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


February 2018Edit


I'm not convinced this is an actual English word; it looks rather like code-switching to me. The use of italics is telling.

See also Talk:mahā.

@DerekWinters --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: To be honest it might be. I'll leave the decision up to you all. But there are quite a decent number of uses, strictly in Indian linguistics. DerekWinters (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's citable; every cite I see on Google Books is oṣṭhya, not osthya. But I'll push my standard position; if osthya is verifiable as a word, I don't care much about exactly what language it's under, but I think it highly inappropriate to delete and leave no entry. "oṣṭhya" is an easily attestable word, and thus shouldn't be deleted over an argument about a header name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I honestly think it's nothing else than Sanskrit (in transliteration, but still). It's the same deal as having Latin words in French sentences: l'ager publicus. That doesn't make ager publicus a French term.
We then have three options: 1) rely on the search engine, which will redirect us to the Devanagari-script Sanskrit entry; 2) create Sanskrit transliteration entries which are attested, or 3) always create Sanskrit transliteration entries, regardless of whether they're attested or not. I don't like 2) because of its randomness, and 3) is more or less out of the question (cf. this discussion). That leaves us 1), which is fine by me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete - all cites I could find were in italics and with dots underneath (i.e. oṣṭhya) to signify cerebral consonants which are not part of English phonology. The authors are making it clear that these are Skt words used in English sentences. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Redirect to ओष्ठ्य#Sanskrit. bd2412 T 14:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    Do not redirect. I favour deletion, but the most important thing is not to proliferate obviously bad redirections that occupy a pagetitle where an entry for a word in a language could conceivably go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    If an entry for a word in a language can go here, then it should. If we are talking about a word that exists now, then there is no reason to delay in making such an entry. Otherwise, what harm is there in redirecting to the thing for which the reader is most likely to be looking? bd2412 T 20:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    A great deal of harm. Anyone who doesn't know how redirects work will be discouraged from creating an entry. The burden of proof should be on those creating hard redirects to show that there's no possibility of a valid entry under the redirecting page's spelling. There's a reason we have a page like WT:REDIR, which, by the way, explicitly mentions this kind of redirect as unacceptable. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    For the record, WT:REDIR is a policy draft that was reactivated and rewritten in 2018. It used to say "The actual common practice is to keep some redirects while avoiding others. There is no hard and fast rule for which redirects to avoid" and maybe it should say as much again, or else we have that kind of sneaky policy making that we want to avoid. And as for "show that there's no possibility of a valid entry under the redirecting page's spelling", no such thing can possibly be shown; rather, a search for "osthya" in Google books suggests that there would be no valid entry in another language. Likelihood of non-existence given current searches of evidence should be enough; proofs of non-existence that are impossible in principle should not be required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    Then keep per Chuck Entz; we should be including common transliterations, anyway. I would go so far as to say that we should have specific headers and categories for them. bd2412 T 19:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA, Per utramque cavernam, BD2412, my inclination is to err on the side of the status quo and leave this entry as is, closing the discussion as no consensus. Is that how you all interpret the outcome? - TheDaveRoss 20:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we need more participation to make a clear determination. I interpret the statement by User:DerekWinters as ambivalent about deletion ("there are quite a decent number of uses, strictly in Indian linguistics") and the statement by User:Prosfilaes as opposed to deletion if it is attestable ("I think it highly inappropriate to delete and leave no entry... shouldn't be deleted over an argument about a header name"). I think User:Chuck Entz has taken a position opposed to redirection, but I wouldn't call this a vote to keep the entry. bd2412 T 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @TheDaveRoss: Yes, there seems to be no consensus. My two cents are that it's definitely not codeswitching, because no one codeswitches between academic English and academic Hindi... —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @AryamanA: I probably shouldn't call this "codeswitching" (I may have been throwing this term around a bit too much), but still, I think it's very wrong to say it's an English word. Are you sure you don't want any Romanization entry for Sanskrit? I think it would be the best solution here. ChignonПучок 19:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

nowhere elseEdit

anywhere elseEdit

everywhere elseEdit

somewhere elseEdit

anyplace elseEdit

anybody elseEdit

someone elseEdit

anyone elseEdit

everyone elseEdit

anything elseEdit

  • A translation hub. DonnanZ (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

SOP; no one else, nothing else and anything else have already been successfully RFD'ed (see Talk:nothing else and Talk:anything else); I don't know why the latter has been kept or recreated. Keep something else as it has an idiomatic sense (see Talk:anything else). Per utramque cavernam 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Let's ask one of your favourite questions: WHY? Most of these have translations, apart from the synonyms, and I may be able to clear some red links. DonnanZ (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as to most, but keep "something else" as an &lit companion to the idiomatic sense, and keep "somewhere else", for which I just added the missing idiomatic sense for daydreaming. See, e.g., '2013, John Bemrose, The Island Walkers: A Novel, p. 3: "Hearing the laughter of his sons, Alf grinned. But he was somewhere else, thinking of the woman moving through the dim house behind him". bd2412 T 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • somewhere else is a synonym of elsewhere anyway. But I don't think we should pick and choose like that, I would prefer to keep the lot (and any others that were possibly missed). DonnanZ (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Not going to vote explicitly, but it does seem that we ought to be able to capture the sense of else without creating all (or most) of the collocations. Equinox 13:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

September 2018Edit


Following on a similar discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/September#tiru, determining that that term is not English, I would like to nominate the entry at mahā#English for deletion, on the grounds that this is also "clearly never productive in English", and is also not English. There was considerable discussion about this term in the past, as recorded at Talk:mahā. Said discussion included a refutation of the various citations intended to support the validity of the term's English-ness listed at Citations:mahā#English_citations_of_mahā, pointing out that none of the provided citations actually supports that position.

