that it is a capitalized space-separated phrase consisting of words that are not proper nouns. It is not a sum of parts, yet open to editor discretion as per WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

prison gangEdit

SoP, a gang in prison. Ultimateria (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Could it also mean a prison work gang? (that's a term that should have an entry). DonnanZ (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems SOP to me, delete unless there is some more specific sense. Re work gang, I have not seen it used in that way, and we do have chain gang, beyond that specific term I have seen a few different formulations related to groups of prisoners working outside of the prison, work gang, work crew and work detail among them. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Oxford has an entry for work gang. DonnanZ (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I think work crew and work detail occur with equal facility in non-prison contexts, with work detail appearing in military contexts. bd2412 T 02:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think a conscientious writer would use the term “prison gang” for a work gang of prisoners, for the simple reason it would surely be misunderstood by almost every reader, just like one wouldn’t use the term “kitchen table” for a table of weights and measures used in a kitchen.  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact, that was the first meaning I thought of when I read the thread title. Of course, I understand the other meaning well enough too. Mihia (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is a question that has come up before with arguably SoPpy terms: How should an ESL learner know which of the many senses of gang is the one to choose for understanding the term prison gang? I think sense 6, but that may not be obvious – and, moreover, that sense does not impart the persistence of prison gangs. Therefore I’m leaning towards Keep. (BTW, the somewhat figurative sense for a group of politicians – which I think could also be high-level executives or officials in a non-political organization – ought to be a sense on its own, rather than being lump together with criminal gangs, which tend to be more structured and have a longer lifespan.)  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
If quality of definition were the criteria, I would say delete. As it is now, it looks like it is defining a Hollywood prison gang. An internet search for "what is a prison gang" would give better answers. -Mike (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Pppery (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit


Lowercase form of AAB, I am sure FBI has been written fbi on many occasions, I don't believe that makes it a distinct term. - TheDaveRoss 16:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Same as above. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Same as above. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, if these are written in lowercase, it would make them even less intelligible because they would look like words... if I read "the aab fired on the approaching jet", how am I to figure out that "jet" is a word and "aab" is only an acronym (and for what?) if there's no entry for "aab"? IMO keep if attested, although I wouldn't object to converting it to a soft redirect like {{altcaps|AAB}} or {{altcaps|AAB||anti-aircraft battery}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. My initial instinct was to send these to RfV to see if they ever are attested, but if they are, they are merely a miscapitalization of the acronym. I'm sure it would be just as easy to find sources where ELEPHANT or COMBUSTION is spelled in all-caps, but this doesn't make these different words. bd2412 T 04:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

by one's own admissionEdit

I could fulfil the {{rfdef}}, but it's just by one's own admission, by an admission one oneself made AFAICT, including per the Merriam-Webster link. Is it enough of a set phrase to keep? - -sche (discuss) 20:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain as the creator, with a weak inclination to delete. That's one of my weaker English entries. Per utramque cavernam 18:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to keep the entry but which card to play? We don't say this in Czech, but it can be just a difference in a larger pattern. There is a reference to M-W in the entry, but the lemming vote does not fare well: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI. One might argue that the use of "by" is peculiar; when something is true by one's admission, it means that one admits it is true, not that the means by which it is true is an admission, one's or otherwise. Compare by one's lights. A definition could be as one admits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

astern ofEdit

It is not necessary to have a page for astern of defined as a preposition as astern is an adjective and of is the preposition, and each of those are separately defined. In the usage example on the page ("a wake astern of her") the usage of astern is akin to east in "a mile east of here", and we wouldn't define east of as a preposition with its own page. Mike (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t the argument equally apply to ahead of? Also, don’t you mean adverb? In these uses, astern and east are not serving as attributes, so a more likely part-of-speech assignment is that they are adverbs.  --Lambiam 07:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Usage such as following shows that astern fits in the adjective word class:
  • 1872, Hunt's Yachting Magazine[8], volume 21, page 288:
    Every yachtsman knows that if the ballast of a ship be too afore or too astern.
  • 1883, Lieutenant J. Menteith Brebner, RETURN WRECKS AND CASUALTIES IN INDIAN WATERS[9], page 140:
    The chief engineer's evidence of the S.S. Lennox was the best given; but, as will be seen, he asserted that from the orders he received the Lennox's course was more astern than ahead.
  • 1883, Alexander George Findlay, A Sailing Directory for the Ethiopic Or South Atlantic Ocean[10]:
    but when near Cape Palmas the wind will perhaps be more astern
  • 1966, Peter Padfield, The Titanic and the Californian[11], page 233:
    The steamer was more than ahead of us, just on our quarter as we say, and the light was more astern.
It appears as a predicate (unlike an adverb) and is gradable (unlike a noun). Other usage shows that in can appear attributively (unlike an adverb) in phrases like astern power/thrust. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not disagree, but observe that all of that equally applies to ahead, which is now classified solely as an adverb:
  • 1909, The American Review of Reviews[12], volume 39, page 633:
    Whether in the case of industries other than railroads, the contraction is more ahead than behind, is the question now.
  • 1920, J. W. M. Sothern, The Marine Steam Turbine[13], D. Van Nostrand, page 496:
    In this arrangement only two ahead turbines and two astern turbines are fitted, or four in all, the astern turbines being contained in the same casings as the ahead.
And this use of astern looks more adverbial to me:
  • 1911, James Connolly, The Magic of the Sea[14], B. Herder, page 511:
    Then on looking astern we saw that the severed parts of the Speedwell were filling with water, the midship ends settling and the men scrambling up on the bow and stern that were cocking up in the air.
 --Lambiam 10:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
When pondering questions of definition and usage, I like to go back to see what others have done previously. My modern (1980s) A.H. collegiate, the 1918 Webster's Collegiate, and the 1910 Webster's New Intl. only refer to ahead as an adverb. The 1914 Century Dictionary defines it as "prep. phr. as adv. or adj." while the 1919 Concise Oxford says it is an adverb and predicate adjective.
In your quote from 1920, ahead is being used attributively, and perhaps in being a nautical sense of the word it is a reflection of how it was historically used. (Compare "two ahead turbines and two astern turbines" vs. "two forward turbines and two backward turbines".) I assume that Wiktionary would include any such historical usage.
Returning to "astern of", I can see how it would be comparable to "ahead of". -Mike (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Adjective. This doesn't meet the usual tests that would distinguish it from a noun. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless it can be demonstrated that kin in the usex is a clipping of akin then it's a noun. Leasnam (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, delete and probably wouldn't hurt to add a usex at the noun that shows this usage. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. The first four dictionaries that I checked all list an adjective sense, and a couple also include a "kin to" example similar to ours. [15][16][17][18] Mihia (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The use in this sentence, ‘Chopin, “subtle-souled psychologist,” is more kin to Keats than Shelley, he is a greater artist than thinker.’,[19] indicates an adjective.  --Lambiam 21:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
You may be right. However, even in this pattern it could be interpreted as a noun; cf. "She is more mother to him than to her own children". Mihia (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Some faint evidence: The word “mother” is far more common than ”kin” (GBS 183M : 24.7M), yet “more mother to” is less common than “more kin to” (GBS 2,060 : 5,140). The Ngram Viewer gives a nice graphical representation. Expressed in proportions (assuming these counts are right): about 11 in a million uses of “mother” occur in a collocation “more mother to”, whereas about 208 in a million uses of “kin” occur in a collocation “more kin to”.  --Lambiam 09:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right in this case. I guess I was just making a general point that "more" does not inevitably signify an adjective. Mihia (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - I would interpret such uses (e.g. "He is kin to Frank") as an adjective. It is in Century Dict as an adj, with etymology that says "partly from the noun" and "partly by apheresis from akin". - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


Some kinda Creative Commons licence, a trendy Internet thing so of course it got an entry here. But is it an abbreviation? Not exactly. Is it a word? Not exactly. It's more like a code, like an accounting system where "34" means "donations". Equinox 06:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is categorized as a proper noun. What about uses as in “The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site ...”,[20] and “I did not reflect the CC-BY-SA terms on my board for clarity ...”[21]?  --Lambiam 08:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Incoterms are included too though. This is not different in essence. Seems like abbrevations of licenses being around should be included. They are nouns (“license”). Fay Freak (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a code of sort, used nominally, and we have kept that kind of thing before (e.g. E100). I guess I lean to a weak keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Doesn't seem to exist. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A tentative delete, I'm not sure of its significance. It's been here since 2005. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Some of Oracle’s applications have a feature variously called “Customize Look-and-Feel” or “Custom Look-and-Feel”. This short text (an excerpt from a printed book) manages to use both. I am fairly sure that this is what is meant. Other uses in print: [22], [23]. I’m not convinced that an acronym that is particular to just one company’s applications is worthy of inclusion, though.  --Lambiam 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
But this one says "change look and feel", not custom or customize. DonnanZ (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This appeared in the entry in the beginning, but was removed: "CLAF is an acronym created by to designate a page for changing appearance settings for a specific blog site. CLAF stands for Change Look And Feel." diff I think it can be put out of its misery and deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I say, Delete. If we think of these software suites as creating a fictional universe – which in a way they do – we have terms here that are only used in reference to that universe.  --Lambiam 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep in RFD: existence doubt is for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

go hardEdit

Good title, but the definition is completely wrong. i.e. "Go hard" means "make a great effort; put into your endeavor your all". PrussianOwl (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}, don't delete the page. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it can mean that, but it does not follow that in some contexts the term cannot mean something else. Before requesting deletion of the disputed sense, the usual procedure is to first issue a request for verification.  --Lambiam 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Is that all? It has other meanings. DonnanZ (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the disputed sense is basically an SOP: the verb go as the copula meaning “to become” plus one of the senses of hard. Many things can go hard: “His face went hard”, “his tone went hard”. Or go can be a verb of motion: a racecar driver can “go hard through the bend”. There is also the idiom go hard on (as in, “This is the first poem I ever wrote, so please don't go hard on me.”)  --Lambiam 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
And concrete goes hard when it sets. Anyway, I have better things to do, RFDing everything is not one of them. DonnanZ (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, current definition is non-idiomatic, but the usage in go hard or go home is idiomatic. - TheDaveRoss 13:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Have added def. of most common sense. But agree the "erection" sense is non-idiomatic (so delete).-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


This doesn't seem like an English suffix, just a morphological element that appears in several borrowed terms. —Rua (mew) 10:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is either, just an adaptation from Latin in the given words. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)'
  • Keep and fix — (Firstly, it's not a suffix at all, but a prefix.  I digress.)  Sext- is the Latin ordinal prefix for 'sixth.'  The page should be fixed to reflect this.  That said, with the exception of sextus, every word on the page is an English word.  Sextus should be removed from the English section of the page and added to the Latin section (that is, once you go and fix the page to reflect that sext- is also Latin).  allixpeeke (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I still think this "prefix" can be deleted. Latin sextus, which is included, but shouldn't be, is the root; sextuplet comes from sextuple apparently. DonnanZ (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Allixpeeke If it is an English prefix, which English words has it been prefixed to, then? —Rua (mew) 16:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rua, sextillion is a number in the English language, combining the prefix sext- and the suffix -illion, and sextate is an English word, combining the prefix sext- and the suffix -ateallixpeeke (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Sextillion was apparently first coined in French with a Latin root. And the given etymology for sextate says it comes from Latin sextus. The sext- prefix has just been added by Allixpeeke, diff. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Question 1 — Does being-first-coined-in-French make a word not English?  Does having-a-Latin-root make a word not English?  If the answer to those two questions is yes, that would seem to imply that the word decade should be removed from this category.  I genuinely do not understand what makes sextillion's relationship to sext- different than decade's relationship to deca-.  Please explain, so that I may eschew making errors in my future edits.

Question 2 — If sext- can be objectively said to not be both an English prefix and a Latin prefix, if it can be objectively said to be only a Latin prefix, wouldn't that mean that the appropriate course of action is to edit the page to reflect that it is a Latin prefix.  It appears to me that it only makes sense to delete the page if it is not a prefix at all.  Is that the case?  Is sect- neither an English nor a Latin prefix?

Thanks in advance.  allixpeeke (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If a word is coined in French and then borrowed in its entirety into English, it cannot be used to support the idea of an English prefix on that word. (If you prepare and cook a dish from French meat and French cheese in France, and then import the whole thing to England to eat it, you can't then meaningfully say it was prepared and cooked in England...) Equinox 13:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The stem of Latin animus is anim-, found back in words like animal, animate, animism and animosity. That is no reason to declare it a prefix. Precisely the same holds for sext-: it is the stem of Latin sextus found back in some words, but it is not a prefix. Ergo, delete.  --Lambiam 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete per proponent and Lambiam. Per utramque cavernam 17:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep Based on my subjective assessment as a native English speaker with a GRE Reading score in the 96th percentile, sext- is a prefix that is used in words that are used in English. I would recommend keeping this page. I consider sext- a prefix in the language that I use. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) (modified)
Do you also consider anim- a prefix?  --Lambiam 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Boasting about your reading score means nothing. You must prove that words were formed in English with this prefix. You don't see scientists saying "I'm cool, therefore the superhadron exists". Equinox 00:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, except for Feynman, but he can't weigh in here. - TheDaveRoss 13:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. We'll still have to count it as a "keep". Sigh. ChignonПучок 22:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Harking back to sextuplet, we have sextuple as derived from sextus, although Oxford says it comes from Medieval Latin sextuplus. But there seems to be confusion amongst some users over words that begin with something which isn't a true prefix. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I imagine professional lexicographers have an extremely high reading score. Me? I'm just an amateur. DonnanZ (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Pharma BroEdit

DTLHS (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The term can be attested, and not just as “Internet slang”: [24], [25], [26]. We also have other nicknames (for instance, Woz). What would be the rationale for deletion?  --Lambiam 18:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Were those in print? Send to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep in RFD absent rationale for deletion. Governed by WT:NSE. Entered as a nickname of a certain businessman. Nicknames of specific people that we currently include: Becks, Dubya, Dutchman, Gazza, Giggsy, Governator, Hef, Hoff, Petrarch, Sarko (French) Scholesy, and Voltaire (rather a pen name?); also 鳥叔 (PSY - Korean entertainer). Some nicnames passed RFD in Talk:J-Lo: J-Lo, K-Stew, Scar-Jo, Sam-Cam, Li-Lo, Le-Le, Ri-Ri, Su-Bo, A-Rod, K-Rod, and R-Pattz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how Petrarch is a nickname. ChignonПучок 12:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

lord overEdit

NISoP: lord#Verb + over#Preposition, in contrast to the idiom lord it over.

Among OneLook references only Urban Dictionary has lord over, whereas several have lord it over. DCDuring (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW: Someone should work over [[over]]. DCDuring (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
lord in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 has "to play the lord" as one of the definitions, which would seem to be the right sense to make this NISoP. DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
MWOnline has "to act like a lord especially: to put on airs — usually used with it
I haven't found a definition like "brag". But the best shot at that would be the OED. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this intended to apply to all senses? If so, keep sense three. Claiming something as evidence of superiority is different from any sense of asserting rulership. bd2412 T 20:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This was challenged when there was only the first definition. The other two were added when it went to RFV, looking for more idiomatic senses. If we keep the more idiomatic senses, we should probably also keep the first definition, although we should probably mark it as non-idiomatic. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
If this RfD is only directed to one sense (or to the first two senses), then it should be marked RfD-sense in the entry. I have no opinion either way on the other senses. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The third def seems idiomatic to me. 01:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit

big dumperEdit

It just looks like a "dumper" ("A small one-man diesel-powered vehicle often used to carry loads and material around, often on building sites") that is big. DTLHS (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It says it's a synonym of dump truck, which I imagine is a large road vehicle rather than a smaller vehicle for moving stuff around building sites. A possible delete, but I honestly don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 02:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I wondered if it might be a set phrase like big rig, but the first few GBooks cites just suggest a normal Adj+N combination: "The big dumper, the largest built in Britain..."; "Here's a nimble, big dumper: the Model LMSWM..." Equinox 11:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Woody WoodpeckerEdit

Move to undelete, based on some discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#Nakke Nakuttaja, the citations page (Citations:Woody Woodpecker) seems to have citations that could make the entry pass WT:FICTION after all. — surjection?〉 15:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are the definitions which were in the deleted entry (for those curious, and those who cannot look):
  1. An animated series made by Walter Lantz, beginning in 1941 and starring an anthropomorphic acorn woodpecker.
  2. The fictional anthropomorphic acorn woodpecker who is the protagonist and title character of the series.
There are also a few translations. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Equinox 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Undelete, the Category:en:Fictional characters already contains quite many fictional characters, and Woody Woodpecker is just as notable as some of them. 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The test is not the notability of the character, but whether the name is used as a word (i.e. to convey meaning beyond just identifying the character itself). bd2412 T 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep deleted. ChignonПучок 08:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep/undelete per nom, that is, given WT:FICTION and Citations:Woody Woodpecker. Furthermore, the existence of Finnish translation Nakke Nakuttaja shows there is going to be at least one interesting translation, so beyond the policy, the entry is going to feature interesting lexicographical material. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
I count 4 undeletes (Surjection, Sonofcawdrey, and Dan Polansky), and 2 deletes (Equinox, Chignon). However, I am unhappy counting anons into the tally, and the argument provided by the anon ("notability") had no bearing on WT:CFI; on the other hand, the previous deletion seems to have been despite CFI's provision for fictional characters (Talk:Woody Woodpecker#RFD discussion). It would be good to have more input. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep deleted or move to RFV. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


Sense: "The process of learning or committing something to memory through mechanical repetition, usually by hearing and repeating aloud, often without full attention to comprehension or thought for the meaning."

But one can also perform, speak, play by rote.

Aren't both the learning and the performing covered by the other definition: "Mechanical routine; a fixed, habitual, repetitive, or mechanical course of procedure."? Usage examples seem better for conveying the collocations with the verbs learn, play, perform, speak.

What gives me pause is the abundant attestation for what seems to me is a pleonasm: rote repetition. DCDuring (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that fundamentally there is only one meaning, and that the current first sense is a special case of the second "mechanical routine" sense. I wouldn't remove the information about committing to memory completely, though, as it is probably the most common use, but I would be inclined to present it as an "especially" sub-case of the general sense. Mihia (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
By the way, we may also want to look at whether the purported adjective sense of "rote" is a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Most dictionaries give the word in this sense only as a noun, but M-W sees it also as an adjective. A phrase like “her knowledge was not rote” strikes me as weird but is found e.g. here.  --Lambiam 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The OED has it as an adjective:- "Occurring in a mechanical and repetitious manner; routine." with a few examples given. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

horse steroidEdit

"Large quadrupeds" as in... horses? DTLHS (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The point seems to be that it may be used on any large quadruped, and therefore the term is not simply self-evident SOP? Mihia (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Most uses in news sources appear to refer to the use on athletic bipeds.  --Lambiam 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, appears to be used metaphorically to suggest very strong or high dose steroids that are dangerous but used by body builders, etc., rather than necessarily steroids specifically designed for equines. I searched for "on horse steroids" in Google Books and it seems common enough. (I don't know if humans can actually take horse steroids.) So, should be 2 defs, an SOP one, and a metaphorical one. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Boldenone undecylenate, sold under the trade name Equipoise (after the famous race horse Equipoise, a Thoroughbred), is meant to be used in veterinary medicine on large quadrupeds (whence the choice of trade name) and is accordingly known as a “horse steroid”[27][28][29]; it is even identified as the primary horse steroid, transferring the moniker to other veterinarian-grade steroids. There are many documented cases of doping with Equipoise in sports by athletes: see List of doping cases in sport by substance#Boldenone undecylenate on Wikipedia. It is also the one identified the most in a Google News Search for “horse steroid”, for which almost all results are about athletes getting caught.  --Lambiam 06:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Compare French remède de cheval, Spanish de caballo, Italian febbre da cavallo. Per utramque cavernam 09:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
And also Dutch paardenmiddel. These terms are much older than horse steroid.[30][31] I also found a use from 1715 of the Latin term equinum remedium, which turns out to consist of the use of the dung of a stallion as a remedy against pleurisy. I wonder if perhaps this literal use (not as a remedy for horses but one based on a natural product thereof, to be applied on humans) lies at the root of the metaphorical use.  --Lambiam 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As a veterinarian I can say that the contemporary expression "horse steroids" has absolutely nothing to do with classic expressions. Some equine drugs do work on humans, some actually being preferred by athletes over the human brands, because they are more powerful (some times, it's just a matter of concentration of the active agent, but, other times, the agent itself is different and may be more effective, and more unsafe, on humans). That created an urban legend that all medicines for horses (and for other large animals) are more powerful than those approved for human use. Specifically on steroids, the more different the agent is from the naturally occurring hormones, the more likely it is to have an enhanced effect on the subject. For example, testosterone has a big effect on women, as they usually have very little of it circulating in their bodies, and although natural estrogen has no effect on men, because they have both circulating (testosterone is produced from estrogen conversion in the man's body), synthetic estrogen-like agents are usually very effective on men (which is the cause of many users to get "beefy", but less "manly"). Besides, those carelessly using such drugs are, usually, not the kind one could imagine reading old books without pictures on them. --Cyberknight

can be ableEdit

A cursory Google search for "can be able" didn't yield any results about Indian English, mostly just people commenting how "can be able to do sth." is grammatically correct but obviously redundant semantically. Without a proper source I don't think this entry should be included. Wyverald (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Indeed, a news search found uses by a speaker from Papua New Guinea, by a Somalia-born Canadese minister and by the Korean president of Samsung Electronics, but nothing related to India. GBS yields some uses by Indian authors but many more from others, including native English speakers, going back to at least the 16th century (the trial of John Philpot, quoted as saying, “So that if you can be able to prove that ...”). So that I can be able to support the request.  --Lambiam 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • weak Keep. I found some uses that are neither Indian nor African. I've labelled it as non-standard. It now looks very SoPpy to me...any other thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

nary aEdit

NISoP. nary + a, synonymous with nary one. One can find nary two and nary three. DCDuring (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is strange that nary is classified as an adjective, while each of its listed senses is an adverb.  --Lambiam 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
With many a, the strange thing is that the structure is followed by a singular noun (as the article ensures), whereas many is usually followed by a plural, so the creator of the entry presumably sees these are the same or similar. But, I don't think these are comparable structures, despite their superficial similarity, as nary is not always followed by plural. Can't see any reason to necessarily classify "nary a" as a determiner, either. -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to nary, I think (or delete, but a redirect is cheap/affordable here). Other dictionaries seem to handle it via mention in their entries on "nary", rather than as a separate entry (like some do have for "many a"), and as noted, "nary" can be used with other words; "nary a" also doesn't seem to pass the WT:JIFFY test. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