Looking forward to a thoughtful and reasoned discussion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already perused the mahā talk page several times in the past, and I'll issue a tentative delete: just as I do not believe osthya to be an English word, I don't believe this to be an English word. But we'll see.
The problem is that (in my view) quotations such as "All are classed among the eighteen mahā or ‘great’ purāṇas." or "hence in spite of its labio-dentality, it came to be listed as an oṣṭhya sound." are useless for our purposes: they cannot be used to attest the words in English, nor can they really be used to attest the words in Sanskrit. They simply aren't quality quotes / good for anything. Per utramque cavernam 16:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the adjective. Abstain on the noun sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form. This is a word that appears in print often enough that a reader may want to learn what it actually means. There are a small but concrete number of instances of this word appearing in English running text which are presented without italics or other formatting to distinguish it as a word in a different language. We should not delete words based on catch-22 reasoning, which seems to presume that words are bad, and should be eliminated from the dictionary if we can find a technical reason to justify their removal. Rather, we should consider how we can help readers define words they may reasonably come across. bd2412 T 13:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no judgment on words being "good" or "bad", that is entirely beside the point.
I am also not pushing to "eliminate" words from Wiktionary. I am much more concerned with accurate description.
As stated before, I am fine with the existence of an entry at [[mahā]]. What I am nominating for deletion is [[mahā#English]], and as noted at [[Talk:mahā]], those (exceedingly few) instances of mahā in running text without any gloss or special formatting are also in works that treat a broad array of Buddhist- or yoga-related terminology the same way: essentially as untranslated Sanskrit sprinkled through the body of the text. If inclusion in an otherwise English sentence, without regard for context or domain, is our only criterion for "English-ness", then it follows that we must also create English entries for ... a truly vast array of terms, so many that the significance of the "English" language label would be severely diluted. That, I argue, would do our readers more of a disservice. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I would welcome your proposal of what form this entry should take, if [[mahā#English]] (which is currently the entire entry) is removed. bd2412 T 19:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
In the past, the idea was floated (perhaps even by you?) to have romanized Sanskrit entries. I still support this option, as we also currently have for Gothic, Japanese, and Chinese (and perhaps others too). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It was. I am not opposed to having this presented as something other than an English term. My concern is that different groups of editors will oppose different solutions, so that the end result is no solution, and the benefit to the reader of knowing what "mahā" means will be lost. I would prefer a process to determine how it should be included, rather than one which risks excluding an attested term from the dictionary entirely. bd2412 T 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't share the assumption that there must be an entry here if this string appears in print. Even a remit as broad as "all words in all languages" is not "all representations of all words or portions of words". There are enough works on German and its dialects that contain blocks of text transcribed in IPA or even other pronunciation systems that I could probably "cite" words like zaɪn or diː or ʃə, but I don't think we need an entry at [[zaɪn]] or [[diː]] or [[ʃə]]; the entries at [[sein]] and [[die]] and [[-sche]] cover the words as they exist in the language to which they belong. In this case, it's arguable (there is a case to be made) that there should be (soft) redirects of sorts at romanizations for Sanskrit as there are for Gothic, but I don't share what seems to be the underlying assumption. - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You say, "I don't share what seems to be the underlying assumption." Could you unpack that? What underlying assumption? (Honest question, I feel a bit confused and am seeking clarity.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
(I hope this doesn't sound curt,) Would it clarify things if I said the clause you quote, from the last sentence of my comment, is merely restating my first sentence? The assumption I'm referring to is the assumption (embedded in bd's comment about "what form this entry should take") that there should be an entry at this title because (quoting again) "this is a word that appears in print often enough". - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@-sche I feel that you have either misunderstood or misrepresented my position. I have been consistent in opposing the inclusion of neologisms and brand names even where these appear in print "often enough". In this case, the term in question not only appears in print often enough, but has for a long time, as a freestanding word (not just a particle of another word), perhaps having a meaning unique in some subtle sense to this specific presentation of the word. bd2412 T 19:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete the adjective as it stands, or (if kept at RFD) send to RFV to seek better citations, as every one currently under the adjective section is inadmissable: under the first sense the 1980 and 2014 Shiva cites clearly set it off as a foreign language term, the 2012 cite doesn't use this spelling (in addition to other problems), the 2013 cite doesn't seem to be an adjective (in addition to other concerns), the 2014 Mohr cite is clearly a mention of a foreign language term and not a use, and not even a mention of this adjective but rather of a prefix with a hyphen; the cites under the second adjective sense suffer similar problems. It is also very questionable to use even a valid use of a compound word as an argument that its elements are also independently English; as I wrote recently in the Tea Room, the ability to say "I visited Bad Kreuznach and Bad Kissingen" doesn't in and of itself make "Bad" an English word meaning "spa" (although someone may now seek out better citations which do). Use in collocations that aren't viewable as wholesale borrowings/transliterations, e.g. "a mahā leader", "the mahā teachings of the ascetics", would be more convincing evidence of the existence of "mahā" as an English word. It is concievable that the string might exist as an English word the way e.g. verboten does, but it would need to be demonstrated. Abstain for now on the noun. Some investigation should be done to determine if the noun (or adjective) is more commonly spelled maha. - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, @Μετάknowledge: regarding the noun form, we currently only have one citation given for the purported noun sense, from the work Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra. As can be seen here, if Google Books search is working correctly, the term mahā only appears five times in this whole book, in three separate sentences (formatting kept as in the original):
  • This is also the reasoning behind the subdivisions of the Nyingma School's mantra scriptures, such as the classification of mahāyoga into three parts, starting with the mahā of mahā. -- page 3
  • The Tantra of the Secret Essence is the ati of mahā, which is the same as the mahā of ati in terms of the three divisions of the great perfection. -- page 5
  • The liberating paths of the supramundane vehicles explained above can also be classified into nine vehicles: the three vehicles that guide through renunciation (the vehicles of the listeners, self-realized buddhas, and bodhisattvas), the three vehicles of Vedic austerities (krīya, ubhaya, and yoga), and the three vehicles of mastery in means (mahā, anu, and ati). -- page 23
The book's topic appears to be esoteric Tibetan Buddhism. No definitions are given anywhere for the terms mahā, ati, anu, krīya, or ubhaya. Yoga I only know as the common exercise practice of stretching and controlling one's breathing and posture; if it has any other meaning in this book, that is wholly lost on me. I would argue that these terms are untranslated Sanskrit, used on the assumption that the intended audience is sufficiently familiar with the Sanskrit terminology.
Considering the overall context of the work -- the subject matter, the intended audience, usage of other esoteric terms -- I would argue that this work is using untranslated Sanskrit as Sanskrit and not as English, and that this is thus not a useful citation to show use of an English term. And without this one citation, we have no citations at all for the noun sense, and should therefore strike that from the EN entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, I recommend you RFV the noun sense. By the way, I also support romanisation soft redirects for Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: suppose we had a policy of allowing romanisation soft redirects for Sanskrit. In that case, what would we do for an entry like this one that has a sense in another language? We can't use the template that says Wiktionary has no entry at this title, because it has one for Pali. bd2412 T 15:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: The same way we do it for any other language treated thus, e.g. kara#Japanese. I don't see the relevance, now that the vote to implement such entries has failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to such a change for the current English entry at mahā. bd2412 T 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: My mistake; the vote was in fact extended and is still ongoing, although I don't expect it to pass. See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
For the record, the vote was not extended but rather was created to run for 3 months from the start. What made me do so was the knowledge that vote extensions were accused of fishing for results in the past, and at the same time, it took people long time before to cast a vote in a Sanskrit-related vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


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)

how manyEdit

The second sense under the Pronoun L2 seems duplicative of the determiner sense claimed to be a translation hub. DCDuring (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to remove it completely or can it be turned into a translation hub? I think the translations are the same. 05:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018Edit


"strangely corny or sweet to an extent". The Usex looks to me like just another example of the previous definition (uncool). Isn't this just putting a positive spin on the same meaning? Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Made-up usexes do not serve to attest senses anyway. To include the corny sense we need examples of actual use in that sense.  --Lambiam 10:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete, or RFV if necessary. Per utramque cavernam 10:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I recall noticing this myself and wondering about the distinctness of it. It does seem like, in the second usex, the carrots aren't exactly "uncool" in a way that makes it "disliked", but if our chief RFV-tender/parser-of-cites thinks it's the same sense, I'm inclined to go along with that assessment. There does seem to be a continuum, like "before he was deployed overseas I never realized how much I liked seeing his lame ___ every morning", where the person did dislike the thing but now views it positively (like the corny carrots), which also suggests that a merger is in order, although we might need to expand/tweak the "failing to be cool" definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a separate sense. bd2412 T 03:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

November 2018Edit


Specific game console brand, not a hugely well-known one. Since the "SP" part is just "SP" and doesn't really stand for anything, the space means that the GBA entry is probably enough to steer people in the right direction anyway. Equinox 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, not really dictionary material. Per utramque cavernam 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep by the fcuk criteria. DTLHS (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Redirect to GBA or delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to GBA. bd2412 T 15:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


sense: someone who is expert in the theory of a particular science or art

Isn't this a verbose obfuscation of the other definition: "a theorist"? Most other dictionaries seem to think so. DCDuring (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Per our definitions, one could be expert in the theory (theoretician) without ever having constructed a theory of one's own (theorist). Equinox 18:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I think "expert" is a bad way to express it, but a theoretician is someone who examines or studies the theory and theoretical assumptions relating to a certain academic study, field of inquiry, etc.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

go out to eatEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just like "go out for lunch and a game of miniature golf". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow what? NO! Delete twice. Equinox 20:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be some meaning here that isn't covered by the meanings of the four individual words. Having a picnic, or a snack in your backyard, isn't going out to eat. Maybe this is a missing sense of go out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. "Go out" may imply socialising but only because that's a common reason for leaving one's house. Equinox 01:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not missing. It's the second sense at go out: "To leave one's abode to go to public places". It's not strictly one's abode, though: it can be your workplace, or some event you're attending- basically wherever you're currently based. One might ask a coworker "Are you going out for lunch?" They might respond: "no, I'll just order in". A more informal version would be "step out", as in "I think I'll step out for a bit to get something to eat." As you can see, there are zillions of permutations, and things like "while you're out, could you get something for me, too?" Now that I think about it, even this sense of go out might be SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
But it doesn't just mean eating in a public place. Like I said above, having a picnic (even in a public park) is not going out to eat. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect to go out, and keep the definition of "go out" that means to leave one's house. Purplebackpack89 02:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Make into alternative form of eat out. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Support this option, otherwise delete. - TheDaveRoss 22:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's an "alternative form" in the sense we usually use that word here, though. It's a synonym, but a SOP one. Per utramque cavernam 13:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, totally SoP. You can go out to buy food, you can go out to fish, you can go out to collect firewood, and then you can go home to eat whatever you bought or caught. Or go out to eat if you can’t cook.  --Lambiam 11:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FYI, I changed "To leave one's abode to go to public places" to "To leave one's abode to go to public places, especially for recreation or entertainment." Mihia (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: no one has satisfactorily addressed the point made by Granger that going out of one's abode to a public park to make a picnic is not go out to eat, or is it?; go out: "to leave one's abode to go to public places, especially for recreation or entertainment". Put differently, what makes go out to eat select a public restaurant to the exclusion of a picnic in a park? How should a non-native speaker, by perusing go out and eat, know that it excludes certain things? Or does it really exclude a picnic? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    Despite my point about picnics vs. restaurants, I'm not sure go out to eat means more than the sum of its parts, because one can say things like "go out for lunch" or "go out for dinner", which equally imply going to a restaurant. I think an additional sense at go out could cover this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, but add a sense to go out indicating leaving one's abode to eat at a restaurant. bd2412 T 04:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You sure? Why is that a separate sense of go out, when it can also refer to nightclub, theatre, pub, bowling, etc.? Equinox 08:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel that if I say, "I'm bored, let's go out", that implies a range of activities including possibly eating, going to a movie or a show, going to a nightclub, etc.; but if I say "I'm hungry, let's go out", or "there's nothing to eat in the fridge, let's go out", that specifically means go to a restaurant to eat, the opposite of eat in. bd2412 T 20:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

sift throughEdit

Isn't it pretty transparent and also covered at sift? --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes. Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. No reference is made to "sift through" at sift, the most likely place is sense 3. When sifting something like flour, which my mother used to do, "through" isn't normally used, even though the flour goes through a sieve. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, sense 3 ("to examine carefully"). Sift through is simply "to go through while examining carefully". I think it would be adequate to give a usage example. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This entry could be incorporated there as a subsense rather than lose it completely. DonnanZ (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Certainly the meanings are close, though I think the def "examine carefully" is wanting. In any case, I think we need to treat sift through in somewhere, somehow, since this is the most common collocation/usage now, whereas sift with a direct object (to "sift the evidence" for example) is much less common. I originally added this entry as I wanted to be able to use it in the def for "sieve through" which is the Singapore English variant of "sift through" (e'en though I haven't gotten around to adding that yet). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete/hard redirect as it is not special enough not to be SOP. One can form such things with through many verbs and one expression being more common does not make it non-SOP. It is just the verb having two different ways of government. Fay Freak (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Note also that sieben durch, durch etwas sieben in German would be SOP, unlike durchsieben (in both stresses). This here is the very same. It’s just been created because of helplessness about adding the government with through at sift in a fair fashion.
So I added the government in this sift revision. Wiktionary can peruse much more addenda regarding the regimina of verbs – especially if formatted smartly, which currently is not so easy. I like the templates {{+preo}} and {{+obj}} quite and one could make the dictionary much more usable and competitive if one were to combine multiple governments at once (on which further discussion should take place at Module talk:object usage, @Rua, Erutuon) Fay Freak (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Fay Freak for alerting me to those templates which I did not know existed. I have preliminarily re-edited the entry to split the two defs since one is trans (and archaic) and the other intrans (and current), and have used the +preo template. I didn't think it was necessary to keep {{+obj}} for the orig. def since the "(something)" in the def makes it clear enough. That said, with the +preo template, the object is actually an indirect object (i.e. it is not sifting something(obj) through a sieve, just sifting through something), but I suppose the entry is clear enough now. Finally, also, the phrase "sift through" needs a hard redirect (sorry, dunno how to do that). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sonofcawdrey But that’s not what “transitive” means. ”Transitivity” can be mediated through prepositions. It is purely semantical. On Wiktionary transitive is glossed as “takes an object”, and what have you written? “(intransitive) [+ through (object)]” – a paradox. It is not an indirect object either but a prepositional object. Fay Freak (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Fay Freak Yeah, you're right, I was only thinking that as I walked to work this morning. Still, the def "examine carefully" is substitutable for the orig. "sift" examples, but not for "sift through" (you can't "examine carefully through something"); so I have re-edited again. Other dicts make a point of mentioning the "through" construction as well. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP, not a phrasal verb. Per utramque cavernam 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: In Macmillan and in three idiom dictionaries[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