This and DDMMYYYY don't seem like lexical units. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the existence of these entries is appalling and amateurish, but see Talk:yy: we are a minority in realising this. Equinox 03:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Probable keep. Could well be useful to someone. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 15:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Move and redirect to DMY, which is sometimes used to differentiate from MDY dating systems. bd2412 T 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete; not words. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not a valid reason. The CFI for this project extends far beyond words. Purplebackpack89 05:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
But it doesn't extend to formulas. This is a sequence of variables, no different from a2 + b2 = c2, which most people who have studied geometry will recognize as the Pythagorean Theorem, or f=ma, equally recognizable to anyone who has studied physics. There are conventions as to which letters are used and what they represent, but they're not lexical. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yay, a slippery slope argument! FWIW, we ought to have entries for those two formulas. Purplebackpack89 12:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete. - TheDaveRoss 22:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. In Taxation's Year Book and Digest, I find the following use: "Date of deposit (DDMMYY)". Surely, DDMMYY is a space-free and hyphen-free sequence of letters that means something. The argument about the item not being "lexical unit" is bogus, from what I can tell; why is NM (nautical mile) a lexical unit, and why is it not a sum of parts? Or why is nm (nanometer) not a sum of parts, given the predictable use of n- for nano-, m- for milli-, etc.? The argument would have to be that DDMMYY is a sum of parts, but that's problematic for space-free and hyphen-free items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Dan, it's not bogus at all, and it's not about predictability: nm (nanometer) is an abbreviation, whereas this is more like a "template": we could write yyyyyyyy if we wanted to ask for eight-digit years from the far future. It doesn't stand for "year year year year year year year year" but rather y stands for year and is being repeated. Equinox 02:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
equinox, i have heard this spoken in person occasionally (pronounced "dee dee emm emm why why") in the context of arguing about what the best date formats are. "yyyyyyyy" isn't comparable because it's not in the lexicon, it wouldn't come up in these conversations other than perhaps as a joke (and even then the number of "y"s could vary to have the same effect). yes it is a template, but it also refers to a specific common date format (often compared with YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), while "yyyyyyyy" does not. ---02:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why pronunciation is relevant. I don't think templates are includable even if they are common. Equinox 02:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
yes, see my comment below, i agree with you about templates but this has a meaning beyond just the literal computer-interpretation of the letters. --Habst (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know what the nominator is calling "lexical" but if I see "Use DDMMYY" or "Use DDMMYYYY" in the instructions of filling out a form, it is clear to me what the form is expecting. That's what I'd call lexical. Purplebackpack89 19:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
“But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument',” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” Equinox 19:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
equinox, we can compare it to words like 4-8-4+4-8-4 that we already have on wiktionary. note that just because we have one entry in Whyte notation doesn't mean that any random Whyte notation term (as i understand it, there are infinite possible such terms) would be page-worthy -- only the most notable and well-used ones, and DDMMYY definitely qualifies under that criteria. --Habst (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox Your Lewis Carroll reference is not only gratuitous, but inaccurate. If Humpty Dumpty is the designer of forms that have "Use DDMMYYYY", that would make me (and the other people who fill out said forms) Alice, and, unlike in your Lewis Carroll quote, we are able to understand the term "Use DDMMYYYY" because it has meaning, and therefore should be in the dictionary. Purplebackpack89 05:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No, he was obviously referring to your saying "That's what I'd call lexical", because you were using your very own meaning of "lexical". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
My definition of lexical isn't much, if any, of a deviation from standard usage. Consider definition #6 of lexicon. Purplebackpack89 12:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete BTW, and revisit Talk:yy. Equinox 02:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep typically it's compared with YYYYMMDD in debates about date formats for application developers, with people who tend to think in a "user-facing" way choosing the former (because it's closer to how we as humans interpret and speak dates) while people who think more logically / back-end developers choosing the latter (because it's sortable and leaves fewer questions about month/day or day/month order). it's not meant to be interpreted literally as a sum of the letters or a "code" -- it's meant to represent one of those two positions, as i've heard it. there are plenty of online arguments about date formats that use this code as a representation of a position, rather than the literal sum-of-letters meaning. --Habst (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
i'd say it's similar to the w:Vim vs emacs debate. not quite as notable, but notable enough where i've seen this same debate happen more than a few times in person and on technical forums. --Habst (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

race traitorEdit

gender traitorEdit

Aren't these SOP? One could also be google books:"a company traitor", google books:"government traitor", google books:"group traitor" (including "in-group traitor"), etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The only non-SOP part that I can see is contextual, that is that they are primarily used by bigots of one stripe or another. This is fairly well implied by the definition, since treason implies opposing sides, but that part isn't clearly SOP. I do think that bigots use these terms, so maybe we want to keep and label/usage note them instead? I am ambivalent. - TheDaveRoss 22:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep as to "race traitor" and delete as to "gender traitor". The phrase, "race traitor" appears to have some interesting etymological history. The earliest use I can find is of the similar phrase, "racial traitor", in these cites: Oscar Grow, The Antagonism of Races: Or the Functions of Human Institutions in the Struggle for Existence (1912), p. 49: "Alexander proved to be a racial traitor; he endeavored by immigration to Hellanize his new territorial acquisitions and to that end encouraged his soldiers to take nonHellanic wives; he favored the intermingling of the divergent races of his empire and devoted his energies to the eradication of all racial distinctions"; Charles Willis Thompson, The New Voter: Things He and She Ought to Know about Politics and Citizenship (1918), p. 329: "A man was a racial traitor if he voted the Republican ticket; that was the feeling". The first use I find of "race traitor" is hyphenated: Frederic William Wile, The Assault: Germany Before the Outbreak and England in War-time (1916), p. 187: "Beneath the British Ambassador's car-windows, I was told, some one had chalked a John Bull drooping ignominiously from the gallows, with “Race-Traitor” for an epitaph!" It seems like "race traitor" may have originated as an abbreviated form of "racial traitor". This Ngram paints a surprising picture of their relative development. bd2412 T 01:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that you're being a traitor to your own race (and not some other where you perhaps have a stake or are trusted) might not be obvious. Equinox 07:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that just part of treason? I wouldn't call Klaus Fuchs a traitor to the US, but maybe a traitor to the UK whose citizenship he took. And race isn't malleable in the same way that citizenship is. Traitor implies a level of connection to a group that, when that group is defined (pseudo-)biologically, can't be achieved except by birth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The set of things that earn the sobriquet with respect to race seems much broader than those for political treason. bd2412 T 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about that... on one hand, yes, racists are quick to call a lot of things "treason" to the race, or to call someone a "traitor to their race" or a "race traitor" or any of a number of other such phrases. OTOH, political hacks call people traitors a lot, too. Googling "Obama a traitor (because|for)", some things I see that Obama was called a traitor for include meeting Cuban leaders, letting BP help clean up their oil spill, signing executive orders (both specific ones and the general practice of them), decrying a speech Ahmadinejad gave, ordering an atypical mustard on his food, passing a healthcare law, and accepting the Presidency. In general people who use terms as insults often use them broadly. (Btw, I also don't see how the phrase possibly being preceded by a longer phrase like "racial traitor" would have any bearing on its idiomaticity or entry-worthiness. I mean, "trans rights" is a shortening of "transgender rights" / "transsexual rights" but I don't think it's any more or less idiomatic because of that.) - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose "race traitor" just feels like the origin of "foo traitor" appellations, and I am trying to figure out where that feeling comes from. It does appear to precede "class traitor", which is the next one to develop. bd2412 T 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Remark. Until recently, class traitor was far more common than race traitor. Wikipedia has both Class traitor and Race traitor.  --Lambiam 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems a fair and gender equitable term that should be kept within the language because it doesn’t specify the gender being the traitor or against whom. Is it the word gender or the word traitor that is offensive? Neither I contend and therefore it must be maintained.

We don't add words based on what an unsigned IP user "contends". Show us real printed newspapers with usage. Equinox 10:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I can waitEdit

Er, sum of parts really isn't it? Equinox 07:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. @PseudoSkullΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ChignonПучок 13:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Sum of parts. Not lexical. Not dictionary material. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 02:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
What does it mean? The definition suggests it is a negation of can't wait, in the sense of "I am eagerly looking forward to". Does it mean "Unlike you, I am not eagerly looking forward to and would be happy to skip (the event, etc.)"? If that's what it means, I would not know you can use the phrase like this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
A: "I can't wait for the film to come out!" B (who dislikes these films): "I can wait." B is in no hurry to see the film and has no interest in it. Equinox 18:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. In Czech, character A would say "Nemůžu se dočkat až ten film poběží v kinech" or the like. Character B would not be able to say "Já se můžu dočkat". From my standpoint, the entry is worth keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
More in the way of argument: the usual phrase is the negative one, can't wait. The use of the positive I can wait is at least somewhat surprising, I would argue, which lends the phrase its sarcastic tone. I can wait is labeled informal, while can't wait not so. Therefore, I can wait is peculiar at least a little. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: I would think that the literal meaning would be useful as a translation hub, but there are no translations in the entry. bd2412 T 21:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know how to translate this to Czech: when one person says nemůžu se dočkat, it is not idiomatic Czech to reply *já se můžu dočkat and mean by it "I could not care less". That reinforces my impression that this is a worthwhile entry to keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

armchair linguistEdit

Also armchair general, armchair generals, armchair hawk, armchair hawks, armchair linguistics.
Armchair already has the appropriate sense, and there are myriad professions which equally accept the adjective. This is distinct from Monday morning quarterback since armchair is generic to all (public, decision making) professions while Monday morning applies only to Football (and perhaps preaching). - TheDaveRoss 13:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't armchair general the basis for that figurative use of armchair? If yes I think that one should be kept. The others can go. ChignonПучок 13:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Good question, this n-grams search has armchair critic arising earlier, but that doesn't prove the case. Here is a cite from 1888 for armchair critic, the earliest I see for armchair general is in the WWI era. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SoP. Equinox 13:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete as SOP (or just redirect them to armchair, if you like), unless we're sure one of them if the source of this use of "armchair", in which case JIFFY would suggest keeping that one. - -sche (discuss) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. First, there is a value in having armchair linguist and opposing it to field linguist. Or is the antonym of armchair general a field general as well? Second, armchair linguist is a thing, whereas armchair farmer is not. Therefore, I think we should list it somehow. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There are many professions which armchair does not often modify, although farmer isn't one of them. There are many professions which armchair does modify, just as one would probably not use hypersexual to modify cupboard that does not mean that hypersexual person is idiomatic. I wouldn't think that field linguist should be included either, since field already contains the relevant sense (noun 4.2.2), and one can be a field scientist of many stripes. - TheDaveRoss 15:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Point taken. However, armchair linguist isn't a linguist who is "remote from actual involvement" with linguistics, or a "linguist retired from previously active involvement", which sense 1 would suggest. Neither does the word designate a linguist who is "unqualified or uninformed but yet giving advice", as suggested by sense two. Armchair linguist is, very specifically, a lightly derogatory term for an adherent of the generative approach within linguistics. Does that follow from the sum of parts? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If it is much more specific than the standard usage of armchair, then it might merit inclusion. The current cite does point to your narrower meaning, if you can track down two more which are equally narrow I would be happy to change my vote on that one. - TheDaveRoss 02:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know; armchair linguist sounds like armchair general; they may have a serious position, but they're sitting at a desk and they're making decisions based on paperwork instead of going out into the field and learning first hand. I question whether "armchair linguist" refers to "an adherent of the generative approach" as opposed to, well, an armchair linguist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. There is a sense that generative/Chomskyan linguists as a group, fixated as they are on the ideal speaker irrespective of what goes on in the real world linguistically, are (derogatorially) "armchair" linguists, as opposed to other linguists (e.g. phoneticians, sociolinguists) that are not. Not sure that this is covered in the "armchair" entry. -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Rep. (Rep. of Iraq, etc)Edit

Rep. of Iraq, Rep. of Korea, Rep. of Nicaragua, and so on… the meanings are probably obvious enough. I guess that the entries might still work as redirects but I’m fine with somebody deleting them. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Should it be in RFDO? DonnanZ (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
"Special:WhatLinksHere" is just a way of linking to the entries considered for deletion, not something to be deleted itself. Besides, it's a feature of the system, so it couldn't be deleted, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. In that case, perhaps they should be individual RFDs. DonnanZ (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There are 30 such entries. Deleting some and leaving some others does not make much sense. Either we delete all, or we keep all.  --Lambiam 18:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO this seems comparable to Talk:eatin' for two (2011) and Talk:eatin' like a bird (2018), which were both deleted. Redirect or delete, IMO: personally I don't see the harm in leaving redirects, though consistency would have us delete them altogether. - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


2 senses:

2. (obsolete) A two-wheeled, horse-drawn vehicle used to pull an artillery piece into battle.
3. (military) The detachable fore part of a gun carriage, consisting of two wheels, an axle, and a shaft to which the horses are attached. On top is an ammunition box upon which the cannoneers sit.

I believe these definitions, themselves mostly duplicative, are included in a more general (and modernized) definition:

1. (military) A two-wheeled vehicle to which a wheeled artillery piece or caisson may be attached for transport. DCDuring (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


"Misspelling" of floppy. But more like a typo, I'd say. Imagine how this would be pronounced! I'm not sure we really serve anybody by being a collection of miscellaneous typing and scanning errors (rather than legit misspellings like miniscule). Equinox 22:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The [o] key is next to the [p] on keyboards, so this typo is very likely the result of sloopy typing (and proofreading).  --Lambiam 05:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe do a search for quotations for floopy to see if it has a proper meaning rather than just being a misspelling? It seems plausible that it might be a slang term. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I would expect this to exist as a silly, intentional derivative of floppy like floofy (which I see we have some surprisingly detailed /elaborate definitions for) from fluffy, even though other uses are a misspelling/typo. For example, these two seem intentional, but OTOH one uses it as a dog's(?) name and the other as a nonsense word.
  • 2010, Clive Cussler, The Adventures of Hotsy Totsy, Philomel
    “Floopy!” Lacey burst out. “That can only be Floopyl” It was true--Floopy had a very distinctive woof, low and almost musical. “Here, Floopy!” Casey shouted. “Up here!” “Hurry, Floopy!” cried Lacey. Floopy's tail began wagging wildly ...
  • 2005, Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide: Five Complete Novels and One Story, Gramercy
    Strangely enough, the dictionary omits the word "floopily," which simply means "in the manner of something which is floopy." The mattress globbered again. "I sense a deep dejectedness in your diodes," [...]
Well, if we RFD-delete the misspelling sense, that doesn't prejudice adding a different sense if one does exist with better citations than those two... - -sche (discuss) 06:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete, not a misspelling. Also delete all misspellings. - TheDaveRoss 14:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
If this is not a misspelling, then there is no WT:CFI-based rationale for deleting the entry, and the above is a CFI override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss, Dan Polansky, Equinox: Please see my draft: Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos. Comments and improvements are welcome. ChignonПучок 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The sole current example appears to be a typo, scanno or printing error. The only misspellings we should include are ones that people commonly use believing to be correct. I believe that "floopy" fails this on both counts -- it is neither common nor believed to be a correct spelling of "floppy" -- so TheDaveRoss is right: it is not a "misspelling" in the relevant sense. I couldn't say for sure that no one uses "floopy" deliberately as a word, or a deliberate variation, but we need examples of this, not just typos. Failing that, delete. Mihia (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    I now think the word is occasionally used as a portmanteau of floppy and droopy. Some examples where this is clearly not a typo: [32], [33], [34]. Here it’s used in the sense of having butterflies in one’s stomach. Here it is used in another sense, "pleasantly numb" – probably a nonce use.  --Lambiam 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

auxiliary power unitEdit

Standard definition of auxiliary + power unit; hence SoP. We need to add power unit though. - TheDaveRoss 12:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
What, then, is your definition of power unit? That would help us see whether this really is a sum of parts. Compare to power unit at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, on further reading, I was wrong. This is a unit which provides auxiliary power, more specifically power to auxiliary systems; it probably isn't SOP. My mistake. The power unit I was referring to is another term for a generator. @Lingo Bingo Dingo do you mind if I strike this as a keep? - TheDaveRoss 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss Feel free to close it, though I think this might still be SOP (can't power unit be used more generally for any device that provides electrical power to something?). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The definition is too restrictive. As Wikipedia says, "An auxiliary power unit (APU) is a device on a vehicle that provides energy for functions other than propulsion. They are commonly found on large aircraft and naval ships as well as some large land vehicles." -Mike (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

wait a minuteEdit

Sense 2: "Listen to me; pay attention". That is arguably the pragmatic intent, but I don't see it as a separate sense. It's more like "literally wait a minute [and don't go away yet]" because you have more to tell them. It's the same "wait a minute" as a warning when you want to stop somebody walking into the trap you just spotted, etc. etc. Equinox 22:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a separate sense to what? Do you mean it is the same sense as sense #1, or that it is a SOP? In these uses “wait” is an urgent advice to suspend action until further notice (sense 2 of wait), and "a minute” clearly stands for an unspecified period of time (sense 2 of minute). Aside: I think this is actually an informal sense of the two-word term “a minute”. Pragmatics aside, this would indeed appear to be a sum of parts. The difference with sense 1 given for wait a minute, I think, is that there the speaker is addressing themselves, interrupting their spoken-out-loud thought process. But that is, ultimately, also not more than a pragmatic difference with the underlying literal meaning, the action to be suspended being the ongoing uttering of the train of thought. With a little further effort I expect we can also argue away the third sense.  --Lambiam 22:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit


Discussion moved from WT:TR.
The creator must've thought it was a valid/intentional derivation of Latin explanabilis, like explanation from Latin explanatio, but I think it only exists as a misspelling. It's rare: COCA has 134 uses of "explainable" vs none of this; BNC has 12 of "explainable", none of this; Ngrams has "explainable" ~200x more common. Pulling all Google Books hits with QQ and counting only ones where the snippet used "explanable", discounting 29 duplicate copies, only ~244 books use "explanable"; many if not most or all only use it once, making it impossible to be sure if it's a one-off misspelling or one the author would use consistently, but 14 (5.7%) also use "explainable", suggesting that in those books, it is a typo.
The only dictionaries I see it in are two old German-English translation dictionaries, one old Persian-English one, and an old copy of Samuel Johnson's English dictionary, but in all four the alphabetization of "explain, explanable, explainer, explanation" suggests it was meant to have an "i" (which other copies of Johnon's do have; indeed, the same copy of Johnson which has an entry for "explanable" uses "explainable" later in a definition), and the German dictionaries also have "inexplainable". No books I saw give it as a derivative of (or even mention it near) "explanabilis", whereas at least one copy of Webster's does connect "explainable" to "explanabilis". So, I think it's a rare misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me. Delete.  --Lambiam 19:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I've converted it into a misspelling. There are lots of hits on Google Ngram viewer - so, now, keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete, rare misspelling. ChignonПучок 11:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete per above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@- -sche: Could you clarify whether concieve is a common or rare misspelling, and why, in reference to whatever calibration you used above? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks like a relatively rare misspelling: less than 1/500th as common as the "ei" spelling in Google Books' Ngrams, and found only once in both COCA and the BNC, where the usual spelling is found 2275 times in COCA and 449 in the BNC. OTOH, in its defence, it seems more likely to be an intentional spelling: people often can't remember how -ieve/-eive words are spelled, and excluding books which are lists of misspellings next to their correct spellings, google books:"concieve" "conceive" turns up few books using both, meaning works that use "concieve" use it consistently. (Whereas, "explanable" is sometimes clearly the result of unintentional omission of the "i", based on e.g. where it occurs in the alphabetical lists mentioned above; OTOH, the etymon and related words you mention below mean it may be intentional in other cases.) (FWIW there also seem to be more books using "concieve" than using "explanable", so someone is more likely to "run across" the former.) - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@- -sche: Could it be that you have not performed a calibration of ratio thresholds that you are using? Or is there a calibration that you have performed and that I can have a look at? What was the testing set that you used for calibration? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep as a common misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: explainable, explicable, (explanable * 1000) at Google Ngram Viewer shows a frequency ratio that suggests this is common for a misspelling; compare concieve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There is now Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos that it going to pass soon and that excludes typos. Then, we could try to figure out whether explanable is a typo. It is at least plausible to be a non-typo given explanatory and explanation, that is, something that can appear in writing no less than in a typed text. In fact, the spelling explanable has some intuitive force; why explainable but explanatory? These are the considerations that suggest it could be non-typo. We would not need to have these very uncertain deliberations if the vote were not adopted, but now we have to do with the policies that we have or will soon have, leaving the world of British empiricism in favor of the continental speculationism. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it is likely that "explanable" for "explainable" is often not a typo. I guess to substantiate this we would need examples where "explanable" was used multiple times. (I am not necessarily supporting keeping it even it is a non-typo misspelling, depending on how widespread it is thought to be.) Mihia (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


As defined: filename extensions are not specifically English and in fact are not words in any human language. Equinox 15:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Should it be Translingual then? It is used on Commons images, e.g. on this one at cutting I took. DonnanZ (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not a word in a human language. Every file type has one (vbs = Visual Basic script, xls = Excel spreadsheet, etc.): they are computer codes. Equinox 19:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Things which are not human language words have been known to become human language words; various numbers (phone numbers, police codes), equations, formulas, dates, product names, etc. have all had members enter English, no reason to suppose that filetypes cannot do the same. If you search for "any old jpg" you can see people using it to refer to an image of the type, no idea if it has been adopted to a CFI compliant degree, but I can't rule it out by virtue of its origin. - TheDaveRoss 20:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
If kept, should we rename it (them) to include the dot? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
If there are sources using the term without the dot, I would consider that an alternative spelling. bd2412 T 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There are sources without the dot:
  • "Note that even if the quality value of 1000 is used for saving jpg file ..."[35]
  • "But you can also use your own jpg file."[36]
  • "The first block reads a jpg file format image called webcampix."[37]
  • "Murphy had also drawn a map of the camp, which he sent as a jpg file."
  • "The RGB can be used not only for visualization but it may also be saved as a new image in a jpg file ..."
However, "JPG file" seems much more common than "jpg file". Thus, jpg could be changed to alternative capitalization of JPG. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

bamboo suitEdit

The suit of the bamboo tiles in mahjong. We also have bamboo tile, character suit, character tile, circle suit, circle tile, dragon tile, flower tile, season tile, wind tile. Are any of these idiomatic? In the world of playing cards these sorts of formations are totally constructable, seems to be the case in mahjong as well. - TheDaveRoss 12:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

band sectionalEdit

Most of the usage I am seeing for this term is in the form of "band sectional rehearsals", "band sectional practices", etc. or even "sectional rehearsals/practices". This indicates to me that this isn't a set phrase, and is just a common usage of the term "sectional" as used by bands. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I can think of two competing origin theories. (1) The noun sense of sectional in the sense of a practice session came first, and then was compounded with the adjunct noun band to form the compound noun band sectional. (2) The noun sense of band sectional came first, and gave rise to the shortening sectional. If theory (1) is correct, I think we can agree that band sectional is a sum of parts. But if theory (2) is correct, it is an original formation.  --Lambiam 14:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

burst out laughingEdit

SoP: burst out (sense 2) + laughing. Ultimateria (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP. There is also “burst out crying” ([38], [39], [40]), “burst out guffawing” ([41], [42], [43]), “burst out shrieking” ([44], [45], [46]), and many more.  --Lambiam 13:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely SOP, but I think it could be a useful translation hub. Abstain for now. (by the way, I created the French translation éclater de rire some time ago, but I remember not being convinced of what I was doing at the time. It sounds quite SOP too) ChignonПучок 10:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep set phrase. Mihia (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Barmacide feastEdit

Should be Barmecide feast per everyone else, n-grams, trends, search results, etc. etc. - TheDaveRoss 19:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss Quite a few uses of Barmacide, so I would call it an alternate spelling. -Mike (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Converted into an alternative form. Feel free to convert into a misspelling. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

live musicEdit

Request to 'undelete'. The term 'live music' is a retronym which makes it etymologically interesting to at least. It is used a lot more commonly than for example "live singing", "live speaking", "live poetry" suggesting that it is a set phrase. John Cross (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the original deletion discussion resides? Mihia (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mihia: [47] ChignonПучок 08:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I copied the old RFD discussion to Talk:live music. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Abstain. Mihia (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
No consensus for undeleting despite an extended discussion period. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


Listed as an alt form, how can a nonce have an alt form? At best this is a misspelling. - TheDaveRoss 19:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is, nevertheless, a common ([48][49]) misspelling (presumably influenced by mangrove).  --Lambiam 23:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought it had an r in it too until now, to be honest. :) —Rua (mew) 16:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Mihia (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep - common misspelling.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

George Foreman grillEdit

Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That brand is sold here too. Any generic use? (Not that I'm aware of.) Equinox 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The lean mean grilling machine! “George Foreman” is a registered trademark. Uses are not required to be generic, but must be be independent of, and not identify, the manufacturer or other interested parties. So “Steinway” is fine, but not if the quotation refers to Steinway & Sons rather than just the piano. The use here counts as a proper attestation. I guess this one as well, although it uses a different capitalization. And we can finish with number three.  --Lambiam 23:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
As I understand the policy if you could attest George Foreman as a standalone noun, that would be comparable to Steinway, but Steinway grand piano does not have an entry, and George Foreman grill should not either. -Mike (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That is not particularly hard: [50][51][52][53][54][55][56].  --Lambiam 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Rfd-sense: the novel. We are not Wikipedia. 2600:1000:B121:73E2:8DE5:B945:4762:BF79 10:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would delete (but mention it of course, e.g. in the etymology). We are inconsistent: e.g. Dracula does not have a sense line for the novel but Cinderella does have one for the fairy tale. Equinox 10:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am okay with deleting the sense provided we keep the sense "The creator of Frankenstein's monster in Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus." I checked Frankenstein at OneLook Dictionary Search, and especially M-W[57]. Governed by WT:NSE. However, the nomination does not provide any applicable rationale, from my standpoint; we do have multiple single-word names of literary works. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is all fair enough. Should we also mention that the monster itself is a rather common error? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit

troop trainEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B110:6EDE:B572:7DB8:6078:59FD 18:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, has a lemming and a quote. Besides that, there are probably not many people now who have ever seen a troop train, let alone know what it was. DonnanZ (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


Delete another unnecessary hyphenated attributive form. (For a separate issue with this entry, see Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2019/May#.22attributive_form_of.22_template.) Mihia (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ChignonПучок 22:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that there is much harm done including these forms, in this case to illustrate that intensive care shouldn't have a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the fact that we list intensive care without a hyphen enough to illustrate that it should not have a hyphen? Mihia (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete on what grounds? It's no more SOP than intensive care. You say it's "unnecessary", but fail to explain why, Mihia. Pending satisfactory explanation, I'll say keep.​—msh210 (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Hyphenated compound modifiers can be created in arbitrary and virtually limitless combinations, and their construction is obvious and transparent once the simple underlying principle is understood. I do not see any need to create potentially vast numbers of individual entries defining "X-Y" as "attributive form of X Y", while including only selected examples gives the false impression that there is something special about the ones we do include. Mihia (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
To reply to your points one at a time:
  • Hyphenated compound modifiers can be created in combinations neither arbitrary nor limitless but only when attested.
  • Their construction (given the version with the space in it) is obvious, as you say; but we're not writing a dictionary for those who write dictionaries: we're writing a dictionary for those who look up words, as the "general rule" of CFI makes clear ("A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means"). That's not construction. And it's likely someone will run across intensive-care and want to know what it means, no less than intensive care. (Arguably, more than intensive care, which has a greater chance than intensive-care does of being mistakenly looked up under its components.)
  • That only some examples are included and people may think they're special is not an argument for deletion of those. First of all, people won't think they're special, as users of the dictionary (as opposed to its editors) won't know how many such terms we have. Second, that argument can be applied to all sorts of categories but is not (e.g., we don't delete our one Wawa word just because people will think it's special).
This is a definite keep.​—msh210 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"Can be created in arbitrary and virtually limitless combinations" was clearly meant to refer to general English language, not to what can be created on Wiktionary. And it's true. I would delete these. As said before, it's like the normal language rule where you capitalise the first word in a sentence: you hyphenate an NP to make it an adjective. Equinox 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I would keep it - and any others that meet CfI. We are not short of space. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ahh, if I were king, Wiktionary would put the entries for the hyphenated form onto the same page as the non-hyphenated form to keep things simple and not break up word entries so unnecessarily. Doing so wouldn't affect the search because, as an example, typing "fruit-tree" in the search box causes "fruit tree" to appear in the drop-down, and searching for "fruit-tree" yields results with "fruit tree" listed first. But I'm not king. -Mike (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I would delete all attributive form entries which are merely compounds connected by hyphens, they are a transparent construction. There is no more reason to have these than to have entries such as a book, the book. That said, it should probably be done via vote. - TheDaveRoss 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. I have created a vote here. Mihia (talk)