Not an initialism. --Pious Eterino (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It is actually an initialism of “Certified Tester Advanced Level”. I’m not sure though it meets our CFI, but that is a question for RfV.  --Lambiam 13:07, 1 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[2]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2018 (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 ([3]), 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[4]. 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)

lose one's virginityEdit

SOP. The previous discussion doesn't seem conclusive to me:

  • Widsith says "Keep, this is the idiomatic way to express the idea in English, no one talks about discarding or breaking one's virginity": but none of the languages found in the translation table speaks of "discarding" or "breaking" the virginity either; all use the same idea of "losing" it. Hence it's not specific to English.
  • He adds "anyway, ‘lose’ otherwise implies carelessness, whereas losing one's virginity is normally a deliberate thing": I don't think people go about with the intent of losing their virginity; they go about with the intent of making love/fucking for the first time, and a byproduct of that is that they lose their virginity (but losing it wasn't the aim in itself).[1]

Possible idiomatic translations would be Chinese 失身 and Spanish debutar. Per utramque cavernam 15:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ok, I guess that's not always true
  • MW has it (ergo Lemming), and also this feels like a set enough phrase that I would favor keeping it regardless. Re intentionality, I think it goes both ways (e.g. movie trope summer camp pact to lose virginity). - TheDaveRoss 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP, obvious choice of words, I can’t follow the idiomaticity claim. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    It is non-obvious that the concept is expressed in specifically this way. While you can say that someone lost their sanity, it is far more common to say that they became insane. So why don’t we say equally commonly that someone became deflowered?  --Lambiam 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe that's because "insane" is a common word and "deflowered" isn't. There may also be a problem with "become" + past participle—other examples of that structure sound strange to me ("*became eaten", "*became erased"). I think "lose one's virginity" is clearly SOP, but it's the kind of common collocation that English learners need to know and that we haven't found a good way to cover here at en.wikt. The phrase should be an example sentence at virginity, I'd say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    I've added it to virginity. Per utramque cavernam 13:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: 1) WT:LEMMING via M-W; 2) WT:THUB via Chinese 失身 and Spanish debutar thanks to nom; now THUB does not really allow Chinese, but that's a defect in THUB. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep per Dan Polansky. bd2412 T 21:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Classic case of a set phrase or common collocation that is nevertheless SOP and easy to understand from the parts. These seem to come up fairly frequently. I believe that some kind of "set phrase / common collocation" category has been discussed in the past? Perhaps this should be revisited. Mihia (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2019 (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)

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: [5]; [6]; [7]; [8].  --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)


I can also find yllw, yel, yelow and yell as abbreviations, my vote is that all of them are ad hoc. - TheDaveRoss 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, not lexicalized. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Move to RFV and keep if attested, IMO. This is a bit of a grey area; we almost certainly don't want every name that starts with M and has been reduced to an initial to be listed at "M.", and having {{abbreviation of|yellow}} at "y." is at least a little murky (probably a large number of non-name words that start with any given letter can be abbreviated to their first letter)...but this seems like the sort of abbreviation we've tended to include. - -sche (discuss) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I think there is no question that this can be fairly readily attested. I think the question is more a matter of policy -- whether we want to include these somewhat ad-hoc-seeming abbreviations, and where to draw the line. The extent of such abbreviations in attestable use is pretty enormous, I think. In this case I vote weak keep. Mihia (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Send to RFV. If I were a non-native speaker of English, chances are I'd want to be able to look this sort of thing up. There are a finite number of abbreviations out there, and no reason why we can't include them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:02, 18 January 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)

end inEdit

end withEdit

Delete or redirect: SOP, the usage should be documented at end, not in separate entries. Per utramque cavernam 13:50, 11 January 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)


This feels like a list of key names rather than a "noun". The article at Arrow keys lists, among others, ESDF, DCAS, QAOP, ESDX, WAXD, QEZC. Equinox 10:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's fairly commonly used attributively, modifying nouns like key(s), movement, method, keyboard+mouse combination, user(s), layout etc. It is pronounced "wazz-dee". I am not sure whether the other keyboard groups used similarly have gotten enough recent (post-BBS) traction. Keep, I think. DCDuring (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

give someone a big headEdit

SOP, per Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/January § give someone a big head: give + someone + a + big head (inflated ego) (though we're currently missing that sense). We can also say "have a big head", etc. Per utramque cavernam 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. When I first saw this, I thought it was about giving someone head.Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I've added what I think is the definition missing at big head, which is IMO only rarely an alternative form of bighead. They are also pronounced differently, bighead being heavily stressed on big, big head having roughly equal stress on its parts. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, delete. DCDuring (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Does not have any idiomatic or dictionary-worthy content beyond what can be explained at "big head". BTW, I agree with DCDuring that "big head" is not a well-known (possibly not even a correct) variant of "bighead". Mihia (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't expect that I can convince you all to change your minds, but all I can say is that this entry was useful and helpful for me. I am not a native speaker of English - perhaps you all are and that's why you don't see how having such an entry can be helpful. I did encounter the expression in a newspaper a few minutes ago, I searched for 'give somebody a big head' (and yes, it was spelt just like that) and I found out the meaning thanks to this entry, which is also how I saw the deletion proposal. I'm not at all sure that I would have thought of searching for 'big head' alone, if I hadn't found this article. If you don't Keep the entry, I believe that at least a Redirect should be preserved.-- 00:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Then I guess you were lucky this time, but the problem is that "give someone a big head" literally just does just mean "give" + "someone" + "a" + "big head". It is completely impractical for a dictionary to include such phrases that are straightforwardly the sum of their individual components with no additional idiomaticity. Mihia (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I can see where non-native speakers might find the meaning a bit opaque, because the use of give here is very unusual. It's not literally handing someone a large head. Give is used to mean "cause to have", a sense we don't really feature at give, though senses 1.8 and 9 are the closest. Leasnam (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
That is a reasonable point, and not one that I had considered. However, this "give" is not at all confined to use with "big head", but is reused across all manner of phrases. If it isn't adequately covered at "give" then I guess it should be. I do understand that finding the right sense of "give" is an additional obstacle for non-native speakers, but what can we do? Include "give someone a headache", "give someone an inflated ego", "give someone a false sense of security", "give someone an inferiority complex" and a hundred other such phrases? Mihia (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Give someone an inferiority complex is a perfect analogy, as are the others. Well, I always like to root for the underdog, but given this I have nothing more to say, unfortunate for this entry :( Leasnam (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added that sense to give. It is the new sense #10. Delete as SoP. Leasnam (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated this, but I guess a redirection won't hurt. Per utramque cavernam 12:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

zoo breakEdit

SOP. See also Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English § zoo break, soon to be archived at Talk:zoo break. Per utramque cavernam 20:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not very obvious from parts. I had to click on the link to understand what was being referred to. Mihia (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, before clicking on the link what other concept did you think the term might represent? - TheDaveRoss 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say that "zoo break" is harder to understand from the parts than "prison break" (but I wouldn't object if someone also wanted to create "prison break"). Mihia (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
There is an entry for jail break after all. DonnanZ (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It's protected by coalmine. This one is not. Per utramque cavernam 19:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The animals (and birds) are the inmates, if not true "criminals". DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete, sense 1 of zoo and noun sense 10 of break. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are no less than 17 senses of the noun break, and this one appears to be a shortening of breakout. It certainly doesn't have the same meaning as daybreak, century break, tea break, weekend break, etc. DonnanZ (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    I have to imagine that there are orders of magnitude fewer two-word terms which comprise two words which each have only one meaning than those in which one or both terms have multiple senses. There may not be any such terms at all, if nuance is allowed. - TheDaveRoss 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mihia. Jberkel 18:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be etymologically modelled on jailbreak.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

two hundredEdit

Can be regarded as 'multiple of parts'. Over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

eight hundredEdit

Multiple of parts, over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

nine hundredEdit

multiple of parts, over 100... unless this is about two and a half turns... John Cross (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

eleven hundredEdit

Multiple of parts. John Cross (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

three hundredEdit

Multiple of parts. Could conceivably be kept as translation target. John Cross (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these would be worthy translation targets, but on their own merit the should probably be deleted per the rule SG linked. - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep two hundred, three hundred, ..., nine hundred. Some of them will be per WT:THUB. Now, the items to apply for WT:THUB need to be looked for, but I believe can be found. For instance, pl:dwieście is not obvious from pl:sto, and cs:dvě stě is not obvious from cs:sto; it is not obvious why it is not "dvě sta". Or taking pl:dziewięćset, the inflection in pl:sto does not provide anything for me to guess pl:dziewięćset. If WT:THUB would not apply, I would support keeping these multiples of "hundred" as an exception to the passed rule; this is a small set of round numerals and I think the reader is better off our having these entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep two hundred per Semitic (where a dual of "hundred" is typically used) and certain Slavic languages, per Dan. eleven hundred might also be kept as a translation target. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
All of these are subject to the results of this vote which means they should be deleted. - TheDaveRoss 00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

fish for complimentsEdit

SOP. 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The definition may need refining. My understanding has always been that "fishing for compliments" involved making overly humble or self-effacing comments in the hope that another person will counter them with praise. bd2412 T 21:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I would comment that (AFAIK) you can't be said to "fish for flattery" or "fish for love" etc. even though you could equally well use emotional manipulation to get those things. Equinox 22:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
There are a number of Google Book Search hits for "fishing for flattery", and one or two for "fishing for love", along with hits for fishing for information, details, clues, an admission, the right answer, confirmation, news, gossip, and so on and so forth. I don't see anything much special about "compliments". Mihia (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I should add, apropos of a comment that I made above in relation to "lose one's virginity", that there is nothing special except that it is a common collocation. AFAIAA from previous discussions, there is presently no rule for including common collocations that are straightforward SOP, but perhaps that is open to discussion. Mihia (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Easy enough SOP. Mihia (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The strange thing (in my eyes) is that there is also the verb angle with a sense of “attempt to subtly persuade someone to offer a desired thing”. One can be angling for a promotion, or a spot on a committee, or a contract. But when the desired thing is getting a compliment, the idiomatically preferred verb switches to fish.  --Lambiam 14:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete, one can fish for information, fish for trouble, etc. - TheDaveRoss 14:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It is far-fetched to look this phrase up, there is nothing special about the sum. Fay Freak (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm twenty years oldEdit

So this passed RFD in 2012. The logic to keep was basically:

  • the reader could not put together the phrase by just the translations at old (#5)
  • "Twenty is a round number, so "I'm twenty years old" seems to be a fit example entry to represent all the other phrases with different number word."

But I'm ... year(s) old shows the reader how to put together this phrase, and it's better at showing how to build the phrase with different numbers. If I were trying to say "I'm 19 years old" in Hungarian, the translation at I'm twenty years old (húszéves vagyok) is useless. I don't know which part means "twenty", so I can't apply it. But with the translation at I'm ... year(s) old (...éves vagyok), I can just plug in the Hungarian word for 19 in the ... — Julia 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep again: I find it better to have a representative phrase for the phrasebook than have an abstract parametrized phrase I'm ... year(s) old. The Hungarian translation would be more useful if húszéves vagyok had an entry rather than being a redlink; in that entry, each separate word would be glossed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hm. I would imagine there must be some languages where you can't just plug in a missing word (due to inflection, or adjacent words merging together, etc.?). I also have unpleasant memories of those old snowclone-type entries where we would put "X" as a placeholder in the entry title. But the twenty does seem a bit silly and arbitrary. Equinox 18:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Admittedly, twenty is arbitrary. It is round, to say the least. I'm eighteen years old was deleted; 18 would be a legally significant age in some countries, I guess, so it would be less arbitrary. One such entry is enough, I think, but I would not object to I'm eighteen years old being restored instead of the 20 entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep per Dan, but okay with moving it to a less arbitrary age. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
There is also a variant form at I am twenty years old, and if the final decision is to delete the page, then the variant needs to go, too. Inner Focus (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete, this is just as unlikely to be what a user looks up as the ... variant, and requires just as much work to re-work into the correct phrase. - TheDaveRoss 12:19, 15 April 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 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)