It is cited, but is clearly a typing error for "rather". Sort of an occasionally encountered brain fart. Equinox 22:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ChignonПучок 09:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
If there are legitimate occurrences of the present participle of the verb "to rather", this should be kept. ChignonПучок 13:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, two of the four quotations for the verb sense use this verb form, one as a present participle (adjectivally), one as a gerund (nominally).
Note that rather also has a (nonstandard) verb sense, so occurrences of rathering may be a legit present participle or gerund. While I believe that in almost all cases it is a (weird) error in which a neighbouring -ing proved infectious, both GBS and GNS show it is a rather common error (search for "rathering than"), so readers are not unlikely to encounter it and try to look it up. I found an occurrence from as far back as 1919. If the “rather” sense is kept, we should label it bluntly a common typing error, not “possibly” and not a “mistake”, and certainly not call it an {{alternative form of}}.  --Lambiam 10:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The verb examples at rather look kosher to me, also given that the verb is labelled "nonstandard or dialectal". On this basis I have added an entry at rathering for the present participle. The examples presently at adverb rathering are plain weird to my eye. I find it hard to see how "rathering" could be an accidental typo or printing error for "rather", but maybe (as Lambiam suggests) it could just be the case that a neighbouring "ing" was in the writer's mind and they accidentally added it to the wrong word? Mihia (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

none theEdit

May be sum-of-parts: none + the (adverb) (see etymology 2). I'm nominating the entry as there is uncertainty as to whether this entry should remain, and if so, whether it should be categorized as a "Phrase": see "Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/May#none the". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hard redirect to the adverb section in the. ChignonПучок 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
SoP, yes, but only to serious students of language. There is nothing about the as an adverb that is familiar to normal folks, though native speakers can use it adverbially in a variety of collocations. If we would like to ensure that Wiktionary will lose normal folks as users, we should probably delete this. If the would like to have normal folks as users, we should keep it and probably add some of the other common collocations, like all the, much the, any the, more the, little the, somewhat the, never the, ever the. I don't think our current Adverb PoS section is worded clearly enough to be comprehensible to a normal user. I am very skeptical that we can write good glosses or non-gloss definitions for such function words. Usage notes in all of these could direct those normal users with an admixture of abnormal curiosity to the#Adverb, where they could get a grammar lesson, at least if that section is improved. DCDuring (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, other uses of this sense of "the" include "(so|not) much the (wiser, better, etc)", "a bit the (wiser, etc)" etc. Do we want them all? I admit they could be opaque to someone trying to parse them with no prior knowledge, but I think redirects to the relevant sense of the and usexes there could cover them well. It's curious that other dictionaries at OneLook have entries for this but not any of the other "X the" phrases I checked. I don't know on what other basis we could justify having an entry for this one but only redirects for the others, or on what basis we could justify having entries for all the others ([[little the]], [[bit the]], etc) besides caprice. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you could argue that "none the" is doubly difficult in that it involves unusual or specialised uses of both words. In something like "much the wiser", adverbial "much" is recognisable from general use, including use in "much wiser" itself, whereas "none" in "none the wiser" is not so obvious. Mihia (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw : Since none the has been nominated for deletion, other entries such as must needs should also follow suit, with a hard redirect to the adverb needs. Now you would argue that must needs is so popular in literature that it should have an independent entry. I also agree therewith, and the same reasoning goes for none the as well. —Lbdñk()·(🙊🙉🙈) 19:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC).
"Must needs" was kept on a different rationale, one focused on its archaic sound, and intentional usage to invoke this sense. bd2412 T 21:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

refiddle withEdit

DTLHS (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

keep. We have both fiddle with and fiddle, so why not both refiddle with and refiddle? Kiwima (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to refiddle, and redirect fiddle with to fiddle. Canonicalization (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


Rfd-sense "The virtual currency of Duolingo, an online language-learning platform". Do we really need this? — surjection?〉 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Surjection: This seems like a matter for RFV, no? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I did check and it would pass RFV if passed through there, and I believe this is an RFD matter anyway. — surjection?〉 17:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to delete this along the lines of WT:FICTION, like made-up currencies from specific video games (but unlike, say, zorkmid, which occurs in many different games). But I can see how it doesn't strictly apply here. It also feels a bit brand-like. A lot of sites have or had their own currencies; many of the sites and currencies are defunct (remember Banana Bux?) Equinox 19:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


"interjection" Exclaimed or posted to make the accusation that the image in question has been manipulated to produce a misleading and false impression.

This is merely a use of the noun. In principle any English word can function in this way. In practice very many do so function. DCDuring (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this usage myself, but assuming it's essentially similar to exclaiming "Fake!", for example, then delete. Mihia (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is like crying "fake!". I note we have an interjection at out, for example. Equinox 19:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, period!  --Lambiam 23:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

do a, pull aEdit

These do not exist as phrases, or as anything. The entries seem to have been created based on a mistaken division of "do/pull a name" into "[do/pull a] name" rather than "do/pull [a name]". Any meanings not already covered at "do" and "pull" should be moved there and these deleted (or redirected if thought necessary). Mihia (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Mh, isn't this a problem with all the members of that category?
Another option could be to move them to Appendix:Snowclones/do a X, Appendix:Snowclones/pull a X.
Otherwise, I guess I would support a redirect. Canonicalization (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

abstract awayEdit

Isn't this just NISOP? Kiwima (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Not a suffix, in my opinion. It doesn't form new words by attaching to existing words. —Rua (mew) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Cycle is the root anyway, so I would say delete. What staggers me is that it has survived since 2005. DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Julia 17:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Probably delete the entry as it stands now, defined as "circle"(!). Someone might be able to find enough citations to recreate it with a bicycle/tricycle/motorcycle-related sense, see e.g. google books:"jetcycle", google books:"ponycycle", google books:"horsecycle", google books:"ride my catcycle". ("Forming compounds for conveyances which are like bicycles or motorcycles combined with or intended for the other element of the compound."?) That kind of use seems like -gate ("Emailgate", etc) to me, i.e. it seems like a suffix. (Do we have tests to distinguish suffixes like that from compounds, as with cycle?) - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Those compounds, jetcycle and catcycle (even Batcycle) could as well be blends of X + motorcycle Leasnam (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

a great dealEdit

We have an entry at great deal.

As a noun (not as an adverb) great deal can be found with other determiners, including the, this, that, no, any.

At their entries for a great deal other dictionaries characterize and define it as an adverb. Many of these also have noun entries at great deal.

The citations can be merged, but we should have citations with some of the other determiners as well. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. Canonicalization (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

as good as deadEdit

SOP: as good as + dead. Canonicalization (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Two questions:
  • Does as good as have good as as an alternative form (in the sense of "almost, practically", I mean)? I see some occurrences for "is good as dead" ([58], [59], [60]), "are good as dead", etc., but I suspect it's not common.
  • Should as good as gold and as good as new be construed as SOP too? The former sounds more lexicalised than the latter. Canonicalization (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    The page as good as gold is a hard redirect to good as gold, which I think is wrong; the meaning of the adjective good as gold is totally different from that of the adverb as good as gold. The latter is a non-transparent idiom, clearly not a SOP. Both as good as new and as good as dead, on the other hand, are (IMO) SOP and deletable. My guess is that in phrases such as “are good as dead” the collocation “good as dead” is a variant of “as good as dead” arising from sloppiness; if it becomes widespread, we should record it, just like I could care less. Does it perhaps belong to a particular idiolect, like phrases such as he done what he could?  --Lambiam 22:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would consider it "sloppy", though maybe colloquial, but yes "they are good as dead" is just an instance of the broader phenomenon of "as" being deleted from comparisons. One can also say cliches (etc) google books:"are old as dirt", "are ugly as sin", etc. I agree that "(as) good as dead" could be considered SOP. Certainly, it is but one of a large number of similar phrases, which are google books:"as numerous as trees in a forest" / google books:"are as many as the grains of sand on the seashore" / as not-exactly-literal-but-still-SOPpy as the average such construction. - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
You may not find it sloppy, but in fact I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!  --Lambiam 23:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, to make my position explicit, delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

in transitionEdit

An old Luciferwildcat creation. It seems rather SOP to me. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but all three senses are present at transition:

  • "The process of change from one form, state, style or place to another."
  • "The process or act of changing from one gender role to another, or of bringing one's outward appearance in line with one's internal gender identity."
  • "(some sports) A change from defense to attack, or attack to defense."

- -sche (discuss) 06:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep. Weakly a set phrase. Mihia (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Kaul festivalEdit

Seems rather NISOPpy. Compare Notting Hill festival, Carling Weekend --I learned some phrases (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep. This seems more like Ghost Festival or Mid-Autumn Festival. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep, but Kaul Festival could be the more common form. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Chinese schoolEdit

You can work this out. I can't see any idiomaticity here. Compare English school, French school, language school --I learned some phrases (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete, 100% SOP (unlike Chinese room).  --Lambiam 23:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete. This is SOP, but it has the stress pattern of a single word when used in this sense. (That is, I say "Chinese school" differently in "John can't come because he has to go to Chinese school" and "John grew up in China and went to a Chinese school".) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
But how is it different from “My son really enjoyed going to Hebrew school”? Note that “Chinese” is a noun (the Chinese language) in one sentence, and an adjective (pertaining to China) in the other.  --Lambiam 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not. I also see Hebrew school as being SOP but stressed as if a single word (and it's surely a factor of where I grew up, but those are the only two examples besides Sunday school that I know to belong in that class). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Latin school – an endangered species, but not yet quite extinct.  --Lambiam 13:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, I have to disagree. If it is pronounced (used) as a compound noun, then it must be one despite what anyone may want it to be. -Mike (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete - it's like Chinese class, Chinese lesson, Chinese teacher...-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the more obvious deletes I've seen lately. Equinox 03:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

hangover soupEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B126:33DA:E908:783B:2D42:593D 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Is this just a Korean custom, or is this phrase used across different cultures to refer to soup eaten to cure a hangover? If it is the former, then it should be deleted as SOP; if it is the latter, then it would be idiomatic since you can't tell from the name that the soup must be Korean. bd2412 T 01:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Googling the term I find many non-Korean recipes for something advertized as “hangover soup”.  --Lambiam 18:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This is sounding more SOP, then. bd2412 T 20:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


RFD for the specific UK and Canadian senses — the first sense should cover this for all Westminster systems. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think senses 1 & 2 can be merged, they are virtually the same. DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Simply merge the three senses. I think only the UK and Canada call the lower House “the [House of] Commons”. Even simpler: define this as “Short for House of Commons”.  --Lambiam 19:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yankee go homeEdit

A mess of an entry, which may well simply be SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete, I'm astonished that it has been around for so long. You can pretty much replace the word "Yankee" with any racial slur and get the gist of it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS?  --Lambiam 13:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: not idiomatic, despite the assertion in the entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I‘m not so sure it is a simple sum of parts. The ethnic senses of the noun “Yankee” as we define the term denote in all cases an individual, but in the political sense of this slogan it refers to American imperialism.  --Lambiam 11:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Can that be established from citations? I have a feeling that much of the time it’s just used to mean “American citizens and companies, go back to your own country”, which would be SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The Iranians certainly used the slogan in that sense when the US orchestrated a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government and reinstalled a ruthless autocrat in its place.[61] To argue this is a SOP would at the very least require adding a new sense “American citizens and companies” at Yankee.  --Lambiam 13:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm suspecting they didn't; the Shah would have cracked down hard on that. "A native or inhabitant of the United States" seems to cover the phrase, with companies generally being an extension thereof; if I can find examples of "Japanese go home" signs at openings of Toyota dealerships or factories, will you insist on adding companies to the noun meaning of Japanese? I object to "citizens"; it's not a word of precision, and if it's getting slung against an American the fine details of citizenship would be irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widespread long-term use. Idiomatic in the sense that it refers to anti-American sentiment, usually against US foreign policy and its military.--Dmol (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may have some interesting use for Wikipedia, but it's linguistically uninteresting. One could add to Yankee the mass definition; it seems surprising that it's not plural (though note the only citation is using it correctly as singular). But other than that, "Krauts go home", "Arabs go home", etc. etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    “Yankee go home” is clearly the original, the others are clones.  --Lambiam 15:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Clearly? Why? In searching for it, I find "Szwaby do domu" (Krauts go home) was written on Polish walls (Language, Discourse and Identity in Central Europe, page 66); is that a clone, or just because this is the normal way to convey this message?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep not just because it's used often in anti-Americanist discourse and protests, but also because Yankee in that phrase is used as a slur. -Mardus (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yank is often a slur; is Yankee not? Equinox 12:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the singular/plural distinction is not very interesting here, it could simply be addressing the addressees individually or a poor command of English. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

triple rinseEdit

DTLHS (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, transparent NISOP that is completely interchangeable with any convenient synonym - triple wash, rinse three times, wash three times. bd2412 T 01:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

test entryEdit

A low-effort WT:COALMINE test case? I don't see the utility. Equinox 16:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete, and delete testaccount with it. This is a great example of how Usenet is a good source to find out how people are using words, and an awful source to find attribution for CFI compliance. You can find "attribution" of myriad pairs of words with spaces missing between them because people don't spend much time editing posts, and because people post code. Things like "firstname", "lastname", "nullvalue", etc. are easily citable using Usenet, but utter garbage if you are trying to create a dictionary of the English language. - TheDaveRoss 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you meant to write testentry.  --Lambiam 09:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, delete - clearly SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. I thought it was Wonderfool who created this entry, and all of his/her entries should be deleted. --I learned some phrases (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess this was created as a test entry to see how long it would take before it was deleted.  --Lambiam 09:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
-sche is Wonderfool! - TheDaveRoss 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I created testentry to test a certain template function that only worked in mainspace at that time, and was going to delete it (as my "definition" said, haha), but Liliana turned it into a real entry, so I created this more common (spaced) spelling per COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Dave Ross. Also delete testentry. What he said, all manner of garbage variable-name-style "words" such as "firstname", "lastname" etc. can no doubt be attested in prose use. It doesn't mean we need to trouble ourselves with them. With no offence intended to the creator, this has to be one of my favourite ever definitions:
test entry
  1. A test entry.
Well I never ... Mihia (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Abstain. The definition is not a definition. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Describing the purpose of a test entry would be more helpful perhaps. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

all betterEdit

"(especially of one's health) Returned to a completely normal or improved state. John had a scar on his left arm, but it's all better now." I think this is SoP, like "I had ink on my face, but [after a wash] it's all gone now." Equinox 18:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete: "When I saw you last week you had a cold- I hope you're you're better". "She turned me into a newt! ... I got better..." Chuck Entz (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Not even really a set phrase, just two words that can occur together with their normal meanings. Mihia (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


Sense 4: "To consider likely. I believe it might rain tomorrow. (Here, the speaker merely accepts the accuracy of the conditional.)" This is the same as sense 1, "to accept as true". The only difference is that the thing being accepted as true ("it might...") is not a statement of complete certainty. Equinox 20:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The definition may not be written well enough. This sense should be like "I expect, suppose, think, understand, am of the opinion of," etc. Whereas the first sense of believe is like "I have a belief" (using the first sense of belief). -Mike (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I still don't get the difference. Equinox 15:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I've changed the usex at sense 4. I think the old one was possibly too close to sense 1. Leasnam (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


Despite being lemmatized with a hyphen, none of only one of the examples are hyphenated. Furthermore it's just a noun+noun quasicompound that you could find a million examples of, like "clown fear". DTLHS (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The 2013 cite: From this point of view we shall more readily understand many cases of height-dizziness and height-fear. is hyphenated. I've added a few more. I wasn't able to find any hits on Google Books for clown-fear, which might approximate a similar construction. clown fear however is a thing. Leasnam (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the standard form is fear of heights, but no entry alas. DonnanZ (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe because that can be fear of + <anything>, but height fear seems to be a psychology term. Leasnam (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this resolved? Tharthan (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep. The term is attested with the hyphen. Leasnam (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


Another video game button, like the recently discussed kick. Equinox 19:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This merely describes a button with the command to engage in punching, as already defined. bd2412 T 00:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

claret jugEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B10B:C764:FCB2:6E98:4771:BB11 10:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a type of jug, though, as "teacup" is a type of cup (even when holding something other than tea). Found in Google Books: "Do you really wish for Madeira, Charley? Do not expect to find it in a claret jug." Equinox 12:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this does appear to be a specific thing, not just any jug that happens to be used to hold claret.
I suspect the entry would benefit from more detail, such as an image and links to any relevant WP content. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I added a photo and Wikipedia link. FYI... Although it doesn't exist here, Claret Jug is also a specific thing. -Mike (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

elo boostEdit

This is a boost of one's Elo rating. The rest is just details and poor wording in the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the rationale for this request? SoP? If I understand the definition, this is a way of rigging the system that requires enlisting a player with a higher rating as part of the scheme. This is not by itself implied by the term, so then it is not a SoP. Is the argument that the definition is incorrect and that the term does not actually have this rather specific meaning? Then an RfV would seem to be indicated.  --Lambiam 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems like this was a promotional entry, I removed a lot of the promotional content and cleaned it up a bit. - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit

take a spinEdit

SOP, from take (to undertake, do, or perform) + a + spin (a short trip, informally); same form as take a walk, take a swim, etc. -Mike (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete, per above. Leasnam (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Wiktionary is the only OneLook reference with this. DCDuring (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This strikes me as AmE, I would say go for a spin. DonnanZ (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

any moreEdit

sense: "Adverb" To a greater extent or in a greater amount (than).

I don't like Braque any more than I like Picasso.

This seems not adverbial and transparent, ie, NISoP. The problem is not well addressed by a definition using {{&lit|any|more}} because we would need a Determiner PoS that just contained {{&lit}}, not a practice that we engage in AFAICT. DCDuring (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the "to a greater extent" sense, as used in the example sentence, is adverbial. How do you see the "in a greater amount (than)" sense being used? What would be an example? Mihia (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete as SOP, like "I don't want my coffee any hotter than x degrees". Equinox 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

are you threatening meEdit

Not a useful phrasebook entry; no translations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain any reasons? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Actually, maybe the phrase could be used for the sake of one's personal safety. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: User:Metaknowledge's two reasons: Not a useful phrasebook entry; no translations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be a useful phrasebook entry - delete SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete – how can one use it for one’s personal safety? If one is threatened, or possibly not threatened, one does not become safer by asking that. Fay Freak (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that I added a translation because I went through the phrasebook entries indiscriminately, and me adding the translation isn't any kind of endorsement by me to keep the entry. — surjection?〉 10:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the fact that we are presenting this as a neutral "phrase" whereas in reality saying this would often escalate a potential conflict. Equinox 19:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I can imagine a situation where raising the stakes from a low-level, but potentially deteriorating conflict by asking this question can actually cool down the aggressor, as it makes clear that the interlocutor isn't afraid of confrontation, but is ready to skip directly to the open conflict part! Ketiga123 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
And you think that translates cleanly into every language? How do we distinguish the two meanings (raising and lowering aggression)? That's going to be one mother of a usage note. Equinox 06:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, there do not seem to be any hits for this in phrase books and it doesn't seem very useful. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


Sense: frequently used in placeholders for computer programming - not a word, not relevant, not of use. - TheDaveRoss 17:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that foo and bar as variables merit inclusion, I know that frumious as a variable name does not. i is extremely common as the variable being incremented in for-loops, but that does not make it an English word. Variable names aren't words in a language, they are arbitrary. They do not convey any meaning, you could replace them with literally anything else and not change what is being said. - TheDaveRoss 18:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The second quote is not even a use. If this is not deleted, I would RFV it. Canonicalization (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a use. It is a directive to use the word. How more use can it be? If your definition of a mention is lavish you can also call the first a use because it refers to what someone wants without appropriating it. And the third one is a test. Is a test containing a word list a use? Now I have given you a riddle to ruminate. Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • "It is a directive to use the word. How more use can it be?". A lot more. One could substitute "aqxgydfji" for "frumious" and not change the "meaning" at all- it's just an arbitrary string of characters that was chosen to make the example easy to remember. You could do the same with any expression that can be divided into recognizable pieces, e.g., "Klaatu" and "barada nikto". re: "Is a test containing a word list a use?". No. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • One can do that anywhere. Not everything spammers send has a meaning. If the directive is to use a word with a meaning, then it is used. If the directive is to use a word with no meaning, then it isn’t used. For example if someone writes to his secretary to compose a letter for him and mention a certain thing, then we have a use at that point already. Then when the letter is composed it might not be an independent use. Though here I tend to assume that this “sense” “frumious” has no meaning. Which has nothing to do with whether the second quote is a mention or use. Fay Freak (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
To me this still has the normal Carrollian meaning (and indeed is often used in his phrase "frumious bandersnatch"). Suppose that the phrase "hot pancakes" was often used in computer programming: should we then have a separate sense at "hot", saying used as a programming placeholder? No. It's still pancakes that are very warm: the whole phrase just happens to be quoted in this context. (BTW I've never heard of this "frumious" in my programming career.) Equinox 18:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It could be moved down to the usage notes if desired, but there is no additional sense of this word beyond the first one. And the first one is very difficult to attest outside of references to Carroll. -Mike (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It is not hard to find examples where the name “Bilbo” (or in full “Bilbo Baggins”) is used as an example string (like in 1,$s/Bilbo/Frodo/g and $_ = "Bilbo Baggins's birthday is September 22";) or as an example variable or user name. This is probably equally true for many other names from works of fiction that have attracted a somewhat nerdish cult following, like “Voldemort” or “Neo”. Such uses are not lexical; they have no inherent semantics.  --Lambiam 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete. It seems to strain the “no specific persons rule”, and also it’s true that there are many nonce words in programming manuals not intended to be found in a dictionary nor suitable for a dictionary. On the other hand I wot not how to deal with names like John Doe, Eva Mustermann (w:Talk:John Doe#List is extremely unencyclopedic for more). Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


This is not a word in Cambridge, OED or MW dictionaries. "monitor" is probably the closest correct word. Tobeineradicable (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep in RFD; if you want to question the existence of the word, I suggest you use RFV instead. — surjection?〉 11:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Mercifully there is no entry for monitorise (please don't enter!). DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like this would easily pass RFV. 13:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Definitely exists. Whether it means "watch by means of a monitor/screen" or just "monitor something" I haven't checked. Equinox 14:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If kept, this probably needs to have a label put on it. Doing a search of news articles, I only find it in the comments sections. When people use it, they probably really just intend to use the verb sense of monitor. -Mike (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

evil spiritEdit

I have self-nominated because I believe we should keep this. It was deleted as sop back in 2014. My reasons: a) it is a "thing"; b) very common expression; c) some lemmings exist; d) not straight SOP, since it is not a spirit that is evil (i.e. it is not analogous to evil person), but rather one that causes evil or is an embodiment of evil. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is the previous RFD discussion? Canonicalization (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I would delete: you can find people invoking "O kind spirits!" and suchlike too. Equinox 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I would be inclined to delete as well. You can find malevolent spirit, lustful spirit, wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit and so on Leasnam (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, do not know how to go about finding prev discussion (it came up as an alert when I first created the page, but now I cannot find it.). Also, respectfully, I do not think evil spirit' is the same as kind spirit, 'malevolent spirit, lustful spirit, wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit, which is precisely why I created it. Amongst Christians I know there is a belief that there is such as thing as an "evil spirit" - a specific type of entity that does work for Satan and is known by this name - as opposed to any old spirit that is simply wicked or prideful or whatever. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The current definition does not describe a specific Christian spirit: it just says any evil spirit basically. I think you need to change the entry before you use that argument (but please let this discussion finish first). Equinox 03:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
To take your points individually: (a) it is a "thing"; [well, so is a "brown leaf" but that's the specific type of sum-of-parts entry we list as what we want to avoid]; (b) very common expression; [so is "brown leaf"]; (c) some lemmings exist; [okay, please cite them]; (d) not straight SOP, since it is not a spirit that is evil (i.e. it is not analogous to evil person), but rather one that causes evil or is an embodiment of evil. [I think this is a misunderstanding: you can live in "evil times", and the times themselves are not evil, but just full of it. Words aren't always 100% direct.] Equinox 03:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually what I meant by saying _it is a "thing"_ (and putting the word thing in inverted commas) was to invoke that new meaning of this expression. Like when someone says, "Is medical grade tea a thing?" ( Yes, a brown leaf is a thing, but it is not a "thing". Anyhow, I fear I am muddying the waters here, so shall desist. In any case, I think among Christians the term "evil spirit" is directly synonymous with "demon", as opposed to other adj+noun (SoP) combos such as wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit which are not directly synonymous with "demon".
As for lemmings, I found these two: , - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