February 2019Edit

acute-angled triangleEdit

obtuse-angled triangleEdit

right-angled triangleEdit

  • Keep - others have this. Also, not all angles have to be right angles - only one. Plus: if we include the term we can include an illustration which would be helpful. [As an aside, you can draw a triangle with three right angles on the surface of a sphere.] John Cross (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
We can include an illustration at right-angled, that's not an argument. Per utramque cavernam 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
By the way, if we go by the current results of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI, that vote is not likely to pass. So the lemming argument isn't CFI-based either. Per utramque cavernam 18:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

right triangleEdit

FYI, the relevant sense at right seemed to be absent, so I have had a go at adding it. Mihia (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

acute triangleEdit

obtuse triangleEdit (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms)

equilateral triangleEdit

  • Keep - recognised term. John Cross (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

isosceles triangleEdit

Cambridge Dictionary:

scalene triangleEdit

  • Keep 'scalene triangle' - John Cross (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I admit they're vaguely useful, but all of these are SOP. Delete the numerous SOP translations (such as French triangle rectangle) as well. Per utramque cavernam 18:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say you have ordered them roughly in order from most delete-able to least, I am totally on board with deleting the first three, after that I am on the fence. - TheDaveRoss 18:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
An acute triangle is one with three acute angles whereas an obtuse triangle is a triangle with one obtuse angle. On that basis these are not entirely sum of parts. John Cross (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the ones containing "-angled"; keep the rest. bd2412 T 15:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What BD said. Purplebackpack89 06:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all above but make angled terms to be synonyms of main words. There are many names across the world referring to these objects that different from direct-translation. (This also applies to 4-side polygons and more.)--Octahedron80 (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Octahedron80: If we keep right triangle, acute triangle and obtuse triangle, then there's no need to keep the -angled entries too. Per utramque cavernam 17:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • No problem. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. Are mathematics students too obtuse to be able to look up the adjective and determine how it applies to their respective polygon? Maybe I better end here before I become to acute. -Mike (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to keep them all, although less so for the "-angled triangle" items. Some of the reasoning is per talk:free variable; the entries are at the most expected search headwords, I figure. For right-angled triangle, the entry confirms to me this is actually used, and it is, and can be listed as a synonym in right triangle, and we can link to Google Ngram Viewer to see how common that is, and the user can select the British English there to see how common that is. Some of the items are also supported by WT:LEMMING, a principle with no consensual support. I would be happy to have the entries labeled "sum of parts" so that the SOP-averse readers can see that we are aware of the possible SOPitude. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


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)

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[9], 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[10], 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[11]:
    but when near Cape Palmas the wind will perhaps be more astern
  • 1966, Peter Padfield, The Titanic and the Californian[12], 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[13], 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[14], 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[15], 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. [16][17][18][19] 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.’,[20] 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 ...”,[21] and “I did not reflect the CC-BY-SA terms on my board for clarity ...”[22]?  --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: [23], [24]. 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)

meaning of lifeEdit

Sounds pretty SOP... Per utramque cavernam 08:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete for the nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is the value, purpose, importance, point or significance of life? Or, for short, ...  --Lambiam 15:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am not entirely convinced it is SOP. Moreover, a word-for-word translation does not work well for Czech; it would be význam života but the usual term is smysl života. Starting from Czech smysl života, I would expect sense of life to be the English term, but meaning of life seems more common: sense of life, meaning of life at Google Ngram Viewer, and the search includes such occurrences as "make sense of life", which do not really count. An argument similar to Czech can probably be made for other Slavic languages. Therefore, the entry contains useful translation information, and makes English Wiktionary better, more useful as a multilingual translation dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Probably SoP but useful as a translation hub. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep, like human condition this one carries more meaning than the sum of parts. - TheDaveRoss 02:53, 29 March 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”: [25], [26], [27]. 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, New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 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

human conditionEdit

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep, I think it is more than the sum of its parts. Similar to human nature (which many others have). There is a little bit of lemming here too (M-W, their definition is pretty bad). - TheDaveRoss 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Means much more than just human + condition, as reflected in the current definition. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete The definition is not substitutable and looks like a verbose attempt to obscure the SoPitude of the NP: "condition of being human". Compare, for example, urban condition, mammalian condition, authorial condition. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The definition is verbose because it's hard to define. That doesn't mean we should delete it. By that logic, we should delete postmodernism. Those terms you listed are not relevant - they are no where near as commonly used and understood as "human condition" is. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the definition is a verbose way of explaining exactly what the term literally means. I am not sure that this means the entry should be deleted though. Although I am probably not always entirely consistent in my approach, I increasingly feel that the inclusion criteria should be adapted so that these kinds of clear set phrases that "have their own identity" can be included even if they are explicable as the sum of their parts. Mihia (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep - as per Mihia. But needs better definition. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Have re-written definition.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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)


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”[28][29][30]; 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. Per utramque cavernam 09:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
And also Dutch paardenmiddel. These terms are much older than horse steroid.[31][32] 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)
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)


The Latin form of a Russian name. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What specifically is the argument for deletion? We have an entry for Μόσχα, the Greek form of a Russian name. We also have La Haye, the French form of a Dutch name. And so on.  --Lambiam 15:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Μόσχα is a Greek entry. La Haye is a French entry. This is not a Latin entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It isn't a translation - it is a transliteration using Latin letters. I didn't think we included those. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The transliteration of the Russian name Москва is “Moskva”. I think that the editor has used the wrong L2 and that the entry means to say that the name in the Latin language for Moscow is Moscha. It is indeed one of the forms used, next to Moscua.[33][34][35](pdf) The name is also used in Latin for the Moskva River after which Moscow was named (flumen Moscha or Moscha fluvius). It was very likely borrowed from Greek.  --Lambiam 13:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep, but fix if necessary. I added the inflections for the Latin word Moschus to this page. But I will leave the fixing of the other stuff to someone more knowledgeable. -Mike (talk) 19:44, 18 March 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)

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)

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)

isopiestic lineEdit

isopiestic = isobaric, thus an isopiestic line is an isobar, fairly obviously. We don't have an entry for isobaric line, although that does appear to be a legitimate synonym for isobar. Equinox 19:55, 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: [36], [37], [38]. 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)
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)

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” ([39], [40], [41]), “burst out guffawing” ([42], [43], [44]), “burst out shrieking” ([45], [46], [47]), 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: [48] 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)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 10:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Why do we even have to go through this? Quoting from WT:DELETE: “Any of the following may be the basis for a speedy (i.e. immediate) deletion request: ... 2. Title misspelled: Move the article to the correct title. If there is already an article at the correct title merge any useful material on there.” See also Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos.  --Lambiam 12:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there an admin who is willing to delete those summarily? @TheDaveRoss? ChignonПучок 13:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Some of these, at least, were created by @SemperBlotto so I am going to assume they were created intentionally. His attitude about misspellings is more permissive than mine, so I don't want to delete them out-of-hand without his having a chance to weigh in. I think the WT:DELETE page is at odds with current practice, as well as WT:CFI, with regards to how to handle misspellings, I am not sure that we have an agreed upon treatment. - TheDaveRoss 16:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
What sets us apart from other dictionaries is "all words in all languages". If we are going to treat some types of word differently from others, then we should say so somewhere. I'll leave it to the community to decide. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The trouble is drawing a line between where words end and where other things begin. Sometimes I mistype my name as "Dvae" when I am signing an email. I don't think that we ought to include "Dvae" even if I do it often, and other do as well. I don't think including "Dvae" adds any value to the dictionary, I don't think anyone thinks that my name is "Dvae" nor, when they receive my emails, do they think that I think my name is "Dvae". It is a typographic error, not a word. Frequency of error does not factor into whether or not something is an error. In cases such as this intent is a factor, I don't mean to type "Dvae", I am just not very good at typing.
There is another class of misspellings in which a large number of people think that a word is spelled one way, when historically it has been spelled another. Whoa vs. woah is a great example of this. The people who write woah are writing the word as they intend to. Sometimes, eventually, these forms become accepted, sometimes they overtake their predecessor, sometimes they become the exclusively accepted form. This is the type of "misspelling" which we ought to include.
How to figure out which are which is a really hard task. - TheDaveRoss 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
In some cases yes, but the ones I've listed here are no-brainers. Some of them don't even seem to meet the attestation criterion. ChignonПучок 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
What is a word? It's any string of characters that SemperBlotto says is a word. You can see why people find this line of argumentation less than compelling. DTLHS (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete, because it truly is rare. A Google search yielded only 36 results, and a HathiTrust full-text search yielded only 2 results. -Mike (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: pharmacophagy, pharmocophagy at Google Ngram Viewer finds not enough hits for GNV to show us the frequency ratio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 10:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete.  --Lambiam 12:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: pseudovirus, pesudovirus at Google Ngram Viewer finds not enough hits for GNV to show us the frequency ratio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 10:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete.  --Lambiam 12:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: sinomenine, snomenine at Google Ngram Viewer finds not enough hits for GNV to show us the frequency ratio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 10:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete.  --Lambiam 12:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: bispectral, bisprectal at Google Ngram Viewer finds not enough hits for GNV to show us the frequency ratio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 13:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete.  --Lambiam 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 13:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete.  --Lambiam 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 13:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete.  --Lambiam 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: cefoperazone, cefeperazone at Google Ngram Viewer finds not enough hits for GNV to show us the frequency ratio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 13:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete.  --Lambiam 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: capsazepine, capasazepine at Google Ngram Viewer finds not enough hits for GNV to show us the frequency ratio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling/typo. ChignonПучок 13:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete.  --Lambiam 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: cinematography, cinametography at Google Ngram Viewer finds not enough hits for GNV to show us the frequency ratio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

soil mechanics and engineeringEdit

soil mechanics and (soil) engineering.

I'm not sure that soil mechanics is not SoP, but this term certainly seems to be. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SoP.  --Lambiam 20:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. ChignonПучок 13:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


As an actual misspelling of "the". @Dan Polansky points out that it is rare enough to be excluded under current policy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the sense "Misspelling of the" can be deleted given the frequency ratio: the, (teh * 1000000) at Google Ngram Viewer; I think that frequency ratios rather than absolute frequencies are the proper measure of how common a misspelling is. However, the sense "Deliberate misspelling of the for humorous, sarcastic or facetious effect" should probably be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete the misspelling sense; keep the "deliberate misspelling for effect" sense. In my opinion we should not have entries for accidental typos. Mihia (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mihia: I don't want to canvass, but please vote at Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos. ChignonПучок 10:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
ORLY the usage note?? Teh is sometimes used in deliberately grammatically incorrect ways compared to the word the. For example, teh can be applied to adjectives; "He is teh stupid" is an acceptable sentence, whereas ordinarily "He is the stupid" is not. --I learned some phrases (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Can confirm. People used to talk this way for fun in IRC and chat rooms. Equinox 21:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I question the usage note. Is "he is the stupid" really unacceptable any place that "he is teh stupid" isn't? "He is the stupid" strikes me as incorrect, but incorrect in a way an English speaker would use and be understood, on that marginal edge of the language where weird slang and odd poets hang out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
But the "teh" thing was really a specific habit on Internet chat. "He is the stupid" never was, in my experience, and would have made "stupid" sound like a noun. Equinox 23:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As the original use was likely due to misspelling (confer for example, pwn) it should at least be mentioned as a root. Plus, it's not infrequent in dictionaries that give the words in chronological order (see OED) to see that this first definition is either archaic or obsolete. So, I'd keep it, but I'm not arguing for a strong keep Jim62sch (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If I understand your point correctly, I think that the present wording Deliberate misspelling of the ... satisfies your concerns. Mihia (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling. ChignonПучок 10:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete.  --Lambiam 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare typo/misspelling. ChignonПучок 10:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete.  --Lambiam 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling. ChignonПучок 10:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete.  --Lambiam 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare typo/misspelling. ChignonПучок 10:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but if we ever need a term for conflict with ducks, this would seem to fit the bill... Chuck Entz (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Mh, I don't like bastard compounds :p. Off to creating Greek νήσσα (níssa) / Ancient Greek νῆσσα (nêssa)! ChignonПучок 11:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ducks ... fit the bill ... I geddit. Heh-heh, that's very good! Mihia (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't even thought of that, good catch! ChignonПучок 20:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete.  --Lambiam 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare typo/misspelling. ChignonПучок 10:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete.  --Lambiam 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare misspelling. ChignonПучок 10:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete.  --Lambiam 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

at steakEdit

Rare (and hilarious) misspelling. ChignonПучок 10:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 12:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe someone was trying to update the obsolete expression "at meat"... ;p Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll have mine "rare" and nonstandard, please. Delete. Equinox 14:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
When it's deleted, I'll say tartare for now. --I learned some phrases (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, well done. Mihia (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Still time to squeeze a few more beefy puns in here before it gets archived. Since I was baby in a crib I have known that this kind of entry doesn't meat our standards. If you're a supporter, how's that justifiable?! Creators of such entries should try to produce something better. Equinox 20:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