I really wanna redirect this to K, just to simplify things, you know. But I haven't the courage. --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I updated the definition to include that is a possible abbreviation of every word which begins with a k, and some which begin with other things. - TheDaveRoss 22:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I imagine that was intended as a humorous comment. BTW, Y. is the same case, and I already deleted the English section from O. as it was just an "alternative form" --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

oceanic abyssEdit

The definition is inaccurate; were it to be corrected, it would be SOP with the new sense at abyss. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Here the term is used in the sense of abyssal zone, but here the term refers to the Challenger Deep, so there is used in the sense as currently defined. I haven’t examined what uses can be found in permanently recorded media, but I suspect either sense can be attested, in which case the ambiguity implies this is, apparently, not a simple SOP.  --Lambiam 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Do you realize that your first link is to a Minecraft mod? I don't think that qualifies for attesting. -Mike (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I implied in my second sentence that these uses are not suitable for attestation and that further examination is needed to settle the issue. The second link – in spite of it not qualifying for attesting – generates some doubt regarding the assertion in the rationale that the definition is inaccurate.  --Lambiam 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The countable, non-specialist use of oceanic abyss as in your second link seems to be a mildly different SOP, with a more general use of abyss. How does ambiguity between SOP usages merit keeping an entry? Brown leaf can sometimes also refer to a page from an old book, but that isn't a reason to keep it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, I’m not contesting the request. Twice SOP, so let’s delete it twice then.  --Lambiam 20:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

come on homeEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B113:1DB8:7D57:6B6:88CA:5247 12:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how to parse this collocation. Is it come + on home? If it is a sum of parts, can the parts be used independently, like in return on home?  --Lambiam 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's "come + on home". I'd say it's "come on + home". "return on home" does not seem idiomatic. Sense 9 of come on presently reads:
(intransitive, informal, Southern, US, always used with a preposition: in, by, round, over, up, down) To visit.
Don't just stand there on the doorstep, come on in!
Next time you're in the area, come on by.
Don't leave without coming on round to see the baby.
You said to come on over whenever I get the chance, and here I am!
Come on up to my place on the third floor.
Come on down to see me if you're in my neck of the woods.
Even though many of the examples given do have a "visit" sense, to me the definition "To visit" seems dubious. Perhaps fixing this could allow us to incorporate "come on home"? I would say that these supposed prepositions are more adverbial. Also, the label "Southern US" seems weird to me. Aren't these expressions universal English? Mihia (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, home is not a preposition – but the “prepositions” in the examples for sense 9 are actually adverbs.  --Lambiam 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I had a go at fixing the relevant sense of come on, but it is quite hard to define or identify exactly what the word "on" is doing, so if anyone sees a way to improve it, please go ahead. Anyway, the intention is that the new definition should accommodate "come on home", which I have now added as an example. On this basis that this is achieved, I vote delete as SoP for come on home. Mihia (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The def "elaboration of come" seems right to me; as for " emphasising motion or progress, or conveying a nuance of familiarity or encouragement" - I really think it is just "encouragement" (based on the common Come on! encouragement). At any rate, that effectively deals with "come one home" as SoP. Perhaps a hard redirect would be best. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd delete: the numerous constructions listed by Mihia above are clearly the same basic thing. Equinox 17:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

way outEdit

NISoP (= way#Noun + out). Just like way in, way across, way under, way over, way around, way through, way back, way forward, way home. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Currently it reads:
  1. An exit.
  2. (figuratively) A solution; an escape.
    This is a real mess. I need a way out.
  3. A distance far from shore, home, or other familiar place.
    We're quite a way out now.
I vote to delete sense 3, which seems misconceived. There is no such thing as "a way out" in that sense. I am leaning keep for the figurative sense 2, which I think would also justify our including the literal sense. Mihia (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Del sense 3 - not a lexical item, and not a noun. If senses 1 and 2 are nouns, then we should be able to find plurals "way outs" or "ways out" and hyphenated spellings to support their existence, without which evidence, I think they just SoP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sonofcawdrey I'm not sure that's the case. There are plenty of nouns that are only used in the singular, plenty more that are almost always used in the singular. Purplebackpack89 14:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You obviously haven't done a Google search for "ways out". My main problem with the first two senses is that there are lots of prepositional phrases that can be substituted for "out", depending on the context: "he was looking for a way [over the pass|through the rest of the maze|outside|free of the responsibility|to the exit|past the guards|around the obstacle in the only road leaving the valley|etc.]. It seems like out is just a prepositional phase with an unspecified object, and there are a number of others that could be used for parallel constructions: around, down, east, in, north, over, past, south, through, under, up, west, etc.
As for the third sense, as noted, the example sentence is really "We're quite a way out now.". It's just a phrase that happens to end in "way" that's modifying "out". You could substitute "a good distance" for "quite a way". Chuck Entz (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we are agreed that sense 3 is due to a misunderstanding or misgrouping of words, so I have deleted it. Mihia (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Btw, I assume that this RFD is only for the noun sense, so I have moved the notice accordingly. I mean, there is no problem with the Adj. sense, right? Mihia (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • keep 1 and 2. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


women + -'s (sense 3: Indicates a purpose or a user). Mihia (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

SoP, but many normal users won't look there. I'd bet it is more likely to be looked up than all but a few other possessive forms. DCDuring (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Totally normal possessive. We don't include those. Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I agree this shouldn't have an entry, but I would have no objection to redirects at this and men's on the grounds that, as DCDuring says, they're probably among the most likely hyphenated forms to be looked up. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Has been recreated by another user as a noun as in "I have to excuse myself to the women's [restroom/WC] for a moment"), with a "soft redirect" of sorts for the possessive use, which seems adequate. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

deputy mayorEdit

and deputy primer minister and deputy first minister and probably deputy head. Looks like deputy + mayor from where I'm standing --I learned some phrases (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I do question the statement "often empowered to assume the position of president on his death or absence". DonnanZ (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it word president you object to? It is a poor choice as in each case the headword would be a better choice. There is a sense of president that would fit, but in these contexts it seems to be poor diction, which would seem to be a serious matter in a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at it again, if "mayor" was substituted for "president" it would actually make sense. DonnanZ (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
"president" must just be a copy-paste error, mustn't it? Probably from vice president. Anyway, I changed it to "mayor". Mihia (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

get ahead ofEdit

sole definition: "To reveal information that is disadvantageous to oneself in order to spin it in public before one's opponents have a chance to do so."

= get + ahead of ("in advance of")

Even if you think the definition is not just an application of an SoP collocation, it has no cites that suggest this is an accurate definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what kind of object our definition is supposed to take. The definition seems miswritten, I would say. Sense #5 at seems somewhat related:
5. To take preemptive action before something is revealed or becomes well-known.
We need to get ahead of this scandal before it breaks to the public.
Mihia (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The Fairlex definition doesn't seem bad, but I don't think get ahead is the right headword for either their def 1 or def 5. If we think we should have an entry, then I'd like it as get ahead of because I believe ahead of is a compound preposition and the definitions of get ahead (with ahead an adverb, the combination intransitive) seem semantically not very closely related to get ahead of (with ahead of a preposition, the combination transitive). DCDuring (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mihia get ahead of should be an entry. It means 'to take take preemptive action before a foreseen development becomes reality'. But the def "going public with information before the story breaks" is merely descriptive of one way to get ahead of something in a specific case - it is not a separate meaning. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


SoP - you can add ex- to literally anything. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There is also ex-Jew, ex-Muslim, ex-gay, ex-wife; need I go on? DonnanZ (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Is that in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed deletion? Also, is it impolite to ask an ex-pirate for their ex-piration date?  --Lambiam 09:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Good point Donnanz! They should be deleted too, IMO ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
How about "ex-statistician", "ex-organ grinder", "ex-mugwump"... ? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. At least the Muslim and Jew versions were created by a troll. - TheDaveRoss 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I think anything "ex-whatever religion" can go; and possibly ex-gay; I have no plans to be gay just to find out what it's like to be ex-gay; but I would keep ex-wife and ex-husband - these have lemmings and are translation targets. Just imagine the question "How many ex-wives do you have?" DonnanZ (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that ex-wife was in there, that should stay. Lemming alone would allow it, but I agree that it is a worthy translation target as well. - TheDaveRoss 20:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Same: I'd keep ex-wife and ex-husband and delete the rest. Canonicalization (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
We should keep those ex-es in which the prefix does not have the meaning of “former”: ex-aequo and ex-æquo; ex-ante; ex-communication and ex-communications; ex-directory; ex-lax fish; ex-libris; ex-pat and ex-pats; ex-post; ex-stock and ex-stocks; and ex-voto and ex-votos.
I’d also keep the adjectival sense of ex-gay.  --Lambiam 08:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I would of course keep ex-wife/ex-husband and the terms mentioned by Lambiam where the prefix has another meaning. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with Lambiam’s views. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It gets worse: there is another entry, ex-ex-gay, which should be considered alongside ex-gay - I have reservations about both. DonnanZ (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: in previous discussions like Talk:ex-stepfather (kept), Talk:ex-pilot (kept), Talk:ex-Scientologist (kept), some editors have argued hyphenated words are single words and thus un-SOP.
I abstain on most ex- entries, though I obviously agree that ones where "ex-" has another meaning should be kept, and I also think ex-wife, ex-husband and ex-gay (maybe even ex-ex-gay) have enough possible merits (translation targets, idiomatically specific definitions, etc) that they should probably be kept pending their own individual discussions-on-the-merits. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I tend to regard hyphenated "ex-", "pro-", "anti-" etc. as SoP. Equinox 18:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I was forgetting the single-word view, which is an argument I tend to follow. DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Note that that view would lead to the inclusion-worthiness of ex-Ace, ex-Aggie, ex-Anteater, ex-Antelope, ex-Argonaut, ex-Athena, ex-Aztec, ..., many with several definitions (20 kinds of ex-Lions, 24 ex-Bulldogs, 27 ex-Tigers and 33 ex-Eagles). And that is just college sports teams. There are ex-CEO’s, ex-CFO’s, ex-CTO’s, ..., ex-mayors, ex-councillors, ex-eldermen, ..., ex-artists, ex-bakers, ex-chefs, ...; the list is virtually endless.  --Lambiam 08:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
And the list of -ness nouns is virtually endless. So what? That is not an inclusion or exclusion criterion per WT:CFI. I for one find it interesting that ex- is so productive in English, and am happy to find the evidence in the dictionary, in the proper category; ex- is not so hugely productive in Czech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer to keep this as long as attested. The nomination does not refer to WT:CFI; it says "you can add ex- to literally anything", which is demonstrably wrong and its analogue "you can add -ness to virtually any adjective" has no force as for term exclusion, e.g. of wrongheadedness. The term is not a compound but rather a prefixed word. In Czech, the similar forms are exmanželka, exprezident, exšéf, etc., where there is no hyphen, so these are going to be kept anyway, and will contribute to WT:THUB argument for some entries, like for ex-wife; I have not found *exkřesťan in Google books, so no contribution from Czech to ex-Christian. I do admit that the use of the hyphen suggests sum of parts, but I feel this argument is less compelling for prefixed entries, and ex- is a prefix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all "ex-X" entries where the definition is nothing more than "a former X" or "formerly X" (excepting "translation hubs"). Mihia (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP; ex-Christian. Pppery (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, in English, you can add ex- to anything- the question is, has the English language done so yet? I would vote in the affirmative in this case. Adding ex- to anything is one of the ways English generates new words. I would call it neologism maybe? [62] [63] [64] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Stridently pro-hyphen I am in the pro-hyphen camp. I believe that written English used to have a lot more hyphens in it. Yeah, you can make words up on the spot with the "ex-" prefix, but if enough people make up the same word and it gets into popular usage, then a legitimate word can be born. Once established, the anti-hyphen people will start working on the removal of the hyphen- you can see some 'exchristian' examples out there. I, for one, still have an abiding faith in the majesty of the glorious hyphen. At first glance, you would probably consider 'sun-hat' as SOP, right? 。。。 But there is a form of this word without the hyphen- sunhat. Sun-hat used to have a hyphen in some contexts- see my edit on the sunhat page. So did to-morrow. Hyphens can be parts of words, yesterday, today and to-morrow. The word ex-Christian exists and is used in popular media outside of linguistically experimental or jocular contexts. That's my two-cents for ya. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll put it to you this way- deletion of this entry doesn't mean that the word doesn't exist in English, it just means Wiktionary won't be documenting it. If you have to delete it just because of anti-hyphen sentiment, that's up to you. But it's still a word, regardless of our dictates from on high. English doesn't have a politburo that decides what shall and what shall not be a word. I am pretty sure that this is a word exists. It's not something I came up with yesterday like "ex-ghost" or "ex-marble" or something silly like that. Deleting this entry would mean Wiktionary could never quite be on the cutting edge of what English is. I can't stop you, but I have seen 'ex-Christian' enough that it has passed my test to reach the threshold for being a word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If the policies of this website are against my position, then they are dead wrong in terms of the way English should be understood. But I don't think SOP is really against me- just a gang of well-meaning people with radical anti-hyphen bias.--Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Geographyinitiative: What if the term in question was "former Christian", would that merit inclusion? Why is a hyphen magical when a space is not? ex- means former, so ex-parrot is an identical term to former parrot, both mean that the parrot has ceased to be (a parrot). You would include the ex- version because it has a hyphen, but not the former version because it does not?
    Hyphens can be used in many ways, and can form things which are clearly not atomic words (here is a reasonable-if-not-ideal example). Your position seems to be that spaces are the only form of word break which unambiguously delineate words, but that is clearly not the case. I don't think I have seen anyone advocate for removing all terms with hyphens in them, anyway. - TheDaveRoss 12:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I won't continue here with my autistic screeching, but I will give you a few links: Ex-gay movement Ex-ex-gay Ex-Muslims of North America Bertell Ollman These are words, don't ignore them (IMO). I am not a scholar on the issue, I'm just telling you my feelings. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep all. The only difference as far as I can see linguistically is that certain affixes have hyphens (e.g. ex-) while others do not (e.g. un-), then there are others that sometimes take hyphens and sometimes not (e.g. semi-, non-). If we are going to not admit ex-Christian then we shouldn't admit unchristian, which essentially just means 'not Christian'. Words with "non-", "anti-", "un-", "semi", "half-" all seem equally SoPish. If they all meet CFI, then by the ethos of every word in every language, they should be in. One way English creates new words is to add "ex-" at the front, ex-Christian is just as much a word as ex-wife. The great thing about Wiktionary, as a dictionary, is that it does include trivial compounds/formations, more so than any other dictionary. It's a strength. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all. At the very least, we should be considering these on a case-by-case basis rather than wholesale. "Ex-Christian", "ex-gay" and the like have more subtle meanings beyond just "formerly ...". "Ex-gay", in particular, does not merely mean "formerly gay" because it's questionable whether that's possible. It's also part of the phrase ex-gay movement, which is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia entry. By the way, Chuck Entz, your examples are whataboutism. They are not relevant because they don't exist and we don't have entries for them. If we did, we'd recognise them as SoP and remove them. — Paul G (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Paul G Actually, they were relevant, as a counter to Donnanz' typical "we should keep it because I like it"/inverse w:WP:I DON'T LIKE IT argumentation. As for whether they exist: ex-statistician 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ex-organ-grinder 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ex-mugwump 1, 2, 3. I'm pretty sure these would all pass an rfv (and yes, I did check before I chose those examples). As for rfd: how exactly would we recognize those as SOP? What objective criteria are there that would apply to those that wouldn't apply to the nominated ones? A notability requirement would filter out trivial examples such as mine- but we don't have a notability requirement. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all that are cited. Ƿidsiþ 08:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all not included by lemmings. DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Another factor that I just realized: ex- seems to act more like a clitic in many cases, modifying the whole phrase rather than the word it's attached to. There are examples like ex-Christian Scientist, ex-Christian Democrat and ex-Christian Brother (not to mention things like "ex-Baltimore mayor"). We don't include possessives in -'s and Latin forms in -cum or -que because of this characteristic. That doesn't automatically exclude this entry, but it needs to be considered. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    One can check e.g. ex-Christians, ex-Jews, ex-wives, ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, ex-ministers at Google Ngram Viewer to look only at cases that do not clearly show the clitic phenomenon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete ex-Christian, ex-Muslim, ex-Jew and ex-Scientologist; keep ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-boyfriend and ex-girlfriend (these have lemmings and are likely jiffies for ex). Also keep ex-gay, although without any lemmings this should not be analysed as simply meaning "former gay", the current definition agrees with that. Delete ex-ex-gay. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit

space scienceEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B147:57C5:D469:C832:6DF1:64A2 13:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well's really a compound word spelt with an added space (--why do we do that ?). I'm not disputing that it's SOP by consensus, but we do have street artist... Leasnam (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WT:LEMMING: In AHD[65] and Collins[66]. On a non-lemming side, I am not sure this is a sum of parts: it would have to be a science concerned with outer space, and that would be astronomy? It seems to be an umbrella term to cover sciences and investigations instrumental to outer space exploration, especially putting humans in space, including space medicine. See also W:Outline of space science, which says that "space science encompasses all of the scientific disciplines that involve space exploration and study natural phenomena and physical bodies occurring in outer space, such as space medicine and astrobiology". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


Kappa may turn out to be attestable as a noun, a proper noun, an "interjection", but it is not what we would call a symbol any more than Pieta is a symbol of the famous sculpture (w:Pieta). DCDuring (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete the "symbol" bit. Equinox 19:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep hi, i think that the Kappa symbol is by far the most widely attested part-of-speech of Kappa — much more than the noun, the proper noun, and the interjection combined — and it should not be deleted.
since its creation, Kappa has been hit with almost every mechanism possible on wiktionary — an RFC, four RFVs, a GP discussion, and now an RFD — and none have reached any conclusion. this Pieta example seems identical to the "white house" example that DCDuring brought up on june 27th, which i refuted in Special:Diff/53470517 to no response.
to rephrase myself — the Kappa symbol is used inline with text and refers to a clearly defined image like 😂, and this specific part of speech is attested more than enough times on Citations:Kappa along with a link to over one million archived attestations of the Kappa symbol being used in sentences. unlike any random image of the White House or an image of Pieta, Kappa is a specific symbol that conveys meaning (that is, to negate the meaning of a sentence or to indicate trolling) and is not simply a reference to Josh DeSeno — most people using Kappa probably do not know who Josh DeSeno is. images of the WH or Pieta are only references to the objects they depict, without conveying any contextual meaning like the Kappa symbol does. in fact, "Kappa" is most widely referred to as a symbol in the Wiktionary sense of the term (as in an emote, like the hundreds of emoji already listed on wiktionary as symbols), while "Pieta" is almost never referred to as such.
just because Wiktionary doesn't allow us to have non-Unicode images in titles doesn't mean that these terms don't belong on Wiktionary. i think twitch emotes should be treated Ancient Egyptian or sign languages on Wiktionary — terms like sḏꜣ appear in the title like the latin characters "SD3" in my encoding, but the word actually represented on that page is a picture of a cylinder seal. i don't see why we can't do the same for terms like Kappa, and i would be willing to edit pages like MediaWiki:UnsupportedTitles.js to achieve whatever the community decides is the optimal user presentation for terms like these.
my biggest fear is losing the most important sense of Kappa — that is, this picture. i am open to new ideas that offer an alternative, such as a new page to move this sense to, but so far no alternative has been offered to keep this sense on Wiktionary, despite a number of derivatives (the latin-text forms) being allowed to stay. if we can't find any alternatives but agree the symbol part-of-speech is by far well-enough attested, then why remove it? --Habst (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Kappa has been hit with many requests for cleanup, deletion, and verification because it is a highly problematic entry. So pull up your socks, make cogent arguments, and act like a Wiktionarian instead of a POV entry advocate.
The way we deal with words that are used as the name of symbols is the way we deal with hash and kappa. If the symbol does not have a Unicode representation, then we try to find an image of the symbol. If that is not possible, then we verbally characterize or describe the symbol and its function. Kappa seems obviously to be the name of a symbol, but maybe not.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some PoS heading that was appropriate, but we have a limited number available. Is it a Proper noun, the name of a unique work, ie, a specific image of a certain person? (We don't usually allow titles of works.) Is it a (common) Noun? (What does it refer to?) It seems to have been (rarely) used as a Verb. It seems to function on Twitch in much the same way as a template like our {{done}}. (We don't include such computer (or oither device) commands.) When used elsewhere it seems intended to be a metonym, evoking among the cognescenti the sarcasm-/irony-/falsehood-signalling function of the image that it causes to be inserted on Twitch. It certainly isn't an interjection (sensu stricto). Though I personally think we overuse the PoS header Interjection, that header might be appropriate. Another possibility is that we could call it a Particle. Could it be an Adverb indicating sarcasm, irony, and falsehood, in the manner of a sentence adverb? It can't be a conjunction, determiner, preposition, or an adjective. DCDuring (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
DCDuring, yes, Kappa is one of many entries that is controversial, but not in my opinion problematic. similar to how the English phrasebook and its entries have been contested so many times over the years — just because it is contested, does not mean it should be deleted. and those arguing in favor of the phrasebook entries aren't POV entry advocates, but fellow good-faith wiktionarians trying to improve Wiktionary. the vast majority of my edits have been on improving the dictionary's coverage of Swahili and have nothing at all to do with Kappa.
the difference between the Kappa symbol and hash/kappa is that hash and kappa are only used as references to objects, and they do not convey any contextual meaning, per w:sense and reference. the Kappa symbol is much more like 😂 than it is hash or kappa, because it is a symbol that has semantic meaning and a function when used inline with text -- you can't say the same with hash or kappa, which are like saying "The White House" or "Pieta".
there may be other parts-of-speech appropriate for the word Kappa, but for the Kappa symbol, there is only one that is appropriate as i see it, the symbol part-of-speech like we use for emoji. as for the comparison with {{done}}, i agree it is worth considering because it looks similar at first, but again i explained why the two are different on june 29th here Special:Diff/53481216 to no response. {{done}} is a wiki-specific term that certainly does not pass any tests for attestation like the Kappa symbol does, and we would not create a Wiki entry for {{done}} because it would be rightly deleted. as i explained before, Kappa is not a command but a symbol — but even if it was a command, there are commands on wiktionary like cat#Etymology 3. in fact, based on web searches it appears Kappa is referred to as a symbol far more often than a command, and wiktionary as a descriptive dictionary should reflect that.
i think the reason we are having so much trouble finding an alternative part-of-speech header for the Kappa symbol is because it is a symbol and that is the most appropriate header to use. i'm not 100% attached to using the Kappa page name as the house of the symbol part-of-speech per see, but without some site back-end work it is the best place to put it, just like sḏꜣ is the best place to put the Egyptian hieroglyph because we can't have Wiktionary titles that are e.g.<picture of cylinder seal>. this discussion is really good but we do need to work these things out to find the best home for the Kappa symbol on Wiktionary. --Habst (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
If I was completely new to Wiktionary, I would probably overturn all the known rules of parts of speech and do a ton of wiki-lawyering. Just to make sure they liked me. God, can we ban this joker already? Equinox 13:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I had a look at the citations. Seems in most cases that "kappa" is added to indicate sarcasm. The cites have some noun and verb uses, and some attributive noun uses. Can't really see that it is an interjection though, as that part of speech refers to spoken words (unless, of course, people actually say "kappa" out loud to indicate sarcasm, which the evidence offered does not support, so I doubt it). I don't know if Wiktionary excludes symbols or includes them. They aren't "words" in a language, strictly speaking, but they increasingly function like words on social media, and other places. Language is changing and so perhaps Wiktionary needs to keep up to date with that. Mostly the entry seems okay to me, but needs a bit of a clean up and probably just the noun sense is worth keep (and maybe the symbol one, if that is allowable according to Wiktionary's dictates). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thank you for your input, sonofcawdrew and equinox. i agree with your assessment of Kappa, and especially your comments about wiktionary adapting to changing language. when i created the entry, i only added a symbol part-of-speech because i thought it was the most appropriate PoS, all of the others were added later. symbols are allowed on wiktionary and that's what i modeled the entry after -- for an example of an uncontested symbol entry see 😂 or you can look in the symbol categories. the word "Kappa" is indeed often spoken aloud by Twitch streamers (keep in mind many of these people stream themselves speaking and reading Twitch chat for 4+ hours per day so this is just a consequence of it being commonly used in twitch chat) or at gaming-related conventions and the like, but you're right that the spoken usage is less common than the written symbol usage. i'm not sure the best way to indicate spoken usage on Citations:Kappa -- i've found some CC-BY YouTube videos that use Kappa, so maybe i should try transferring them over to Commons to be cited?
i'm very appreciative of equinox's contributions here at wiktionary and all the times he has helped with my entries, but i'm confused about his response here. around the same time equinox's comment was posted here, i got a notification that i was "thanked" by equinox for an embarrassing edit i made over 7 years ago on the english wikipedia when i was still learning how to edit, even though to my knowledge we've never interacted on wikipedia before. if these two actions weren't so close together i would have laughed it off, but in combination with this comment calling me a joker it makes me feel like i am being targeted. i also don't see how i've ever done anything wrong or worthy of a ban -- even though some of the topics i edit are entertainment-related i'm not a "joker" and i'm here to edit in good faith, and that includes working with Equinox who for the most part i tend to agree with. --Habst (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, technically in linguistics “symbol” or letter aren’t parts of speech, right, we only include “letter”s and “symbol”s because historically there was lacking regulation and people just added all they could and nobody has yet moved them even though the letter entries eat up the RAM and as I remember at least therefore there is consensus they need to get out of the mainspace. We also had the header “abbreviation” but they now should be “noun”, “verb” and so on. Maybe your Kappa symbol is of the same category like the emojis, in fact I truly deem it just a proprietary variety of it, but the problem is that it is proprietary and not encoded in Unicode, so you took a substitute. You include “Kappa” as a symbol while you actually want to include the face of Josh DeSeno as a dictionary entry. I have to inform you that the exact thing that you actually want is not possible. Though “Kappa” is also a an interjection as spoken, this is a separate phenomenon. Fay Freak (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
hi Fay Freak, thanks for your response. i had heard abut the "abbreviation" PoS controversy and i agree that in the long run we should assign things like that to more appropriate categories like noun, verb, etc. while also denoting that they are abbreviations in their definitions. if we can denote the "symbol-ness" of Kappa in the definition, i think that would be the best thing to do for symbol entries like Kappa as well.
however, according to a petscan count of Category:Symbols by language, it looks like there are over 100,000 symbol pages on wiktionary right now, so evidently reaching that goal with symbols might be very hard and long. and i couldn't find any proscription of the Symbol PoS on any of its official templates or categories. so if we're going to go about converting symbols to other parts of speech, we should first of all officially note that templates like {{en-symbol}} are deprecated or proscribed and make notes of it both on and off the mainspace.
aside from this issue, if what you are saying is that it isn't technically possible with MediaWiki to create a page for the Kappa symbol itself due to the fact that it isn't in Unicode -- isn't that exactly what Appendix:Unsupported titles is supposed to be about? and surely it would be possible to edit MediaWiki:UnsupportedTitles.js so that the Kappa symbol displays as the page title, if that is the desired outcome? --Habst (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete the symbol. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

common parlanceEdit

In the parlance of our times, "this is just, like, SOP, man." - TheDaveRoss 12:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - this is a common collocation, but not a lexical item. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, pure SoP, like "everyday speech". Equinox 06:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)]
Keep set phrase. Mihia (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

cream in one's jeansEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B15C:5C0C:5459:6738:C41:65ED 17:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep - It is idiomatic as you don't have to be wearing jeans to cream in your jeans. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this expression definitely used over a more generic version such as e.g. "cream in one's pants" when it is known that the person is not wearing jeans? Mihia (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep, seems like the cream needn't be deposited into jeans for one to cream in one's jeans. Which I suppose is explained by the assonance and by the fact that it sounds funnier than cream in one's pants. Also, one of the quotes provided has a woman creaming her jeans, which (unless the woman in question is pre-op trans) suggests that the cream here is not to be taken literally, further supporting the entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
cream specifically mentions that it is applied to both genders, so that's nothing specific to this definition. I lean a bit against keeping this, but not that strongly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP with the sense covered at cream. Other variants are also used (even if not as frequently). - TheDaveRoss 12:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the first def (to ejaculate while wearing one's trousers) is SOP, and the second def (to be thoroughly excited or delighted) is idiomatic. So, what I mean to vote is: keep idiomatic def, delete non-idiomatic one - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 13:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Def: a JavaScript library to create user interfaces. A capitalization of react, a verb. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

FD&C Yellow No. 5Edit

Previously survived an unsatisfactory RFD after one person (Luciferwildcat) voted to keep. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Mmmmmphhh there was a time I voted to keep all the "E numbers". Now I wouldn't. Still, what is this? Not a trademark, I suppose? Is it the normal name for the thing? Are there other names for it? I would prefer us to make the decision based on policy. Equinox 06:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The term is in use: [67], [68], [69]. Although our definition calls it a “color additive composed principally of tartrazine”, all sources that I saw suggest it is just tartrazine.  --Lambiam 12:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually if you read the FD&C Act, you will find that it is defined as a mixture containing certain limited amounts of impurities.[70] My understanding is that tartrazine is just the name of the trisodium salt which is the primary constituent of Yellow 5. But I am no expert on this. -Mike (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
What is the reason for deleting? I see it is in use, we may need to change the definition slightly but that isn't grounds for removal. Stephen G. Brown said in the original discussion: "I ran across these things frequently in my long translating career. American foods, drugs and cosmetics are full of them. They’re important. If a company is going to export its products to Europe or Asia, these terms have to be translated to "E" numbers." There were two explicit keep votes and no explicit delete votes in that discussion. --Habst (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Add the missing reds, blues. Dream up a category for them. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
FD&C Blue No. 1; FD&C Blue No. 2; FD&C Green No. 3; FD&C Red No. 3; FD&C Red No. 40 (sic); FD&C Yellow No. 5; FD&C Yellow No. 6. Category:FD&C certified color additives?  --Lambiam 07:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete the forms with FD&C at the start, I can imagine terms such as yellow no. 5 or yellow 5 surviving, but the full term is purely encyclopedic. This is no more lexical than, say, 21 USC § 841. - TheDaveRoss 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


A misconstruction of PPS. I don't see why we would want any misconstructions. --Pious Eterino (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We should want them included if they are common enough (see WT:CFI) that users may plausibly look them up – precisely as for common misspellings. Send to RfV?  --Lambiam 07:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Misconstruction. Maybe it is just a typo and you should just delete it according to the recend motion about misspellings that are typos, for it is not motivated by certain considerations but by a slip. I would ask how you would even see that if somebody writes PSS he actuallly means PPS and it is not just a typo. Most people here cannot even understand texts of the field to distinguish the chemicals, I think. Maybe ask @Romanophile who created it. Fay Freak (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If someone adds a postscript labelled “PS”, and then adds a second postscript labelled “PSS”, and this happens just once, it can be a typo; but if an author makes a habit of this, it is a misabbreviation. The recent proposal sadly failed, so it is not a strong ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
back when people used to write paper letters, i definitely learned the acronym as "PSS", "PSSS", etc. and evidently my friends did too. i remember reading online a few years ago that it was "correctly" supposed to be "PPS" and was quite surprised as i had never heard that form. i don't think it's a typo so much as a common misconception, or perhaps a correct form given how often it is used. --Habst (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
keep very famous alternative form of PPS. per the doctrine of descriptivism, if a mistake or "misconstruct" is repeated enough then it becomes an alternative form, and this is one i've seen (and used) many times: [71] [72] (search for "pss pps" for more).
interestingly, the wiki page w:Postscript states that PSS stands for "post-super-scriptum" without a reference. it could be a backronym, but it's worth looking into. either way, definitely not a delete. --Habst (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


Initialism of Valletta (postal code of Malta)

I don't think we want postcodes. --Pious Eterino (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Is there anything at CFI to exclude postal abbreviations? We have the two-letter abbrevs for each U.S. state. Purplebackpack89 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Potential grey area. Some of the UK ones are abbreviations (RG = Reading, S = South London etc.) but others are codes that don't "stand for" anything as an abbreviation. Similar case with Internet domain codes. Equinox 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

taboo nameEdit

By no means restricted to Chinese culture, and probably not to people's given names either. Equinox 09:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the definition is unclear. It is not a name that should not be given, but a name that should not be uttered; see Naming taboo on Wikipedia. Japanese emperors also had taboo names, so this is not confined to Chinese culture.  --Lambiam 10:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
By chance, I was just reading about Ishi. Fascinating. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I see name taboos in descriptions of a number of American Indian cultures. Along with taboos on mentioning dead people, they're a real problem for preservation of endangered languages and cultures: most of the people who know anything are old and have no living relatives in their own generation and before. It's hard to get information about kinship terminology from people who can/t mention their relatives.
The question here is whether Chinese taboo names are a specific thing or just a name that's taboo, with encyclopedic information about Chinese culture determining the details of the taboos. As an analogy, cultures differ as to what a spouse is: it might be an adult of the opposite sex in one culture, while in other cultures it might include child brides or people of the same sex- but it's all referred to by the same term in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me like an RFV issue. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete. No need to bulk up RFV with this when it's clearly not restricted to that use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


"A Japanese telecommunication company." Generic usage is not possible; we don't have for example Vodafone or Orange; see also Talk:Verizon (a failed entry). Equinox 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

let's try to cite it first i disagree that generic usage is not possible just because it's a telecommunication company. for example, we do have entries like AT&T which is a telecommunication company, and given how much the industry has changed (and the way we talk about it) the last four years i think that Verizon would not be deleted if it were to be recreated today. --Habst (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
"We have AT&T" is not an argument to keep "KDDI" but rather an argument to delete "AT&T" which has exactly the same problem. Why does "how the industry has changed" in four years have anything to do with what is a dictionary word, and what is a company name? Who is paying you? Equinox 20:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
as i parenthesized, the reason why i mentioned how the industry has changed was because it also changed how we talk about telecom companies, specifically with regards to WT:BRAND and their defining qualities / "stereotypes" if you will. my editing topics on wiktionary have been very diverse, and i don't appreciate the insinuation that i'm a shill. nobody has ever paid me to edit nor do i have any conflicts of interest. i disagree with painting any class of lemmas, including companies, as unattestable or un-CFIable until we've rigorously examined the cites on a case-by-case basis. --Habst (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep in RFD absent consensus on company names; not a company name with a space. WT:CFI#Company names does not have consensual support. As for initialism company names, we have ABC, AEC, ALCO, ATA, BBC, CBC, CRC, CTC, BMW, GE, HP, IBM, ITV, MTC, NBC, PBR, SABC, SAS, SKG, TI, and TOC. Talk:Verizon was first kept in RFD since there was no consensus for deletion; then it failed in RFV since in RFV, the non-consensual WT:CFI#Company names was applied. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


"Misspelling" of sabermetrics. Except it isn't even the same word and would be pronounced nothing like. Can we do anything to stop this rising tide of nutso SB misspellings? Equinox 20:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  • 400 Google hits and even two pages of Google book hits. So what's the problem? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If I enclose it in quotes, I get 141 Google hits and 13 Google Books hits. "Sabermatics" in quotes gets 406 Google hits (it starts by saying 800,000, but paging through ends with a 5th page that says 406). "Sabermetrics" in quotes gets gets 370 Google Books hits. There are exactly 2 Books hits where the term can be seen in a snippet or a page view (page view, snippet. There's also one for "sabermatic". There are actually better Books results for "sabermetics", with 61 hits and 5 viewable. "Sabremetrics", "SABRmetrics" and "sabermatrics" do pretty well, too. While one could probably find a third valid cite in the non-book hits, it's debatable whether sabermatics is a common-enough misspelling to be worth the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Different 'suffix' and too different to really be a misspelling. And I haven't seen more than the two durable attestions mentioned by Chuck Entz. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about misconstruction? (just to make the entry a bit more accurate) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


The first sense should be deleted because we have previously determined that hyphenated double-barreled surnames should not be included. The second sense is for a specific individual of moderate notability, whom I do not think rises to the level of inclusion in a dictionary. bd2412 T 01:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete both. - TheDaveRoss 12:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Double-barrelled names are SoP; the specific individual is not a "sense of the word" and if anywhere should be in a see-also or something, but really is Wikipedia material. Equinox 12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete both per nom: Thomas Cavalier-Smith, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill, Galileo Galilei, Karl Popper at Google Ngram Viewer suggests not the kind of notability that would lead to inclusion: Thomas Cavalier-Smith not found. (I am not saying each person found in GNV should be included, but when a person is not there, they are probably not notable enough.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Incorrect spelled - see xanthochroic (and Xanthochroi). — Paul G (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I would rather consider it an alternative form, given how common it is in even academic work on Google Books. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Converted into a misspelling, and kept. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unstriken: this is not an obvious keeper per WT:CFI#Spellings, and therefore, a super fast closure faster than the normal length seems inappropriate. xanthocroic, xanthochroic at Google Ngram Viewer does not find the spelling; google books:"xanthocroic" does not find that many occurrences, and in lowercase "x" I am not even sure it is attested. Arguably, this is a relatively rare misspelling, and per WT:CFI#Spellings, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


See Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#acerata. If “acerata” is Middle English, we won't get a good entry for it without an expert and attestation elsewhere. I don't see any value in keeping this speculative entry. —Piparsveinn (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

First place, RFDs and RFVs should not run at the same time. Secondly, if it's an attested word, we should have an entry.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
One attestation does not suffice. We are not even sure about what language this is (English? Middle English?) and what the term means (sharpened? with steeled points? serrated?).  --Lambiam 08:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Middle English is a COM:LDL, and if it's Middle English, one attestation does suffice. In any case, attestation is a matter for RFV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

pumpkin seedEdit

"An edible seed of a pumpkin or other cultivars of squash." So, pumpkin + seed, allowing that pumpkins are cultivars rather than a single species. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Would it be OK if the definition was changed to "The seed of a pumpkin eaten as a snack"? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
pumpkinseed exists so this can be kept. DTLHS (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
In my view the fact that it is edible is not sufficient to make it non-SoP. Many types of seeds, or other plant parts, may be edible. We don't need to list all of them individually just to note this. If the seeds of plants that are not actually pumpkins are called "pumpkin seeds" then that would justify the entry, I guess, but I don't have a knowledge of this myself. Mihia (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As for WT:COALMINE, pumpkin seed, pumpkinseed at Google Ngram Viewer shows the solid form more common, which would disarm COALMINE, on the other hand, pumpkinseed may be predominantly used to refer to the fish, and checking pumpkinseed at OneLook Dictionary Search, I find e.g. Merriam-Webster only having the fish sense[73]. I would keep the entry if only to make it clear that this is the main form used to refer to pumpkin seed, provided that indeed is the case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep irrespective of WT:COALMINE. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Donnanz: What is the rationale for keeping? Is the rationale based on WT:CFI in any way? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't quiz me, it should be kept anyway, WT:COALMINE is used as a "get out of gaol card". DonnanZ (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
With the attitude above, I would be happy to strike the above vote as invalid; alas, there is no policy supporting such a strikeout. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't obliged to answer you at all. DonnanZ (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
By my lights, you were obliged to provide a meaningful, CFI-related rationale or indicate a non-CFI related rationale. "Keep irrespective of X" with no rationale is something we should not be seeing in our RFD discussions, as far as I am concerned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently not, see The Dave Ross's 12:27 edit below. DonnanZ (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
dan has provided a great service to our deletion discussions by challenging our positions to make them stronger. if nothing else, his questions clarify the reasoning behind votes by examining parts of them for the record. i think most wiktionarians would agree that having both your view and a thoughtful challenge from dan is helpful and allowed. i think donnanz and i agree on this, the ability to have discussions like this introduces new points we wouldn't have seen otherwise. we should rigorously analyze each rfd discussion on a case-by-case basis and that includes offering a challenge and counter-response to every opinion. --Habst (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with DonnanZ on this one, that WT:COALMINE is a bit of a cop-out sometimes. It seems to me to be based on the fear of red links, or the mistaken policy that alternate word forms always have to link to something, or that they can't just link to the individual words making up the compound, or that hard redirects are a terrible thing, or the idea that different typographic forms (with or without spaces or hyphens) always require unique pages (instead of just combining them on one). Wiktionary can be a bit schizo in that it seems to want to be like a normal dictionary, but it also wants to include a lot of word forms and usages that a normal dictionary wouldn't bother with, so it doesn't really know to handle some situations like this where policy tends to break down. Ok, ranting done. -Mike (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, NISoP. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a coalmine. Changing to keep. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
*Sigh* Mihia (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not every seed is part of the human diet. bd2412 T 23:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. "Edible" doesn't make it magic any more than "small", "round" or "glossy" would. Oh but COALMINE! I guess we should keep it then...? But I am curious about how common this single-word form is. It looks like an aberration to my eye. Imagine how silly "sunflowerseed" would look. Equinox 12:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox: Seems rather common, actually too common for COALMINE: pumpkin seed, pumpkinseed at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


I don't even know where to start. Clipping? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Canonicalization: What is the rationale for deletion? Is the rationale based on WT:CFI in any way? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: No, I just don't like it, find it totally useless and would like to see it deleted. But fair enough; the person closing this discussion can count my vote as an abstain. Canonicalization (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Another example of a voting editor being pressurised. @Canonicalization: The strike was made by another editor, do you want to reverse it? DonnanZ (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Donnanz, your opinions here have been very valuable, and Dan and Canonicalization did the right thing. rfds are not popularity contests, and i believe strongly that everyone should have a right to their opinion without being pressurized by anyone, even in an indirect or subconscious way. i think engaging our community of good-faith editors with discussion is so important for that to happen, and Dan and Canonicalization did the right thing in their discussion. discussions like these make us better at judging deletion targets because we can connect our opinions / "gut feelings" which i think are actually very important in the context of a dictionary, with the written policy and see whether they align. ultimately, the policy should reflect our will if not. --Habst (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No, let's leave it at that. I agree with Habst comments. I find Dan Polansky's manners incredibly grating, but I can't deny his habit of challenging me at every turn tends to be for the good of the project. Canonicalization (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
cited, there is no reason to delete and this should have been put at RFV, not RFD if there was no deletion rationale provided. it is an elongated form of a clipping. search the term and you will see it has many results, peaking in popularity around 2012 but certainly spanning more than a year to the present so it meets CFI. the term is referenced in this NYT article from 2012 as well as many other articles. --Habst (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the term is not mentioned in that NYT blog post. The subreddit name is mentioned, but we are not talking about "f7u12". - TheDaveRoss 03:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
also, the specific number of F's and U's (7 Fs and 12 Us) is significant with this term, so it's unlike e.g. fffffuuuuuuuuuuu with any arbitrary amount of elongation. speedy keep because no deletion rationale was provided, and the term is cited to meet CFI. --Habst (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We actually had a vote over terms with internal repetition, and it was decided to limit it to no more than three repetitions in a row of the same component. This is basically [a bunch of "f"s]+[a bunch of "u"s]. I sincerely doubt that there's any significance to the fact that there are 7 "f"s and 12 "u"s in this spelling. If you take the possible variation in the number of "f"s and multiply it by the possible variations in the number of "u"s you get an astronomical number of possible entries for what are all lexically the same thing. Which ones are sufficiently attested is just a matter of random chance. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
that vote does not apply to this term, because as you mention, the fact that there are 7 "f"s and 12 "u"s is significant. the term is referenced as "f7u12" as a shorthand, which has thousands of uses online and in books. it is not random chance, the term "f6u12" for example or the terms "f7u13" do not exist. --Habst (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
In that case, can the entry please explain what the significance is. Mihia (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
done with a reference for now but i plan to expand the etymology later. --Habst (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Habst: Thanks. Mihia (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
My explanation of why I agree with the vote isn't the wording of the the actual vote- it has no such exception. The fact that a particular number of "f"s and "u"s have been arbitrarily memorialized doesn't make this worthy of an entry. The long spelling can be redirected to one that meets cfi and the reason for the 7 "f"s and 12 "u"s can be explained there and in any f7u12 entry (which wouldn't be affected by the vote). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
i don't think the vote applies to this term, because the elongation is not used to only add emphasis -- instead, it is used to refer to the /r/f7u12 / rage comic community. even if the vote did apply to this term, there is a section that says, "The above treatment may be overriden by consensus, for example where a variation having four repetitions is more common, or where an additional repetition would cause the word to shift to a different pronunciation or intonation." which in my opinion pretty clearly applies to this term because the specific repetition count is notable. --Habst (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
to rephrase, the vote applies to words that are only repetitive-emphatic. fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu is not only repetitive-emphatic because it carries extra meaning as a reference to the "screaming man" meme, f7u12 community, or rage comics in general. it differs in meaning from any other arbitrary elongation length of fXuX, so it passes CFI and deserves to be included. --Habst (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
If we were to put the main content at a "minimal" form (like argh), I'm curious about what it would be. I can't imagine somebody yelling fu! or fuu!. Equinox 13:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete this rubbish. DonnanZ (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Donnanz it's fully cited in durable media and it meets CFI. the nominator didn't give any reason at all for deleting, which would normally be grounds for speedy keep. the term's etymology is more complex than it may seem at first. why are you voting to delete, and may i ask if you would reconsider knowing that now it is cited? --Habst (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Donnanz: What is the rationale for deletion? Is the rationale based on WT:CFI in any way? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not the one who's on trial. I don't care whether it's cited or not, it's still rubbish / garbage / nonsense, and I very much doubt that it's useful and anyone is going to look for it. It may meet CFI as a single word, but I consider "SoP" terms such as spelling mistake far more useful than this nonsense. Guess what happened to that? It was deleted. My vote stands. DonnanZ (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that your "delete" is a WT:CFI override? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Whatever. This word is "standing trial", not me. DonnanZ (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
If the word is standing trial, and you want to participate in that trial, you should refer to the applicable law or indicate a law override. Otherwise, your motion related to that trial should be dismissed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The vote stands, unless an admin decides otherwise. DonnanZ (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You are violating your own metaphor of "trial". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: This is not appropriate, there is no call for harassing people because they voted in a way you don't prefer. There is nothing in our policy which requires editors to provide rationale for their votes, that is your own criteria. You are within your rights to ask people what their rationale was, but if they decline that should be the end of the conversation. This is a pattern for you, and one which should end. If you think we ought to require rationale for all votes, create a vote to amend our policies. - TheDaveRoss 12:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
TheDaveRoss, i could not agree more that harassment is unacceptable, in the strongest possible terms. we should be able to have the most productive possible conversations and that includes pointing out holes if they exist in arguments. Dan was absolutely doing the latter and not the former, he and Donnanz both did the right thing here, in fact by tying in opinions to policy it helps create a clearer picture of the oppose vote that is helpful for a closing admin. there is no call for rationale for all votes, but users are certainly allowed to communicate with each other on their own will in a respectful manner as they did here, it's what i believe to be the best part of wiktionary. thanks to dan, this argument has more elaboration that we would not have seen otherwise without any harassment. --Habst (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I cannot compel anyone to provide a rationale, but I can ask questions and I can point out that a user is violating their own metaphor of a "trial", which they brought into discussion. Let me note that there is in fact no policy in this matter: there is no policy requiring rationales to be provided in RFD and there is no policy that RFDs are mere votes. I see no policy that I am violating. You can create a vote that formally establishes that RFDs are mere votes, if you prefer; that's the other side of the coin. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thought it could be a good idea to return to the scene of the crime and provide the reason for my nomination. Apparently not doing so might get you a good old scolding. I apologise for not writing it in the first place – it was pretty late and to be honest, I was stunned that this entry was willingly created by a registered editor. I disagree with Habst that it should have been put at RFV – it initially had one cite, so I wasn't contesting its existence. I truly didn't think – and still don't – that it warranted an inclusion. Taking into consideration that it was marked as a clipping (oy vey!), made it dubious to say the least. It has now been altered, but I still think it's rubbish and shouldn't be included here, because a) it sets a dangerous precedent (if you dig deep enough I'm convinced you would find endless variants) and b) I highly doubt users will look it up (is it at least a hotword?). I honestly don't care how many quotes from Reddit, 4chan, 8chan, blogs, forums, etc., are provided – it's junk and it discredits Wiktionary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Robbie SWE, thank you for returning and providing explanation. thank you for your edits over the years here, i do greatly respect all of your contributions even if we disagree on specific points. i think it's important to give a reason for nominating an entry for deletion every time, even in entries that might not seem serious at first. i also think this term warrants inclusion, both on a policy level and on a broader "should this term be in a dictionary" level.
i am a registered editor and i have created over 1,000 entries here at wiktionary, the vast majority of them being noncontroversial and having nothing at all to do with internet culture or slang. i said it should have been put at RFV because it only had one cite, and not the requisite three cites when it was nominated (two minutes after i created it), but this issue is now fixed.
it was and still is marked as a clipping because it is a clipping, of an elongated form of fuck (or perhaps an elongated form of a clipping, but i don't think the distinction is that important here). the first revision noted that in the definition, and later i updated the etymology to note that as well.
i disagree that adding fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu sets a dangerous precedent. in fact, i think it is a step in the right direction for wiktionary to begin including a wealth of attested internet slang that has never been comprehensively catalogued before. if a variant of fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu also meets CFI and can be attested enough times, then of course we should include it. if it does not belong in a dictionary, then we should delete it. i personally remembered learning this phrase around 2011, and i remember reading the NYT article referencing it and being pleasantly surprised that "old media" had covered new internet slang in this way. i looked it up on wiktionary before creating it, and i imagine other people have done that too before. as for T:hot word, the template is not necessary because fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu has been attested for more than a year.
none of my quotes on fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu are from reddit, 4chan, 8chan, blogs, forums, or other related media -- i took special care to only take quotes from publications that i believe to have been printed on physical paper (a book, a newspaper, and a magazine) to leave no doubts about their durable archival. --Habst (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep There are a lot of things that discredit Wiktionary in people's eyes, starting with being a Wiki. Our policy that we record English as it is used is certainly one of those things, but it's one of the things that makes Wiktionary valuable in other people's eyes. It certainly is attestable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep BTW. Equinox 12:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete per CFI, especially this vote. The fact that this is a common elongation does not change the fact that it is an elongation. - TheDaveRoss 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
That is not how I interpret the vote, which I would have thought referred to extensions of entire words (fuck) and not of fragments (fu alone is not a word). Equinox 12:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
While fu may not be (I would guess it is actually just as attestable as most of the variants) in order for the term at issue to not fall under the rule it would have to be the shortest attestable elongation (by my reading). - TheDaveRoss 16:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
hi TheDaveRoss, thank you for your vote. there are three reasons why WT:REPEATING does not apply to this word:
  1. fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu is not only repetitive-emphatic because its specific repetition length carries extra connotations related to the "screaming man" meme, rage comics, or internet culture in general. per the first sentence, the vote only applies to terms which are only repetitive-emphatic (emphasis mine) by the wording "and having no other meaning", this is also clarified in the discussion below.
  2. words like fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu are specifically exempted from WT:REPEATING by the sentence "The above treatment may be overriden by consensus, for example where a variation having four repetitions is more common, or where an additional repetition would cause the word to shift to a different pronunciation or intonation." firstly consensus is currently in favor of keeping, but even if it wasn't, this term is a clear example of one where "having X repetitions is more common" (in this case 7 and 12) and one where any additional repetition would change the connotations of the word to no longer be f7u12.
  3. per Equinox's comment, there may not even be a "base form" of this expression at all, or at least we haven't been able to identify one yet on wiktionary or in this discussion. in my opinion the concept of a "base form" for terms like fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu which are not solely repetitive-emphatic is kind of flawed, because the elongations in between that base form and f7u12 may not be attested and more importantly they carry a different meaning (not just varying in their emphasis) than f7u12.
thank you, --Habst (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Some very cursory Googling shows that point 1 applies to other variants of "fuu" e.g. fuuuu and fffuuuuu, I don't have the inclination to figure out which forms are most common in CFI compliant media. Re point 2, all local rules can be overridden by consensus, that doesn't mean that I should vote with consensus if I disagree with it. Point 3, eh, this might live in a weird space since it is an elongation of a clipping, but I don't think there is any argument to be made that it isn't an elongation. - TheDaveRoss 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
TheDaveRoss, thank you for your response, i agree strongly that we should be vigilant about applying the vote to not introduce hundreds of elongated forms with only slight variations from one another, which would be too difficult to maintain. in my eyes, keeping this entry was exactly what that vote states both in letter and in spirit.
the other "fXuX" forms may exist in expanded form, but they do not carry the same meaning as f7u12 (search for any other "fXuX" term and i have not been able to get any hits, like "f1u4" and "f3u5" as in the two terms provided). we agree that every rule has wiggle room, but some are certainly more flexible than others, and i think by including that explicit disclaimer in WT:REPEATING, which does not exist in many other stricter policies, that gives us more freedom to include fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu. i agree with you on point 3, because it is an elongation of a clipping though, i do not think a base form exists. --Habst (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss What I'm getting from you is "It's an elongated form, and no matter what, it should be deleted because it's an elongated form." Well... but this is a special case, one that even I thought would never come up. Due to an Internet phenomenon it seems, this specific amount of letters (f*7, u*12) is used in this specific case of elongation. It seems pretty clear to me that this needs to be kept because of that, especially if it's clear in the citations that the term is being used in a manner that suggests it has to do with the Internet phenomenon. To my understanding the vote on elongations was meant to exclude random variants, but this specific variant is backed culturally. Habst made sure to include that information. The deletion reason you gave seems to ignore the fact that this is not a random variant. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That has been said, but when I searched other variants I saw several of them being used with reference to the "rage comics" and other memes which are supposed to make this special. I don't think it is as special as it has been made out to be. - TheDaveRoss 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I acknowledge this isn't technically prohibited by the CFI clause on repetitions ("fu" and "ffuu" don't seem as readily citable to me), it is a repetition of a truncation of fuck and I consider a delete vote in keeping with the spirit of the rule. Generally speaking, I don't think that repetitions that are this long (by amount of repetitions of the repeated element, not word length) are useful or should be kept. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    If I am reading WT:CFI#Repetitions correctly: even if it were broadened to apply to this case, it would ask for a hard redirect rather than deletion. The voted on WT:CFI#Repetitions policy puts no limit on for how long repetitions the hard redirect should be created, provided the form is attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep because the amount of letters are deliberately specific (assuming it's attested as such). PseudoSkull (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an example of why Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables exists and was enacted. Find the shortest attested variation of this, create an entry for that, and then redirect this entry there. bd2412 T 12:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    What about the specific etymological info that would not apply to any shorter fmun?  --Lambiam 10:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    That "etymology" is spurious. It is a cart before the horse thing, it happened to be the elongation which was used as the name of the subreddit, it isn't special in and of itself. The "original" (no idea if it was actually the original) comic didn't have this specific elongation, and there are myriad different elongations which are used in the copycat comics which have come since, and in other media. Reddit also has a subreddit called "nononono", that doesn't mean we should have an entry for that particular number of repetitions, there are lots of instances of no1, no2, no3, no4, etc. in use. - TheDaveRoss 13:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If the etymology is indeed spurious (it does seem at least potentially suss, but I wouldn't know how to go about investigating this), then I vote delete. But also, if it is the name of a subreddit, then surely it is a proper noun that isn't famous enough to qualify. Do all subreddit names have entries? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

pirate shipEdit

This is what people think of when they hear the phrase.

SOP. 2600:1000:B12F:BA24:9DAB:B0CE:7492:B01F 18:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, translations do not seem to meet the requirements for this entry to be kept per WT:THUB. WT:COALMINE would seem to apply based on a cursory Google Books check for pirateship, but a check of ten promising-looking results yielded only scannos.Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep based on WT:COALMINE with attested pirateship. for a word that is as widely used as this, i don't think checking only ten results is enough to vote delete. --Habst (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I would keep this, if only for the translations poo-poohed by Mnemosientje. I think instead that pirateship should be scrutinised as it was just created by User:Habst, who IMO doesn't have a particularly good record. DonnanZ (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, WT:THUB still doesn't apply (and testing an RFDE according to that isn't poo-poohing so much as proper procedure according to our voted-upon policies), but Habst seems to have done a fine job here (why are you attacking their person instead of the citations they used to support their entry?) of demonstrating that WT:COALMINE does apply and that my cursory check was indeed too cursory. I am therefore changing my vote to keep. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the first quote, pirateship might be pirate + -ship (the suffix) instead of pirate + ship.
  • In the second quote, the term is actually spelled pirate-ship (admittedly, the hyphen is due to a line break), not pirateship.
  • The third quote is arguably a typo, given that all other uses in that book are spelled pirate ship, in two words. (see this, and especially this)

Canonicalization (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Canonicalization, thank you, i have added three additional quotes to clear all doubt. --Habst (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep, it is a certain legal concept, compare Art. 101–104 Law of the Sea Convention, preceded by Artt. 15 seqq. Geneva High Seas Convention. Fay Freak (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. No more valuable than navy ship, passenger plane, milk truck, etc. - TheDaveRoss 12:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see passenger plane and milk truck as entries. It seems that there are two types of milk trucks - a kind of milk float and the big ones. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep per lemming (Collins online has it), also somewhat swayed by COALMINE but I don't think the current cites are that convincing. Pirateship Down is clearly a play on Watership Down for instance. Note that Dutch roofschip and Afrikaans roofskip (literally "robbing ship" or "robbery ship") can support a translation target rationale, perhaps 賊船 (given as "thief" + "ship") can do so as well. I'd be surprised if there are no similar term in other languages. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
As a general principle, there is no reason to add multi-word terms that people can readily understand from the component parts (excluding set phrases and unusual collocations that use words in a somewhat unpredictable or not-readily-understandable way). "Coalmine" is nonsense, and if someone wrote "pirateship" as one word then we either say, well, figure it out that it's "pirate" + "ship", or grit our teeth and include "pirateship" because we can't legislate for single-word SoP terms. In any case, the question is whether "pirate ship" is readily understandable from "pirate" + "ship". Mihia (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry ... I mean "the question is" apart from this wretched "translation hub" thing, which I presently do not have a clear view about. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve the definition. Technically, any vessel used for piracy can be a pirate ship. However, if you ask the average person to describe a pirate ship, they will probably have an image in mind of a wooden sailing vessel flying a skull-and-crossbones flag. bd2412 T 23:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - have just edited the def (concatenating the 2 that were there, because they are not distinct senses). Also, has lots of translation targets that are single words in other languages. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#elk.

Tardis-like and spelling variationsEdit

It's rather SOPpy to me. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It makes sense to collect “shapes”. This is unlike the SOP meaning of -like as here the meaning has a lexical restriction to shape, and even allegedly used by estate agents to mean lodgments that are larger than they look from the outside (“unexpectedly capacious”). In other languages, one would write these things together anyway. telefonzellenartig, volksmäßig etc. Fay Freak (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep "Tardis-like" as it has specific meanings, especially "unexpectedly capacious", that are not necessarily obvious. Generally speaking, delete all "X-like" where the explanation is no more than, essentially, "like X", and where, in usage, the resemblance is based only on obvious features or is ad hoc context-related. Mihia (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
It occurred to me later that this "keep" rationale is largely bollocks. If the aim of the dictionary is to document characteristic features of a Tardis, so that people may understand what it means for something to be likened to it, then this information should go at Tardis, since those people could just as easily encounter "like a Tardis" or some other multi-word paraphrase. Mihia (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
But then we would add this detail to the definition of “Tardis”/“TARDIS” only because this is an implication in “Tardis-like” and “like a tardis”? Fay Freak (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is a bit of a head-scratcher, but I think that if something has a non-obvious characteristic that is widely referenced in comparisons or likenings, then this should be mentioned under the main headword. I think that a Tardis being unexpectedly capacious is a good example of this. In fact, this characteristic is already mentioned at "Tardis", though the situation there is complicated by the fact that there is both a proper noun and a common noun section. I think this sort of thing should be strictly limited, though, according to the principles of "non-obvious" and "widely referenced", otherwise it could get silly. Mihia (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tardislike exists, and can't be SOP because it is a single word. The rest are WT:COALMINE to it. bd2412 T 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC) [Equinox note: I tweaked the broken link because it's clear what BD intended.]
  • Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would never reject any -like derivative where a hyphen is inserted; I would prefer angel-like to angellike, which looks awful because of the double L where the two halves are joined. DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
LOL... oh no... keep and revisit WT:COALMINE. Equinox 03:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There is an opportunity to do so. Mihia (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

public recordEdit

Rfd adjective sense: "Being a matter of public record; being in the public record." I suppose it's been added to accommodate a sentence such as "What I have done is public record", but isn't it still a noun there? Canonicalization (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete or merge, it ain't an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Just like “what I have done will become history”, this is a use of the (uncountable) noun. BTW, I’m not sure that the noun is usually uncountable; Public Record laws typically define what is and what is not a public record, and describe how requests for a copy of a public record should be handled.  --Lambiam 10:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, wrong POS, even when used attributively this would still be a noun (phrase) — which aren't kept anyway. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Curiously, b*tch was deleted and this wasn't. We should probably be consistent one way or another. --Pious Eterino (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

both the singular and the plural are (very) well attested in durable media. there are only a small handful of words that we do this with and only a limited number of forms, so we should keep all durably attested forms and recreate deleted forms that were attested. plus there are many such forms already in Category:English terms spelled with *. --Habst (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Why the f*ck was the singular deleted? It should be restored.  --Lambiam 23:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we keep all variations of vulgar terms with intermediate letters replaced by various punctuation? I don't think we should. f---, f–, f*ck, f**k, fu*k, f***, and on and on. At most these should redirect to an actual word rather than a partially redacted one. It is a bit akin to keeping all attested variants of using non-letter characters to denote a swear e.g. $@#%!. Habst's assertion that there are a limited number and a few forms is not true, there are many such terms and many variations of them. - TheDaveRoss 12:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. They are not distinct words: it's a stylistic flourish that can be done with any rude or secret word. What next: including SP-D-RS because it was in an unfinished game of hangman? Equinox 12:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete as unfinished business. DonnanZ (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, if necessary the singular could be turned into a hard redirect. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. Alternative spelling of voc. No need for capitalization --Pious Eterino (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
A request for verification of this form seems more appropriate to me. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Verb sense: "(reflexive) To exhaust oneself to the point of being short of breath."

usage example: I can’t run another step — I’m winded.

The usage example would seem to be at least as well be said to illustrate use of the adjective winded. DCDuring (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the immediately preceding transitive definition would seem to include the reflexive one under challenge. DCDuring (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If nothing else, the "reflexive" label needs to go- either that or change the usex to I've winded myself. 13:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete The usage example is clearly an adj. And the reflexive meaning is simply the transitive sense with oneself as object. You can hurt yourself, wound yourself, etc., we don't need separate reflexive defs. That said, the preceding def doesn't mention getting exhausted by running or other exertion, so I will add that. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


  • There is one (British) sense which seems to be missing, mentioned in Oxford/Lexico: Make (a baby) bring up wind after feeding by patting its back. ‘Paddy's wife handed him their six-month-old daughter to be winded’. DonnanZ (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  Added it, been there and done that many moons ago. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


"(Minecraft) An initial value assigned to world generation." 1. I don't see why we should have words that only apply to one single video game, even if they refer to the workings of the game rather than the fictional world. 2. As any programmer knows, a seed can be the initial value used to generate anything; this is in no way a Minecraft-specific term. Equinox 13:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 14:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete -Mike (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

serial texterEdit

Sum of parts: a "serial Xer" is someone who does a lot of Xing. Equinox 13:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I was going to delete it out of hand, but got sidetracked. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
split into two definitions and keep if it's defined accurately, because the definition of "one who is antisocial" makes it not SOP. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The term barely seems to be used in durable media, and none of the usage I have encountered implies an anti-social person (as opposed to preferring one mode of communication to another). - TheDaveRoss 14:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Habst, if your keep is conditional ("keep if it's defined accurately") could you bold the whole condition, or at least bold "keep if"? Just to make sure nobody reads the bold stuff when closing the discussion and fails to note your proviso. Thanks! Equinox 06:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

one thousand origami cranesEdit

DTLHS (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks SoP to me. I would remark that it's defined as "a tradition" and not as the resulting cranes themselves, but that doesn't necessarily say much. It seems more like cultural than lexical information, hence something for Wikipedia...? Equinox 06:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely SOP. But where to put {{t|ja|千羽鶴|tr=senbazuru}} after deletion? ~ POKéTalker) 09:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, there are zillions of foreign-language words entered which don't have English counterpart entries, because they fail the SoP argument. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's very tragic that we don't have entries for hungry dog and packed train. Do you seriously think that all the SoP people are absolute logic-less drooling morons? Equinox 12:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Tragic? I think we have to apply reason in those examples, which can be reversed - " The dog was hungry so I fed it", "The train was packed, my back was aching and I had to stand all the way." Any translations would probably consist of two words or more. But that doesn't answer this problem (and I can't read Japanese). DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. No need to transfer 千羽鶴 anywhere; it already appears as a derived term of . — SGconlaw (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the far more common phrasing is one thousand paper cranes anyway. Delete. - TheDaveRoss 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Abstain for me. Let's see what the creator @Timwi has to say... ~ POKéTalker) 22:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • My reasons for adding it was that Wikipedia's article is named “w:One thousand origami cranes” as opposed to “Senbazuru”, so I assumed it's an established term. But I don't care, if you want to trample on people's contributions, go ahead. — Timwi (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence can be found for use beyond the obvious, literal meaning. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

flux capacitorEdit

Deleted once after an awesome RFD campaign by Keene (talkcontribs). Annoyingly got back in. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete ephemeral pop culture. This only exists in the one film so WT:FICTION. Equinox 00:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


Smartly, we deleted Wikibooks. To follow suit...--Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2009 having failed RFV, this should be an RFV not an RFD. I wouldn't be shocked if Wikibooks would be citable now. - TheDaveRoss 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, really, move to RFV. Equinox 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The question is whether the citations in Wikinews and Citations:Wikinews meet WT:BRAND. The quotation "... Wikinews, an online news site ..." fails WT:BRAND's "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent" since the type of the product is seen from the quotation. As an aside, Wikinews entry was created by Wonderfool and is here nominated for deletion by Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


Smartly, we deleted Wikibooks. This has failed RFD a couple of times, but without any decent reasons. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Before we start this, please remember that the argument "we are Wiktionary so we should have an entry for ourselves" sucks. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It was deleted in 2009 having failed RFV, this should be an RFV not an RFD. I wouldn't be shocked if Wikibooks would be citable now. - TheDaveRoss 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Disconfirmed by the log[74]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Those are the logs for Wiktionary, I was talking about Wikibooks. You can feel free to confirm it with the logs if you want. - TheDaveRoss 11:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, really, move to RFV. Equinox 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
No point moving this to RFV; there are already seven citations on the entry page added by me so it clearly passes RFV (note that this entry was WOTD on 12 December 2017). If any decision is to be made about the status of the entry, it should be made here. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiktionary did not fail any RFD discussion, as per Talk:Wiktionary; the only RFD discussion there is Talk:Wiktionary#RFD discussion and it seems to have been not a RFD proper but rather a request to help resolve the inbound links. Talk:Wiktionary contains two archived RFV discussions; Talk:Wiktionary#RFV discussion 2 discusses whether the provided quotations meet WT:BRAND. Logs for Wiktionary entry[75] show the entry was deleted on 18 August 2010 as "Failed RFV" but then it was restored on the same day: "restore until Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary has been addressed". The question probably still remains whether Citations:Wiktionary has citations meeting WT:BRAND. The following citation is example of what I think meets WT:BRAND: 'The Wiktionary says that an atheist is "A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods"'; definitions are found not only in dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say that "The Wiktionary" is quite possibly just a mistake for "Wiktionary" -- someone not knowing how to correctly refer to it. (What they quote is our old definition e.g. at [76].) You see it as something more than this? Mihia (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
My only concern is whether the quotation supports WT:BRAND; it seems to me that it does, and if you think it doesn't, let's hear what part of WT:BRAND it fails and why. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't claim to understand WT:BRAND. However, I just assumed that referring to a brand name in its normal meaning would not qualify. For example, a citation "Collins Dictionary says that an atheist is ..." would not be grounds for our including an entry for "Collins Dictionary", would it? Your quote is likely just the same as this, except miswritten. Mihia (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The particular wording of WT:BRAND has to be used to exclude a quotation. A quotation using the term "Collins Dictionary" fails "must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies"; this does not apply to "Wiktionary" unless one considers the term "Wiktionary" to automatically fail by its *tionary shape. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean, unless it is a silly quibble about "Collins Dictionary" including the word "Dictionary". Just substitute anything else. Does a citation 'Wiktionary says that an atheist is "A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods"' support inclusion of "Wiktionary" or not? If it does, then you could substitute any normal reference to any brand name. Mihia (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
What I mean is indeed in reference to "Collins Dictionary" containing the word "dictionary" and that is in reference to "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent." But maybe I am applying it wrongly and I should look at text preceding and surrounding the quotation rather than at the quotation itself. In fact, reading the policy as written, it would be okay if the quotation itself identified the product or service; it is just the text around it that must not do so. I find the quoted passage of WT:BRAND really unfortunate and worthy of removal. In any case, what matters is the wording of WT:BRAND, not vague hunches that make no reference to the wording. As for your question, you can see that whether a quotation supports WT:BRAND depends not only on the quotation itself but also on the text around the quotation. Link to the text around is at Citations:Wiktionary. Using the wording of WT:BRAND, it seems to me that the quotation and the text around it support inclusion of Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I think technically you may be applying it wrongly since "Dictionary" is actually a part of the brand name, but all this is missing the main point that I am trying to make, which is how is 'Wiktionary says that an atheist is ...' different from any possible citation that you could find that refers to any brand name in its ordinary capacity, and if such a citation qualifies "Wiktionary" for inclusion then we could find an essentially analogous citation to support inclusion of any brand name whatsoever, which surely cannot be the intention of WT:BRAND. This is what I do not understand. It can't just be because the text does not say "by the way, for those who don't know, Wiktionary is a dictionary", can it? This would be dependent on readership. Some gaming magazine or whatever might refer to a video game that you and I have never heard of, without saying "by the way, this is a video game". Mihia (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
(outdent) A point of contrast is "Besides the renowned Wiktionary (, a multilingual, Web-based project to create a free content dictionary, available in over 150 languages and run by the Wikimedia foundation...": this clearly states what Wiktionary is, and therefore, does not imply that readers are supposed to know what Wiktionary is without introduction or description. A quotation that uses a brand name of a game in a game magazine would fail "The sources also must not be written ... about the type of product or service in general" in WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I see. Well, as I say, I do not claim to understand "WT:BRAND", but I just assumed it would be stronger than allowing any mentions of something that assume readers will understand what it means. Mihia (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

piano keyEdit

"Any of the black or white keys on the keyboard of a piano" -- excluding the blue and green ones? OH WAIT, no, it's just any piano + key. SoP> Equinox 06:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a keep, it has at least one lemming, believe it or not. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Not piano keys :)  --Lambiam 12:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete despite LEMMING in this case, sometimes SOP trumps LEMMING. Especially since we have a sense at key which is for piano key specifically. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. How are piano keys different from the keys for everything else in w:List of keyboard instruments? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have ever hear the "foo key" construction used with any of them other than a piano. bd2412 T 03:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    "Organ key" is one common example. Equinox 10:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete, the definition is silly anyway. Donnanz, I didn't see any lemmings on OneLook. Where did you find one? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Key" has two meanings relevant to pianos, one being the physical object pressed to make a sound, and the other being the actual register of that sound (e.g., in the key of A minor). However, the phrase seems to actually be used for only one of these meanings. There is also, of course, the piano key necktie, claimed to have been invented by Dr. Mugatu. bd2412 T 03:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some pianos have lids that lock and seemingly the key used to unlock a piano is also called a 'piano key'. John Cross (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

snap electionEdit

SOP: snap ("done, performed, made, etc. quickly and without deliberation") + election. Cf. snap decision, snap judgment, snap convention. Canonicalization (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep - as I understand it it is not the definition of snap you give (there can be quite a lot of deliberation and it may not happen quickly) but rather a snap election is one which happens before it was otherwise scheduled. I think it is a specific term of art in politics/elections and not SOP. I could be wrong. - TheDaveRoss 21:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep. It's a political tactic or gamble which may or may not work for the incumbent government. We are likely to have one in Britain later this year the way things are going. DonnanZ (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
But you're not even a Brit, you're a Kiwi! Canonicalization (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, they could have snap elections in Kiwiland too. I have been living in England since 1971, and I am entitled to vote in all elections held where I live. That doesn't apply to NZers coming to live here now, laws have changed. DonnanZ (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep - it is not just done quickly, and it is often done with a lot of deliberation. Unlike that meaning of snap, which is sort of spur-of-the-moment, a snap election is just one that occurs before the regularly scheduled time. Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
To me, "snap election" means "snap" + "election", and if the definition of "snap" presently doesn't seem to exactly fit this usage then it is more an issue with the definition of "snap" than anything else, though I don't see it as a problem myself. However, how many common phrases like this with "snap" are there? I can think of a few, but not many. If there are only a few then we can keep them as set phrases. Mihia (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
... Hmm, OK, maybe there are more possibilities than I first thought. In that case, it is just SoP, despite minor quibbles. Mihia (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind betting the term was coined by the media, not by politicians. DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters who coined it? Mihia (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
It might be of interest to an etymology section. I bet this is a variant of the older expression “snap vote” seen here and here.  --Lambiam 10:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Snap is being used like an adjective when seen in its various phrases, viz. snap general election, snap presidential election, snap parliamentary election, snap Brexit election, &c. However, one would never say that the election was snap. And a snappier election or the snappiest election can't happen. Hence, I would have to say that snap election is a bit idiomatic in speech, although one could argue that snap is just an adjective that is just very restrictive in how it can be used in this sense. -Mike (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Snap can be an adjective, see snap#Adjective, Oxford agrees with this. Not all adjectives need to be comparable though. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't pass the usual tests for adjectivity though, which makes me suspect a nominal origin. Canonicalization (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
It is similar to attributive instant in the sense of immediacy, which we also label as an adjective, but which also fails all usual tests, like you can’t say, *“these noodles are very instant”. What it has in common with snap is that these are attributes stemming from a longer prepositional phrase: in a snap, in an instant. Compare also the much rarer but attestable attributive use of jiffy: a jiffy meal, quick, jiffy, pre-made foods, the jiffy technology of the moment, jiffy spinal tap.  --Lambiam 09:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
We never hear of an "instant" general election though; elections once called cannot usually take place until a certain time has passed, say three weeks to election day. A snap election may be a surprise to those who don't follow political events, but is premeditated by the party in government. The reason for calling one may backfire; the party in government may want to increase their majority but end up losing the election. That's democracy for you. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
DonnanZ, I think you are being a bit too literal. Lambiam was giving an analogy, so the function of snap in snap election is similar to instant in instant coffee. A snap election doesn't have to be a surprise, but it does not occur at a normally expected date or end of term. It is an election that can happen quickly, in a relatively short period of time. -Mike (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


I think this is a mistake for sclerenchyma; it's not etymologically parseable (or is it a portmanteau word?). See also this ngram. Canonicalization (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

In principle, wouldn't it be better as an RfV? There are lots of malformed words that actually exist. Though I do expect this to fail RfV. DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not that hard to find a few uses, so rfv would accomplish nothing. I find it hard to believe there would a term with definition and usage identical to sclerenchyma and only differing by the absence of two letters. This isn't casual conversation, where everyone has their own way of saying things- it's technical terminology, the kind of terminology everybody learns in introductory botany courses. I wouldn't even call this a misspelling: it's an obvious typo- the kind of mistake that's very easy to make, but hard to spot because of the repeated letter. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, very rare typo.  --Lambiam 08:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling: sclenchyma, sclerenchyma at Google Ngram Viewer does not find "sclenchyma". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

at second handEdit

NISoP: = at + second hand#Noun. DCDuring (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure if this is BrE, it relates to hearsay, heard at second hand. Not a second hand on a clock, nor second-hand (used, previously owned, and the usual spelling in BrE in that sense). See also secondhand#Adverb (AmE?). DonnanZ (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep, two lemmings from Collins and Oxford Dictionaries. [77] [78] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I made those two lemmings more visible within the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the question here is whether the use of "at" is sufficiently idiomatic. I can't think of many other phrases that use it in quite the same way. But if we include this one then presumably we should also include at first hand, and at third hand and maybe higher orders, up to some reasonable limit. Mihia (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps at first hand, but not per se any others, it seems that after at second hand the phrases are attested more sparsely. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there presently any rule that excludes sparsely attested phrases that nevertheless meet minimum attestation requirements (as well as any other relevant inclusion criteria)? I guess ideally we would handle this with a template "at ~ hand", but I don't know how to do that within Wiktionary. Mihia (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, the phrases do seem a bit SOP, so you can argue they shouldn't be included anyway, unless they are a set phrase or are supported by the lemming criterion; the same dictionaries have at first hand as well but thankfully not any others it seems. The rest could go in Appendix:English snowclones as at X hand. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't imagine at third hand being used, so usage probably stops at at second hand and at first hand, unlike third-rate, third-class, third class. DonnanZ (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
In fact there are ample citations for "at third hand", and for higher orders too. Not that I am arguing strongly for individual entries. A generic way for people to ascertain the meaning for any ordinal number would be better. Mihia (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


Not a prefix. Equinox 20:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I think that in the examples given they are usually written as two words without a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete per above. Not a prefix, not usually hyphenated. Mihia (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete per above. Julia 01:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete, per all above. A "fellow-Scotsman" is a "companion-Scotsman", etc. Leasnam (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


the mobile phone icon for HSPA --Mélange a trois (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, phone icons are a bridge too far. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

stupid fuckEdit

  • Delete as SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a stupid entry, not merely as SoP. There are far worthier SoP terms around. DonnanZ (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Julia 01:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

stupid-fuck Edit

Sum of parts; no longer protected by WT:COALMINE now that stupidfuck was deleted as rare misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If hyphenated words are subject to sum-of-parts rules then why are some people arguing to keep a million "ex-" words at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#ex-Christian? I think it is unsatisfactory that the word "hyphen" does not appear even once at CFI. Mihia (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Ex- words are a totally different matter, they should be hyphenated in most cases. DonnanZ (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC).
I don't agree that they are totally different matter. To me it seems fundamentally the same thing. If "stupid-fuck" is deleted because it is "stupid" + "fuck", why should "ex-Christian" not be deleted because it is "ex-" + "Christian"? Mihia (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be a phrase that happens to have a hyphen substituted for a space. In the case of ex-, the hyphen is connecting a dependent morpheme to its main word: one is between words, and the other is within a word. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, if this is an established principle -- that certain hyphenated words are subject to SoP rules while others are not -- then I think it should be explained in the CFI. I have searched the CFI in vain for any reference at all to hyphenated words. Mihia (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thinking about it further, ex- may be more like "'s", since there are cases where it seems to modify the entire phrase rather than the word it happens to be attached to, which is the reasoning behind our exclusion of exclusion of possessives with "'s" and Latin conjunction-suffixed forms (e.g "virumque"). See an arbitrarily chosen example, "ex-Baltimore" for examples. An "ex-Baltimore player" isn't a player for "ex-Baltimore", but an "ex-[Baltimore player]". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
That seems to me even more reason why these "ex-" compounds should be treated as SoP and not as creating a "new word", else "ex-Baltimore" would be the "new word", which we are saying it is not. Mihia (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Because some people interpret the rules with respect to hyphens creatively, but it is also really different from stupid-fuck. The latter is either a hyphenated attributive form of stupid (adj.) fuck (n.) or just a very strange error (it isn't a compound). The other case are prefixed words that are not 'protected' by CFI because of the hyphen. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
"ex-" compounds are indeed different from "stupid-fuck" in various ways that could be identified. However, they are not different on the specific grounds that I was referring to, which is that of being sum-of-parts. Mihia (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

wet throughEdit

SOP. See also soaked through. Canonicalization (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep, found one lemming, there may be others. It could be idiomatic anyway, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been trying to find usage to test the issue, but this one is all over the map. There at least three ways to analyze this, and there are examples of usage that support all of them.
  1. Wet through (adjective)
    There are examples of modifiers such as almost and quite before "wet through", and "more or less wet through" is suggestive as well.
  2. Wet (adjective) + through
    There are examples of modifiers such as almost and quite between "wet" and "through"
  3. Wet (verb) + through
    This is tricky because the most common form of the past and past participle is identical to the present and infinitive. There are, however a few examples of "wetted through" and "wetted quite through". There are also examples of "wet it through".
Then there's the issue of whether "wet through" is an absolute as if it were "through and through" or the end of a directional progression, as if it were "to the surface or "to the other side".
That said, I find the examples supporting "wet through" as a single adjective are inconclusive and less convincing than the others. It looks to me like the verb + through and adjective + through probably both exist, but I'm not sure about the single-adjective option. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I can certainly relate to the adjective after a recent event: "The heavens opened just as I got off the bus, and by the time I got home I was wet through." This is more emphatic than just wet, and as far as I'm aware there is no such word as superwet. I am not so sure about the verb though - to soak or saturate could be used instead. DonnanZ (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Narrator: "There was such a word as superwet". bd2412 T 04:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, in a different sense. I sometimes find I shouldn't mention a term, as some bright spark thinks it is SoP and RFDs it. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, if soaked through is not allowed, I don't see the difference. -Mike (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Has soaked through ever been an entry? I can't find a deletion record. DonnanZ (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep adjective as set phrase. Delete verb. Mihia (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


Moved from Requests for Verification. The relevant parts of the discussion appear below:

::I feel unhappy about these kinds of entries that seem to me more like authors either referencing a variable name or being unable to distinguish the writing of a variable name from proper English. Mihia (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
: Wiktionary would be a better dictionary without this entry. - TheDaveRoss 13:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
::: I agree, but I also feel that is more a matter for requests for deletion than for requests for verification.  I am calling this RFV-passed, but am moving this to requests for deletion. Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comment above. Variable name, not a proper word. Mihia (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    What makes you think so? Citations:clustersize suggest otherwise, e.g. a quotation from Journal of the Physical Society of Japan: "The clustersize increases by the addition of salt." --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Not everything ever committed to print is correct English. We need to apply editorial judgement too. There are any number of these variable-name-style compounds citable in running text: "edgelength", "linesize", "sampleweight", etc. etc. Mostly these are written by people who do not understand how to spell, and do not understand the difference between writing e.g. "edgelength" in computer code and "edge length" in normal English. We are not helping anyone by recognising or legitimising these people's spelling errors. Mihia (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Even if so, "Variable name" has been refuted, as far as I can tell. "Sometimes used as a variable name" was not refuted, but that can hardly be relevant.
As for whether this is a misspelling, it seems to be one given (clustersize*500),cluster size at Google Ngram Viewer. However, this frequency ratio would suggest it is a common misspelling, and therefore keepable one (WT:CFI#Spellings). --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I am in favour of including "useful" and "important" spelling errors. I am not in favour of including a million™ entries along the lines of "clustersize: misspelling of cluster size". Mihia (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok; do you have some exampels of these "useful" spelling errors, for calibration? (The policy in WT:CFI does not speak of "useful" or "important", so that would be a CFI override.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean things like "alot" or "miniscule" or "i" for "I" or "it's" for "its". Mihia (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
And how many of the uses in your comparison are variable names or named parameters? It's hard to trust frequency ratios in the absence of such information. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point. When I was looking at this before, I think I searched for phrases such as "the clustersize is" which it seems could only be (IMO) errors, not legitimate uses of or references to variable names. This does not have sufficient frequency to show up on 'Ngrams', however. Mihia (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
A better comparison would be the plural, which is rarely used for variables and parameter names. I just did a Google Books search on "cluster sizes" and got 55,000 raw hits. The same search for "clustersizes" came up with 38 raw hits. Of those, a number were really "cluster sizes" when you looked at the page image, and there were a couple where the snippet was selectable text and contained things like "Wealsomeasured distributions oftwo clustersizes". Out of the 38 raw hits, I found 5 where one could look at the page image or snippet image and verify that there was no space. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
(outdent) cluster sizes, clustersizes at Google Ngram Viewer: the solid form not found. google books:"cluster sizes", google books:"clustersizes" confirms your (Chuck's) observations that the solid forms are often variable names or scannos, although not always. google books:"clustersize" confirms there are many variable names counted in the results, which should probably be taken into account together with the frequency ratio of 500. I do not know how to deal with this, and I abstain for now. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

cock sizeEdit

NiSoP. shirt size, pants size, shoe size, hat size, glove size, paper size. DCDuring (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A truly important feat of lexicography, but delete nonetheless. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There is also cock-size and cocksize, the latter passed RFV, All were created by the same user, and all should be considered together. Perhaps we should delete all male obsessions (including football). It has attracted a translations section, what a surprise. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 10:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete all (or are we going to have a competition?) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all dick/cock size, whether one word, hyphenated or two words. Mihia (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

dick sizeEdit

NISoP, as above. "Size of dick" DCDuring (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete, it's a shame other dictionaries have shirked their duty to include this valuable word. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Also dick-size and dicksize, all by the creator of cock size, so they should be considered for deletion together. DonnanZ (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 10:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

shoe sizeEdit

NISoP, as above. "Size of shoe". Specification to a person comes with the preceding determinative, like your, your friend's, Pat's. If the preceding determinative is a number, the, a the NISoP part of the definition limiting it to a person's fit does not fit. DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete, though the French word lends support to keeping this as a translation target, I am sceptical that there are idiomatic translations. (I don't think translations equivalent to "shoe number" are enough.) ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Inclined to keep this, if only for translations. And with my big feet, shoe size can be a problem. There is also an entry for shoesize. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The plural shoesizes may exist (see 1939, Our Family, p. 180: "We printed our shoesizes on the smooth untouched snow"); shoesize appears to be a distinct term of art in data management. bd2412 T 03:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - in the UK at least, it normally refers to a specific scale, people would not say their shoe size was 15cm by 8cm by 5cm. Even the word order suggests standardisation - you would not normally say "What's your TV size?". Also, if a child had grown out of the child's current shoes, the shoe size would not be the size of the shoes but of the child's feet. John Cross (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Those sizes are covered in the 6th noun definition at size. Imagine in the future someone invents a new article of clothing called an "ergsblartz" and some else wants to borrow one from a neighbor. The neighbor might ask "What's your ergsblartz size?". Also, I can imagine the following conversation: Women A: "My daughter's going to be in a play, but she needs wardrobe". Women B: "I might have something. What's her size?". No lexical connection to any specific word for an article of clothing. Yes, shoes are measured by different units than pants, but that's not lexical information, any more than the fact that men's and women's sizes are different, or European and US sizes. Oh, and in the era of large-screen TV, people do talk about their TV size (I believe it's measured across the diagonal of the screen). Chuck Entz (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I've never heard "TV size" (it's always "How big is your TV" not "What's your TV('s) size"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew. "What is your house size?" has around ten results on Google but "How big is your house?" has over one million. John Cross (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this a COALMINE (WT:CFI#Idiomaticity) override? COALMINE seems to have large support, as per Wiktionary:Votes/2019-08/Rescinding the "Coalmine" policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep with coalmine, delete otherwise. The translation target argument is weak here; we could just have a translation table at "size" glossed "shoe size". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as it refers to a system of numbering/lettering. Mihia (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for me, partly because here shoe = any footwear (we don't say "boot size" or "slipper size", nor "sock size", or even "foot size"). But, then we'd also need dress size, and perhaps some others, like hat size. Perhaps a can of worms, but perhaps not since there are only a limited number of basic clothes terms. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not NiSOP because one does not mean any shoe size but a gradated shoe size as expressed by special measure systems. Beside this it can also be used as SOP. Like: The shoe size of a horse. Fay Freak (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

file sizeEdit

NISoP, as above. "Size of file". The 'computer' restriction is from the restriction of the meaning of file. The term is SoP whether referring to a bastard file, a nail file, the contents of a file cabinet or manila folder, or a dossier. DCDuring (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There is also an entry for filesize. DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't take WT:COALMINE into account. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. With respect to computer files, this is by far the most common term to denote the volume of bytes a file occupies, even though it has no "size" in terms of physical dimensions. This is probably a set phrase in that respect. bd2412 T 03:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

bid sizeEdit

NISoP, as above. "Size of bid" is the effective definition after the erroneous limitation of the definition to shares, excluding bonds, currency, futures contracts, current commodities, etc. DCDuring (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This must be one of the oldest entries, created in 2003. It is a question of what this term is used for, what about bids at an auction? DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems to have been an early reject at WP, transferred here. We've been a dumping ground from the beginning. DCDuring (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless this is shown to have some unique cache in the parlance of the relevant industry. bd2412 T 03:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not sure deleting this entry will make the dictionary better. The term is in Investopedia[79],[80],[81],[82]. As for sum of parts, how would you know that the size is the number of shares rather than the total price paid for the shares, which is the price per share times number of shares? One source even tells us that "For bond trading, bid size is measured in dollars." If I were collecting an investing glossary, I would probably include the term. Unlikely to be protected by WT:COALMINE: bid size,bidsize at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep set phrase; cf. bid price. Mihia (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

soaked to the boneEdit

NISoP: soaked + to the bone. Contrast to soaked to the skin. I believe that to the skin does not often occur with adjectives other that soaked and its near synonyms. But to the bone with figurative sense of bone occurs with close, (cut) down, slashed, worked, chill, bad, cut, stripped, etc. DCDuring (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Created by the same user as soaked to the skin, which makes a lot more sense. The user was permanently blocked a couple of days later, with the remark "enough is enough". I wouldn't object to the deletion of this one. DonnanZ (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
WF Chuck Entz (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
delete Good find, DCD. WF made the page because the entry to the bone didn't exist back then. --Mélange a trois (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. Equinox 10:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

only too wellEdit

"very"? Sounds SOP in this specific meaning, at least. — surjection?〉 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Very" doesn't capture it at all — way too broad. Anyway SoP; delete. Equinox 20:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep but probably move to know only too well. Agreed that "very" is a lame definition. BTW, Collins has an entry for only too, others for know only too well --Mélange a trois (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I added some citations. We should at least make a note that know is the verb it most commonly collocated with. --Mélange a trois (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
We have all too (a synonym?). Equinox 01:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not only only too well. Something unpleasant may come only too soon. Satire may ring only too true. And one can be only too familiar with something you’d rather wish it ain’t so.  --Lambiam 23:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Is all too a synonym of only too? In the cases I listed above it is: all too well, all too soon, all too true, all too familiar. In other cases it is not. One can say that one should be only too happy to receive some treatment, or do something, but if one is all too happy it sounds as if something is wrong with that happiness: one is all too eager – not good. I don’t know if we can catch all theses nuances, but in only too [X] it seems to make a difference whether the X-ness already has become reality – in which case only weakly intensifies the too and can be omitted (“his death came only too soon”; “the joke rings only too true”; “the story is only too familiar”) – or still has to transpire – in which case the collocation only too means “very” (“We’ll be only too happy to host the event” = “We’ll be very happy to host the event”). I am not sure whether the temporal aspect is really determinative; there also seems to be a difference in whether, in the context, the situation or event to which the X-ness is ascribed is considered positive or negative. A difference with all too is that the latter always appears to imply that the X-ness is ascribed to something unpleasant. I hope that this analysis makes some sense. In any case, it seems to me that we need an entry only too, with two senses, one of which is synonymous with all too. And I think we should make the negativity of the latter explicit in the definition: “More than desirable” instead of a neutral “Very” – while “excessively” overdoes the intensity.  --Lambiam 10:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


Delete as a rare misspelling given dicksize, dick size at Google Ngram Viewer, where the form is not found but the mainstream form is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Would you rather fight a dicksized horse, or a horsesized dick?  --Lambiam 10:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Neither appeals to me. Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me. Mihia (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 13:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

financial institutionEdit

Request to 'undelete'. Deleted as sum-of-parts. In my opinion, its full and exact meaning acannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Also we already have acquiring financial institution, acquiring financial institutions, financial conglomerate, etc. Likewise covered by multiple dictionaries - see --Jklamo (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Basically a set phrase. bd2412 T 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Not clear what it means...many institutions are heavily involved in finance in one way or another, but only some of them are "financial institutions". Also there are lemmings - Cambridge, Macquarie Dict., Webs. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia starts by giving a much broader definition than these lemmings (but then, curiously, effectively narrows it to “bank”, even as it has an article Non-bank financial institution). Investopedia also has a much laxer definition. This is considered a sufficiently authoritative source that at least one bank links to it. It is not particularly hard to find uses of the term “financial institution” that are outside the scope of the narrow lemming definition (e.g. here). The recently proposed draft bill [”Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act“] says “A large platform utility may not be, and may not be affiliated with any person that is, a financial institution”, but strangely without defining the term. Presumably it would be interpreted as the definition given in US Code Title 15 § 6809, which is very broad again (essentially: any institution the business of which is engaging in activities that are financial in nature). If the lemma is restored with the narrow sense as a definition, we will also need a broad (basically {{&lit}}) sense.  --Lambiam 16:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to view the Wiktionary definition as it was before it was deleted? Mihia (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    The definition was "[a]n institution, such as a bank, insurance company or fund, that provides financial services for its clients or members". — surjection?〉 21:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Can anyone retrieve that definition (if so, how), or are you able to do it only because you have a special privilege? Mihia (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Any admin can see the full history of deleted pages. DTLHS (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@DTLHS: ... and by implication non-Admins have no way to retrieve deleted entries ... is that what you mean? Mihia (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
They can certainly ask an administrator. DTLHS (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The definition that was deleted is very much sum-of-parts. It is slightly less general than the definition in US Code Title 15 § 6809, in which the financial activities of the institution need not be “services for its clients or members”. It is much more general than the definitions of several financial dictionaries, in which these services are, specifically, “collecting funds from the public and/or other organisations with the intention of investing these funds into financial assets” (e.g. ABC Accounting Dictionary), or serving “as a channel between savers and borrowers of funds” (BusinessDictionary). Unless we can find three actual uses that count as attestations in which the term is used in this narrow sense, we should (IMO) not include it as a separate sense (just as we would not give “a hoofed mammal, of the genus Equus, used to draw a coach” as a separate sense of horse). Then we are left with the SoP sense that was rightly deleted.  --Lambiam 09:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete. In Talk:financial institution, I voted to keep. It still is not obvious to me that money is not a financial institution and that the practice of lending is not a financial institution, or the practice of lending on interest. "Money" would be a financial institution under a different sense of "institution", the one used in the phrase "the institution of marrigage". financial institution at OneLook Dictionary Search found lemmings (WT:LEMMING). I still think that the reader is better off with out having the entry. I still think that a label "sum of parts" or a usage note to the effect of "This term can be considered to be a sum of parts" would not harm. The notes made above by Lambiam are alone interesting material to read for the user of a dictionary, a tool that helps reader to engage in clarification of ideas, disambiguation of terms, research into possible meanings and uses of terms and related intellectually demanding activities usually undertaken by highly paid professionals. The interesting notes and facts collected by Lambiam will end up on the entry talk page anyway; now we need an entry for the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Money clearly is a financial institution, in that it's a thing that was instituted and belongs to finance. It's not the commonest usage of that phrase, but certainly that would work. I still feel this is SoP: schools, universities and colleges are educational institutions, obviously, but so is e.g. the subject of English Literature. Don't undelete. Equinox 21:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then the entry is actually even more useful in disambiguating the phrase than I thought. It captures lexical knowledge users of the language acquire: that the phrase "financial institution" is nearly always used in reference to organizations although it might as well be plausibly used to refer to the other kinds of institutions such as money. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    A water pitcher isn't someone/something that throws water nor is it made out of water, and pigeon droppings aren't instances of allowing pigeons(birds or people that have been duped) to fall. That doesn't mean it requires a dictionary entry (which has nothing to do with books coming into a place) to figure out the meaning of the phrases (which has nothing to do with arithmetic averages or music). The mere existence of multiple senses for a word does not make all phrases using it idiomatic. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    There is zero plausibility that "water pitcher" could be someone to throw water. What matters is how easy it is for the reader to perform the disambiguation of possible senses without help of the dictionary. My point is that the entry helps avoid an actual confusion on part of the language users, maybe non-native speakers. And lemmings seem to agree (M-W[83],[84]), or have a different reason for keeping. I admit that the phrase may still be a sum of parts, but that is not the only thing that matters. On another note, the fact that the phrase is subject to various operational definitions is also of note; a quote: 'The High Court has confirmed it will adopt a broad definition of a “financial institution” for the purposes of the transferability provisions [...]'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

aye manEdit

Georgie, meaning yes. I'd say it's Georgie for "yes, man" or "yeah, dude" or whatever. SOP? --Mélange a trois (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Or an alternative spelling of “Amen!” (/eɪˈmɛn/)?  --Lambiam 16:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I would think it is SoP and should be deleted, yes. Equinox 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it does Google, often in the form "why aye man" or "whey aye man". Should it be considered a stock phrase used by Geordies? Some Geordies tend to use "man" as a form of address which can be added to any sentence, I hear them when listening to BBC radio. One can imagine "I'll have a brown ale, man." being said. DonnanZ (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
These collocations also get many hits without the “man” ending: [85]. We have an entry for why aye, but not for the more common spelling whey aye.  --Lambiam 23:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

All "euphemistic spellings" with asterisks or other character placeholdersEdit


Rationale: there are unending permutations of these depending on the whims of the author, making these sum of parts. DTLHS (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What are the “parts” of “f*der”? A speaker who is not well-versed in the street language of a language they are not that familiar with anyway may not know how to fill in the asterisks in some of these disemvoweled spellings. They may be wondering, what the h*ll is a w****r? A whorlflower? A woodpecker? A woolgrower? A wisecracker?  --Lambiam 23:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep. I've used Wiktionary to figure out what word an asterisked spelling was supposed to be, and I suspect I'm not the only one. They aren't SOP because asterisks do not carry any fixed meaning (i.e., they aren't a placeholder for a certain letter). And there aren't an infinite number of permutations, because the number of asterisks will never exceed the number of letters in a given piece of profanity (minus one, since the first letter is (almost?) never replaced). I see no harm in having them. They will only be attestable for a tiny fraction of a given language's lexicon, since relatively few words get this treatment. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Then you should just use a list of words that are commonly censored or are common and avoided. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Your math is off, there are many more combinations since you can choose what set of letters you want to replace. For example there are at least 15 ways to bowlderize "fuck", just with asterisks. If we allow more characters the number grows. DTLHS (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
And what’s with all those replacements to circumvent word filters? I mean nibber, niqqer etc. People use these and actually wanna use nigger etc. If you are not acquainted: For example Youtube filters words in the chats of livestreams. So people use such hacks. Maybe this is also found on Usenet for imitation, like imageboards created weeaboo (but not thus lexicalized). What would be the difference from some Unicode hack? Is it includable if fullwidth characters (U+FF21 seqq.) are used for replacement? Everything that spammers use? There is also spam sold as books. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, since we already have "[u]sed to censor sections of obscene or profane words" as one of the punctuation senses of the asterisk symbol. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I remove any that I find, but haven't made a serious attempt to find them all. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am seeing the asterisk as standing in for the 'missing' character - almost like using a specific font or format rather than a new word. There are fonts that render all letters in uppercase, I don't think that creates a new version of every word. John Cross (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it is helpful for people to have some way of looking up common asterisked words, but I feel unhappy at these being treated as full-fledged distinct words with full separate entries. I suggest that these asterisked lookups could be redirected to an entry on a special page that that lists common asterisked words and their unasterisked equivalents in a simple list format. Mihia (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I prefer the idea of having a list as Mihia suggests above. See also my earlier comment above. John Cross (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, no objection to that. (Also, maybe we should get an improved search box that allows people to use single-character wildcards like "d??n".) — SGconlaw (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Some time ago, I created Appendix:English censored words with the idea you could look up any variation of a censored word by the first letter, last letter and possibly length. It didn't get huge appreciation. One way or the other, I think offering these censorships are more useful than a lot of standard entries, like cat or human being, where if you don't know what they mean, you should probably be using a dictionary in your language, or even cheetah, where w:cheetah is just more useful if you don't know what it means. People actually look up some of these words looking for their meanings, so one way or the other, we should help them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Abstain - seems we don't have a clear policy for these, but we should. I myself think that it would be useful for the users to include the especially common ones (the "w***e" example is a good one, and that was a very common way of printing the word whore in the 18th century); but I suggest that we set a higher benchmark for commonality than the usual 3 instances, setting at something like 100 instances ... of course the problem with this is who is going to do the prohibitive amount of work it would take to verify that there are 100 independent instances? Perhaps some of the available corpora could be used, such as the "Glowbe" corpus. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. - TheDaveRoss 22:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I propose to cancel this RFD: out of scope of RFD. You can also read this as keep in RFD, although I may be open to conviction in a proper channel discussing the group of entries, ideally a vote that modifies CFI. Talk:f**k shows a 2008 keeper; pro-keeping editors included Ruakh, Atelaes, Bequw, Rodasmith, and Thryduulf. As for the rationale, these are not sum of parts in the sense of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity since the components have to be separate, as per CFI, and letters of spelling are not considered separate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In general delete. Possibly we could redirect any really common ones like f**k but I don't think they should ever have entries of their own. They are not IMO separate lexical items in the language, but rather a sort of affectation applied to items, like turning hello into heeeeellooooo to indicate it's being spoken slowly. Equinox 13:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Each such terms deserves a RfV to find unambiguous uses.
    Also we might consider how users could be direct to a gadget that does regex searches in page titles to find the less common uses of this kind of euphemism. DCDuring (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


This an exceedingly rare variant which I take to be a typo/misspelling rather than a distinct term. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Using Ngram Viewer cottonball does get off the bottom of the scale. DonnanZ (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't rarity of variants an RFV issue? Purplebackpack89 21:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

RFD is basically a vote so we could get rid of the word dog if everyone agreed on it. But yeah I suppose the question is can we find some good citations that are unambiguously not typos/scannos. Equinox 21:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: frequency ratio of 20 is not "exceedinly rare": (cottonball*20),cotton ball at Google Ngram Viewer. That would have to be at the very least 100 or even 500. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


Trade name. DTLHS (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard of it. What evidence is there? DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
[87] for the adjective. [88] for the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Tea_room#-lingual.

As I see it, there is no need for this so-called suffix, terms that are using it are derivatives of lingual, and can be moved there. DonnanZ (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

squash playerEdit

I have a feeling we had an epic discussion about these kind of entries before. Still seems SOP to me. --Mélange a trois (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I think we keep them if they have translations that are not SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
tennis player was discussed. Supposedly it's not SoP because it's someone who plays professionally (which is not true at all: "I'm a bad tennis player" doesn't mean I'm a pro, just that I play). Apparently people want to keep them so whatever. Equinox 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it relates to the sport, not the vegetable or a drink of squash. DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying I can't play with my squash? -Mike (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hula dancers play the gourd. You should learn to play the squash.  --Lambiam 11:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is useful to distinguish between sports where the participant is known as a Foo player, and those where the participant is known as a fooer (e.g., golfer and bowler, not golf player and bowling player). In some cases, this distinction has real implications - for example, a footballer plays association football (i.e. soccer), while a football player plays American football. bd2412 T 01:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    I doubt that the distinction is that sharp: [89], [90], [91].  --Lambiam 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Informal instances rare enough that they wouldn't count as a common misspelling are of minimal lexicological value. Find me a "bowling player", though. Then we'll be talking. bd2412 T 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • WT:THUB would protect it if we can find reliably attested supporting terms. Czech squashista would contribute to THUB but seems sub-attested (not 3 quotations, Citations:squashista). German Squashspieler would not contribute to THUB as currently drafted. Also of interest is squasher, squash player at Google Ngram Viewer; an unvoted-on analogue of COALMINE would have us include squash player as a much more common synonym of an attested single-word term. (As an aside, Talk:tennis player#RFD 2 often invoked "translation target" as the keeping rationale.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    I spoke too soon: squasher does exist, but does not seem to mean squash player. Then, the argument by bd2412 is of note: this is the term actually used while another term could have been used (squasher). --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Commercial Resupply ServicesEdit

Doesn't strike me as dictionary content. Equinox 08:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • A quick delete I would think. (And I hope I'm not infringing on your trademark.) -Mike (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t think this is trademarked. There is no TESS record for the term. Some uses: [92], [93], [94]. The definition is not very good; it is the name of the program in general, not just the contracts awarded under the program’s competition. I don’t see how our CFI apply for cases like this; we do not have generic guidelines for proper nouns, and none of the more specific ones (such as WT:BRAND) fit this case. We do include proper nouns of organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and of holidays like International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but what about programs or campaigns?  --Lambiam 11:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. DCDuring (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


The adjective section: not an adjective. 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever is decided here should also apply to stop-gap. -Mike (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete the adjective, but keep the usex and put it in the noun section. Incidentally, stop-gap is less common than stopgap in the UK, so that statement is wrong. DonnanZ (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I've almost never seen it hyphenated; that would look quite dated to me. The statements might still be correct with some really sneaky interpretation, i.e. "stopgap is more common in the US" (...than stop-gap is), while "stop-gap is more common in the UK" (...than it is in the US). Perhaps best just to remove. Equinox 23:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this 'Ngram' syntax correct? I'm really not sure. If it is, it shows "stopgap" now significantly more common than "stop-gap" in the US, and the two now roughly equal in the UK. Mihia (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


The adjective section: not an adjective. 18:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What part of speech is it, then, in "a snap judgment or decision; a snap political convention"? Equinox 18:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Your judgement is snap, but is it snap enough for this day and age? It can be argued that it is the noun snap, sense 10 (“a very short period of time (figuratively, the time taken to snap one's fingers), or a task that can be accomplished in such a period”). See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#snap election.  --Lambiam 20:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"Guitarist Scott Smith writes the snappest songs, but other members of the Surfdusters are not bad song writers." DTLHS (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That seems tenuous. How are readers to know that the noun snap can be used in these constructions when moment, jiffy, sec, etc. cannot? Equinox 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Not saying it is necessarily applicable here, but in cases where a noun can be used attributively in a distinct or not-very-predictable way, we can always add a separate noun definition labelled "attributive". Mihia (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep. According to Oxford it is also an attributive adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion this is very technically not a true adjective, but is "de facto" enough of an adjective to keep. It is a highly borderline case. Mihia (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
An argument in favour of adjectivality (when used as an attribute of a noun) is the relative lack of stress. An attributive noun is stressed in English. Compare square form /ˌskwɛə ˈfɔːm/ (adjective) with square formula /ˈskwɛə ˌfɔːmjʊlə/ (attributive noun).  --Lambiam 11:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WT:LEMMING (not a policy): an adjective section is found in M-W, AHD, Collins, Lexico, Macmillan, --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Gonna say keep, by the way, because of commonness in adjective position and apparently not quite the same meaning (or not easily derivable from the noun), oh and lemmings. Equinox 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move the adjective to a new Etymology with "Ellipsis of in a snap" as it's origin. Leasnam (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very likely to me that that is the origin. Mihia (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The sense evolution is snap "clicky sound" > "snap (with one's fingers)" = making a snap-sound with your fingers > snapping sound associated with quick motion of the fingers > 'in a snap' = quickly, in an instant > snap = instant. It's easy to see with terms like 'snap election' "an election that happens as fast as the snap of the fingers" Leasnam (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the meanings of "snap" in "in a snap" and "snap election" are of course related, having a common ancestor in the idea that a "snap" is some kind of short, sharp event. However, my view is that the attributive/adjectival use of "snap" in e.g. "snap election" is unlikely to directly derive from a shortening of the expression "in a snap" as your proposed etymology would suggest. I don't see that it would even make grammatical sense for it to do so. I don't see any reason to think that the idea of "snap" in "snap election" came specifically through that phrase. Mihia (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your point: not directly from "in a snap", but that type of usage has back-fed into 'snap' to produce the attributive sense. Leasnam (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


This is just a word ending. Words ending in -gonal are adjectives made from nouns ending in -gon that are suffixed with -al. Ultimateria (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Could become productive on its own. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    Is that meant as an argument for retention? Crystal ball meets many-worlds.  --Lambiam 11:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like delete to me, including diagonal is wrong for a start. DonnanZ (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Or else we should include suffixes like -ousness: Used to form nouns describing related adjectives ending in -ous. seriousness.  --Lambiam 11:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete or possibly redirect to -gon. Compare Talk:-lessness. Equinox 13:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to -gon sounds like an excellent solution. bd2412 T 03:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    Even a redirect seems wrong unless there is evidence of productivity, which has not been forthcoming. DCDuring (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    If someone looks up this exact construction, it would be better to take them to the proper form than to leave them to the vagaries of the search engine (which, as it stands, would give them these results). bd2412 T 05:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Leasnam (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like what the drunk geometrist said late on a Saturday night, "I-so-gonal rearrange your obtuse face!"
But seriously isn't this just -gon + -al? Delete if so. -Mike (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

only toEdit

"Conjunction" with non-gloss definition.

I think this should be a redirect to a sense of only (using {{senseid}}). DCDuring (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The relevant sense at only appears to be:
Used to express surprise or consternation at an action.
She's only gone and run off with the milkman!
They rallied from a three-goal deficit only to lose in the final two minutes of play.
Are we quite sure that it is the same sense -- even PoS -- of "only" in both these usage examples? Mihia (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Three observations. (1) It seems to me that the sense is not so much to express surprise or consternation, as to mark a definitive reversal of fortune. (2) The collocation is always followed by an infinitive, which is not particularly an action, but rather a state change by which all hopes are dashed. (3) There is an action involved, which is in vain, but it is the action of the main clause of which the “only to” clause is a dependent clause. (“He rushed to the hospital, only to learn that his mother had already died.”)  --Lambiam 11:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
And, of course it is only too easy to confuse it with "only too". SemperBlotto (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention only two.
Oxford has only to as part of a phrase, and only too -. I'm undecided on this at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at a definition of only in the likes of Century provides a multitude of semicolon-separated items that take the form "(in, for, by) but one (purpose, means, result); (in, at, for, with) no other (manner, respect, place, direction, circumstances, condition, time, way, purpose, result) than". So Lambian's example (above) might be defined as "with no other result than". One could also say "I stood only to ask a question" where it would mean "for but one purpose". The insertion of only in the verb-infinitive structure emphasizes the singular result of the infinitive with respect to the verb.
I do think this is a question of how to properly define only and that only to should be deleted (or redirected). -Mike (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
One more observation: (4) only to announcing a reversal of fortune is preceded by a pause in speaking, often reflected in the punctuation when written, like a comma here and an em dash here. That is particular to this sense; one would not write, *“we don’t want to punish; we want, only to help”, or, *“I stood—only to ask a question”.  --Lambiam 22:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

evening mealEdit

I have created an entry for evening meal - I think it is a useful entry and I don't want it to be deleted. I can see an argument that it is 'sum of parts'. I have added 'usage notes' which may help explain why I think it is a useful entry. John Cross (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

But you posted this here to elicit a critical examination? Perhaps this can be defended as a useful addition to our Category:English phrasebook/Food and drink – although it has not been categorized as such – but only if we can populate the Translations section, for which the translations of dinner that identify the meaning as the evening meal form a good start. (Several others, such as Danish aftensmad, are also specifically the evening meal, even though not explicitly so identified.)  --Lambiam 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Possibly good phrasebook material as it is always a meal in the evening but might have implications varying by culture. But of course SoP and I am not a fan of having a general (non-phrasebook) entry. Equinox 15:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


Looks pretty much SOP from where I'm lying. --Vealhurl (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete all X/Y in which X and Y are units in some metrological standard, such as the SI, or NIST Handbook 44 (2012), Appendix C: “General Tables of Units of Measurement”. If kept, this should be under an L2 of Translingual.  --Lambiam 12:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 13:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Lambiam. DCDuring (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


RFD adverb sense:

  1. To a small extent; in a small amount (usually with "a").
    That's a bit too sweet.

The word "bit" itself does not seem to be an adverb here. (Note that we have a separate entry for a bit.) Mihia (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The article shows that it's a noun. The adverbial meaning only belongs to the phrase as a whole. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that bit#Adverb is not that, and should be deleted, but there is a small problem with the phrase a bit, which is treated as an adverb. DonnanZ (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)'
It's really the phrase a bit that acts adverbially, so yes this should be Deleted. Leasnam (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
But a bit is an adverb, what else could it be? Canonicalization (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete We do show a bit as a derived term, which is as it should be. DCDuring (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per proponent, Chuck Entz, Leasnam, DCDuring. Canonicalization (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. Mihia (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

scope resolutorEdit

This is a rare EN-1/2/3 error for scope + resolver or, possibly and document-specific term with an ad-doc definition. DCDuring (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is ad-doc Cockney for haddock?  --Lambiam 00:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


NISoP. We would need to find attestation for moistureresistant to save this via WT:COALMINE. DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's hope that someone finds three instances of "moistureresistant". Then we can keep "moisture-resistant" too. Mihia (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep. It's just a compound word with a hyphen in the middle (which makes sense). DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete not a word, not idiomatic. - TheDaveRoss 14:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. "-resistant" can be added to any word where it makes sense, with obvious SoP meaning. Mihia (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

call one on one's shitEdit

SOP: call on (sense 5) + shit. Canonicalization (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete as SoP: you can call people on many things. (I suppose this derived from call out, did it? I knew that phrase earlier; call alone seems like modern American or Twitter-type usage.) Equinox 01:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep It may be similar to call out but it's a unique verb "call you on your shit" being the most frequent form, it's definitely AmericanNdołkah (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
A very hasty Twitter search indicates that people are also being "called" on their bullshit, sin, stuff, transphobia, and "terrible record". Equinox 09:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Lord knows Twitter users like berating each other. Anyway, delete per nom. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/October#Suppressing_verb_inflections for separate issue with this entry. Mihia (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete in absence of any idiomatic meaning (e.g. "to address a babyfur"). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


"(used with the) A specific church (Christian religious denomination), such as the Church of England or the Catholic Church." This is just a normal capitalisation rule in proper nouns: we do not have comparable entries at Bank (Bank of England, Bank of America), Man (the Michelin Man) or Sea (Aral Sea). If this sense isn't already at lower-case church then we could of course move it there, noting "often capitalised" if we must. Equinox 09:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It is capitalized as expected when used as part of a proper noun, just like Association and Brotherhood, so there is no need for a special note.  --Lambiam 22:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for nominator’s reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete this sense, Oxford has an entry for Church Army which is more specific. DonnanZ (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • But Church Army is an entire proper noun and cannot be written lower-cased. The logic does not apply here. This case is more like having capital City or capital Tower because of New York City, Eiffel Tower. Equinox 13:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep or move to the Church. There have been many times where I've heard "the Church" used by non-Catholics to refer to the Catholic Church in places where one would expect further specification if it was merely SOP. If you saw a headline that said something like “President Joe Blow Criticizes the Church's Stance on Abortion,” would you be confused, or would you understand a specific church? (Although I don't exclude the possibility that my interpretation of the way I've seen it used is somewhat warped due to my own bias.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Moving it to "the Church" is IMO even worse. We don't usually put the on entries (cf. Eiffel Tower). We can always use en-noun to display the word "the" inside the entry: it needn't be in the page title. Equinox 13:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep but if we do keep we need separate senses for each organisation. There are cases where "the Church" is used without enough context to tell you which organisation it is but the fact the term used is "the Church" together with the limited context provided is enough for you to know. I think that is distinguishable from, for example "the Committee" where the full name of the Committee is used earlier in the text. John Cross (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah. It would be a shame to lose the quotations that someone took the trouble to enter. I could go along with both Andrew Sheedy and John Cross, Equinox is also flexible, or have (as an organisation) Alternative form of church (or similar) instead. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to keep this one. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Move/merge to church, with label noting capitalisation and article. However, for me, the present definition somewhat misses the main point of "the Church" as a separate sense. The fact that "the Church" can be used to mean some specific church, such as "the Church of England", does not in itself seem very entry-worthy. It seems more an ordinary feature of English that can apply to arbitrary cases. As Equinox points out, we may as well have an entry for "(the) Sea" on the basis that this could be used to refer to a specific sea. In the case of "the Church", yes, a specific church is meant, but the point of the separate sense is more that "the Church" has extra connotations, e.g. that it is recognised or understood as the main or established institution within the context. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Abstain. It could be reworked, I think that it is more commonly used of the Catholic Church than of other churches anyway as noted by Andrew Sheedy, but more importantly there is no sense "mainstream (non-Arian, non-Unitarian) Christianity". Perhaps if this fails it could be resolved to include that here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The most commonly intended church is probably region- or community-specific. In some places it may be the Catholic Church. In an English context, with no other information, "the Church" is probably understood as CofE. Mihia (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. These uses are exactly analogous to the uses of capitalized Association, Brotherhood, and so on, as short forms of the proper noun denoting some institution in a context in which it is understood which institution is referenced. A few examples: “Prior to each annual meeting the Association shall elect the Officers as provided for in Article 3”; “The aim of the Association is to support and strengthen comparative literature studies”; “The Association may maintain affiliation with other societies if the Governing Board determines that the affiliation would further the purposes of the Association; “The objector shall keep the Brotherhood informed of any change in address”; “The Brotherhood is controlled in each domination by a council elected by its members”; “The salary of the G E.B. when employed by the Brotherhood shall be $3.00 per day and $2.50 per day for expenses, exclusive of railroad fare.” All refer to completely different associations and brotherhoods, such as the Washington City/County Management Association and the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America; the terms have no intrinsic meaning.  --Lambiam 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The difference, as I see it, is that someone may refer to "the Church" with no prior context or information, and expect that it will be understood. This is not likely with "Association" or "Brotherhood". "the Church" seems to be a "thing" that exists other than merely as a shortened form of "the Church of X" used to reduce repetition or wordage, unlike these other examples that have been given. Mihia (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It is my duty to inform you that the Church finds your attitude problematic. You cannot say you have not been warned. How can the recipient of a message be supposed to understand what “the Church” refers to with no prior context or information? That does not make sense. In the two example quotations the first is from a Catechism of the Catholic Church, so there it is obvious from the context that this is not the Church of Satan. In the second, the reference to Salt Lake Valley gives away that this is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; also without that hint, the audience to the speech by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of which this was a fragment were attendees of a worldwide priesthood gathering of the LDS Church, so the Brethren understood the speaker was not referring to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Show me an example of use of “the Church” without any context in which there is a reasonable expectation that the audience will understand which Church this refers to.  --Lambiam 20:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
An example would be “Mindful of the Church’s teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before any others.” [95] No specific "Church of X" has been mentioned. It is just assumed that the reader will understand "the Church" as an institution. It is hard to think of a case where e.g. "the Association" would be mentioned out of the blue with no reference to which association is meant. Mihia (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Without context I could not know which church this referred to, but upon finding out the statement was issued by the sister of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (and daughter of its previous Supreme Governor), one tends to develop a hunch as to which church may have been referenced here.  --Lambiam 21:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I think part of this distinctive use of "the Church" might have to do with the fact that members of a given church will typically see their church as the one true church, not simply a church among many. Given the predominance of the Catholic Church globally and certain other churches locally, this usage among members of the church in question could easily have bled over into usage by people outside of that church. This reminds me of phrases like "the Faith", used by Christians to refer to the Christian (and often specifically the Catholic) faith. The same does not hold for "the Association", "the Committee", etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
As a Catholic who cares very much about his faith, I would agree with that analysis. I certainly think of the Church in the way that you describe in your first sentence there. It's funny that you bring this up, by the way, as many early Christians called the faith "the Way". "Christian" appears to have been either originally intended as a pejorative of some sort, or was otherwise an exonym of some sort. In any case, I suppose that we reclaimed the word fairly swiftly. Tharthan (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

miss the pointEdit

Sum of parts surely? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep; just about enough of an idiomatic set phrase, I would say. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


I am not seeing how this can be both a suffix and a contraction but I may be wrong. John Cross (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a suffix IMO. Mihia (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep. 're links to this article. I'll leave what it is exactly to the grammar geeks, but that's pedantry at RfD; whatever the headword is, whether we call it a suffix or contraction, there should be a page on 're as something tacked onto the end of words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I would call it an alternative form of "are", or a combining form. It functions grammatically as a verb, even if it does fuse completely with the preceding word (you can't hear the difference between "their" and "they're" in most people's speech).
Simply not a suffix. Delete this and -'s, -'d. Ultimateria (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

knee high sockEdit

SOP. 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 12:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If kept, should be moved to knee-high sock. Mihia (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

over the knee sockEdit

SOP. 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 12:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If kept, should be moved to over-the-knee sock. Mihia (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


"A catastrophe involving cattle" - this is just an obvious pun which has been used a few times over the years. I don't think we want all nonce puns which have arisen independently over the years. - TheDaveRoss 12:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Not too bothered either way but I am almost tempted to say keep: I would want to see adequate citations without the hyphen, though. This search finds some possibly similar existing entries: [96]. Equinox 12:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
And I believe that a cat-astrophe is a disaster involving cats, right? Mihia (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - stupid words are still words. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not the problem. The problem is that this word is not a real "trend": it's not being picked up by a speaker, then another, etc. We're simply lumping quotes together to fulfil the CFI, but this is artificial. Canonicalization (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep I'd say it's the opposite; it's saying that this is a fundamental part of the language, not just a random artificial trend. It's like when the first Nintendo Wii came out, people probably talked of Wiis without asking what the plural of Wii should be. That a catastrophe involving cows is a cowtastrophe isn't quite as fundamental, but it's still a real aspect of the language as it is used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of the Wii, Wiimote is also a user-created "pun" and not an official name. The only difference I feel about this "cowtastrophe" is that it's very vague: it could be any kind of cow catastrophe, probably quite different in each situation where the word is used. Equinox 18:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: cowtastrophe is a fundamental part of the English language? Clearly fundamental has a very different meaning for you than it does for me. Nonce terms should be excluded because they are not fundamental, the usage of this term is both random and artificial, it arose a few times independently for humorous purposes. I use puns all of the time in my daily life, and most of them are dumb and obvious and highly likely to have been used many times before, even though I am inventing them for my own situation. They don't, for the most part, deserve to be recorded in the dictionary.
@Sonofcawdrey: Sure, but that argument is meaningless until you have defined what a word is, if you have a broad enough definition there is nothing which shouldn't be included. - TheDaveRoss 12:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Like other words, cowtastrophe has a spelling, a pronunciation, a semantic sense, a grammatical category, and (as evidenced by the citations in this case) is used by language users in conjunction with other words to create meaningful sentences. I don't think this is an unwarrantedly broad meaning of word. The fact that cowtastrophe is formed via simple punning does not disqualify it as a word. As Trench said way back in 1857, a dictionary is not a delectus verborum and it is not the job of the lexicographer to pick and choose those words that do or do not please him or her. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: The formation of the word "cowtastrophe" is a fundamental part of the English language; if it wasn't, it couldn't have arisen a few times independently in the same sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

tiger tailEdit

I've added this here not because the entry begins with a capital letter, but do we include ice-cream flavours ? Seems endless. I don't see banana walnut but I do see we have rocky road (perhaps because it first refers to a type of chocolate bar ?) ... Leasnam (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Part of the reason I added it is because unless you're familiar with the ice cream flavour, you're probably thinking of an actual tiger's tail. I capitalized it because I'm using to seeing article titles in Wikipedia that way. If this entry is suitable here, I'm absolutely fine with it being moved to tiger tail. Clovermoss (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The definition simply states "Ice cream flavor" . Can you please add some additional information describing the flavour (chocolate, fruity, striped, etc.) ? Leasnam (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The quotations give some description and I was trying to avoid being repetitive. Would "Ice cream flavour, orange-coloured with stripes of black licorice" work? Clovermoss (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That, or perhaps "an orange-flavoured ice cream with black licorice swirl" ? Leasnam (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Once updated I'll move it to tiger tail until we get this resolved :) Leasnam (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I like your description better. Do you want to add it since you came up with it? Also, once the page is moved, is there still going to be a discussion here about whether or not the entry will be deleted? Clovermoss (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I can add it and move it. I would appreciate additional input from others on this if possible, yes. Leasnam (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Updated and Moved. The term is certainly idiomatic, no question there. Just wondering if it's proper Dictionary Material. Leasnam (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep if there is generic use: it's not an obvious sum of parts like rum and raisin or cherry vanilla, but one of the non-obvious ones like rocky road, blue moon, Superman ice-cream. (However, trademarks from a single manufacturer should not be included unless they are hugely well known like kleenex.) It does seem generic and I've added a link to Wikipedia's article. Equinox 09:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks Equinox. I withdraw my RFD for this term. Leasnam (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

read throughEdit

SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Also from the same anon:

tie offEdit

Pretty transparent meaning. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep - not transparent to me - why a vein is tied off rather than tied up is not at all clear; such "phrasal verbs" are always difficult for learners to master. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Sonofcawdrey. Mihia (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

go beforeEdit

Figuratively - can't see why this should be a separate entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


Websearch mostly yields pornographic material. — Eru·tuon 22:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep --this is REAL English. This is commonly heard in very informal speech everywhere. Leasnam (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - commonly heard everywhere. 22:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, non-idiomatic sum-of-parts. We have fine, ass and looking. Re it being "real" and "commonly heard", so is nice butt, but that doesn't mean we ought to have an entry for nice butt. - TheDaveRoss 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like sum of parts to me: fine-ass + looking. 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - this is an individual adjective (as opposed to nice butt which is a phrase), and the meaning is not at all clear to me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
fine-ass is an adjective using the -ass suffix. It's not the noun "a fine ass", like "nice butt". Equinox 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I was unable to parse this until I saw your comment. Canonicalization (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't this just fine-looking with "-ass" as an infix? It seems to me that you could add "-ass" in this sense to any adjective. Blue-ass-looking sky. Tall-ass basketball player. Big-ass football hero. Etc. bd2412 T 20:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Funnily enough, forgetting about this, I just created fine-looking. DonnanZ (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, delete as SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, there are also plenty of hits for good-ass looking or cool-ass looking confirming this is the -ass suffix. Ergo, Delete.  --Lambiam 21:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


"A Japanese male given name". This isn't really English. — surjection?〉 08:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. We also do not list Alistair under the L2 Finnish, in spite of attestations like “Kun Englannin työväenpuolue voitti vaalit 1997 Alistair Darlingista tuli Tony Blairin hallituksen toinen valtiovarainministeri.”  --Lambiam 11:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's English as much as Düsseldorf is English. Proof: It's USED in English. --Damn Polski (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Düsseldorf is an English toponym borrowed from German. If you look at the translation table, different languages have different spellings for the toponym. However, the same does not apply for Akihito because it is a romanization of Japanese あきひと. The romanized form does not qualify it as an English lemma. See discussion here.
English entries can be created for toponyms such as Kagawa or surnames such as Tamura that are backed up by statistical evidence. However, there are no plans to lemmatize all romanized forms of Japanese surnames and given names as English entries. Delete. KevinUp (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

On HMSEdit

SOP on + HMS. I don't know much about overprints, so this may be wrong --Vealhurl (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I would tend to keep it because HMS has multiple meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Not an adjective. Canonicalization (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"The most must-see..." can be found in GBooks. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been used adjectivally prior to being a noun with a plural. Equinox 18:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox: All right, I consider that sufficient proof of adjectivity and can retract my nomination. But it should imo be mentioned in the entry ({{en-adj|-|sup=most must-see}} doesn't work, though). Moreover, it sounds nonstandard/clumsy, doesn't it?
As for uses such as "a must-see movie" or "a must-see attraction", I don't consider them as adjectival as much as attributive, and I don't see that they warrant an adjective section. (However, if there weren't the nominal and superlative uses, by my token we shouldn't have an entry, which would be suboptimal.) Canonicalization (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
There are also a few Google Books hits for “more must-see than” (“the 2000 conventions will be more Must-See than ever”) and “as must-see as” (“The unique museum shops are almost as must-see as the collections”).  --Lambiam 11:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)