SOP, nothing + -'s. Ultimateria (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Mihia (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. ChignonПучок 09:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we have any policy/guideline on this? Should we draft one? We forbid almost all possessive apostrophe forms, but when it comes to contractions we have a bunch, especially with pronouns (he's, she's, you'd've, etc). I raised this in the BP is December. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a point. We also have e.g. something's and someone's but not e.g. no one's or everyone's. I'm not sure if there is any logic to this, or if it is just a random result of what people have added. Mihia (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it is indeed just a random result of what different people assumed was includable, partly due to the lack of a guideline covering such cases. Part of the problem is the idea that if – due to some quirk of orthography – there is no space in between, it’s all one word, so it cannot be a sum of parts. According to that logic, German zweitausenddreihundertfünfundvierzig (2345) is one word, so with three attestations it becomes includable, as are thousands of other German numerals.  --Lambiam 07:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, we kept Talk:neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig, though I wonder if some of these are now covered by numeral-specific rules. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we can keep it. It reminds me of fair's fair. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I would tentatively say delete this and others that are just a noun + 's (and probably most other parts of speech + 's, including e.g. [[poor's]] as in "the rich man's relaxing, the poor's toiling away"). I would keep most or all contractions that start with pronouns. Obviously idioms like "fair's fair" would stay; compare how even our voted-on exclusion of possessives doesn't stop "butcher's" from existing because it has an idiomatic sense in rhyming slang. I think we should formulate a policy/guideline about this; I will try to put something together in the BP later. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


This looks a lot like something that looks like a suffix but is not one. --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the reference, this one is genuine. DonnanZ (talk) 23:03, 19 April 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 ([49][50]) 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: [51][52][53][54][55][56][57].  --Lambiam 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

breakfast meetingEdit

NISOP; meeting during breakfast, or meeting at which breakfast is served. Cf. lunch meeting and dinner meeting. - TheDaveRoss 13:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete.  --Lambiam 15:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. ChignonПучок 15:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Kiwima (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


The noun is Brobdingnagian, no need for the alt-letter case variant. - TheDaveRoss 13:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Better than deletion is to move the entry to Brobdingnagian, and turn brobdingnagian into an {{alternative case form of}}. Some people spell it with a minuscule: [58], [59], [60], [61].  --Lambiam 15:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't realized the uppercase version was a redirect, I am just going to move it. Also, all of your links are to adjectives. - TheDaveRoss 15:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Rare typo/misspelling. ChignonПучок 13:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


(Added by Lambiam 15:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC).)

Delete both.  --Lambiam 15:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


"Adjective" the usage for which looks more like attributive use of the noun. DCDuring (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC). OED lists it as an adjective - see From <> "...B. adj.  Of, made of, or of the nature of majolica (senses A. 2, ...Majolica dishes were every day more in request..." and many more Davidmadelena (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete. In the supposed examples of the term as an adjective, you can simply substitute the noun porcelain. Applying the converse lemming test: no major dictionary lists this as other than a noun.  --Lambiam 19:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Adjective section removed. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you say guys, I am happy to deny OED claim to be the definitive record of the English language. Any comment on the link <>. It starts "Majolica n. and adj." Davidmadelena (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Lambiam, porcelain is an entirely different material. We could substitute the noun earthenware. Or find a good adjectival use. Is majolica an adjective in the phrase "Majolica earthenware dishes"? Davidmadelena (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A test for determining whether a word is an adjective, is to check whether it can be modified by an adverb such as very or typically. One can say “a very glossy vase” or “this earthenware is typically Italian”, showing that glossy and Italian are adjectives here – although in other contexts they function as nouns. I don’t think one can say *“a very majolica vase” or *“this earthenware is typically majolica”.  --Lambiam 20:28, 4 May 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)

per vaginaEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B110:F974:ED06:A5F9:540:ECF6 18:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The etymology section of per vaginam (with an m) explains per vagina as English per + English vagina. Another explanation is that the medical-Latin collocations per os and per rectum are parsed as Latin per + Latin os or rectum, in which the classically unschooled parser does not realize that the words for the orifices are in the accusative case, here indistinguishable from the nominative form in which they are lemmatized in dictionaries. So another explanation is that the collocation per vagina is an ungrammatical misconstruct in medical Latin formed by Latin per + Latin vagina. The same theory explains per nasus as seen here. There is also the fact that many studies compare administration “per os” and “per vagina”, as seen e.g. here. It seems unlikely that the authors thought that the specification of the first administration was (medical) Latin and the second plain English. (BTW, per os is presented as translingual while the others are English only.)  --Lambiam 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
That suggests this could be kept as a {{misconstruction of|per vaginam}}. (What language to label all these "per"s is another matter...) - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit

spelling mistakeEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B128:3B25:34C3:9C2C:E5D0:7D4B 10:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think synonyms can be useful for non-native speakers, something some users tend to overlook. DonnanZ (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. @Donnanz, we're here to judge this word, not its synonyms. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That seems to be an inherent problem. DonnanZ (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

one eighthEdit

This is just a combination of one and eighth, and the meaning should be clear. "Eighth" is a noun, and "one" is an adjective quantifying it. This makes the whole thing a noun phrase. The phrase is not a numeral in the sense of a part-of-speech that acts as a quantifying determiner, like the cardinal numbers. For example, we say "two apples" but "one eighth apples" sounds incorrect compared to "one eighth of an apple" where it's a noun phrase modified by a prepositional phrase. Presumably this means that one-eighth is simply a combination of an adjective and a noun that are hyphenated according to normal hyphenation rules. For example "one eighth of an apple" but "a blue one-eighth length pipe". Related entries might also want to be deleted if this one is:

... but for some reason not two sevenths or one eleventh.

The general rules for making fractions could/should be have been added to Appendix:English numerals (which covers numbers, not just part-of-speech numerals). -- Beland (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. There are many more attestable spelled-out fractions, like “five twelfths”, but its meaning is a SoP, literally: 1/12+1/12+1/12+1/12+1/12  --Lambiam 08:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lambiam, since these reflect the set of fractions for which we have Unicode characters, would it be sufficient to either make them "alternative spelling of" entries, or redirect them to the Unicode characters? Alternately, do you think we should delete the Unicode characters for these fractions? bd2412 T 22:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    The Unicode characters are translingual and I wouldn’t know what the argument for their deletion might be. If the existence of the entry ¾ somehow supports an argument for including English three quarters, it should also argue for including German drei Viertel, French trois quarts, Japanese 四分の三, Turkish dörde üç, and so on. But also there I don’t know what that argument would be.  --Lambiam 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    That raises an interesting question. Are there any languages in which any of these fractions are single word constructions, or constructions not made according to a standard formula? If so, this would invoke the concept of the translation hub. bd2412 T 23:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand the separateness of the meaning of one-tenth. How is that different from the meaning given for one-seventh, except for replacing “ten” by “seven”? (I also think that “the usual dimension” should not be used in their definitions; one can imagine a tree that is unusually large, so large that one couldn’t fathom even a one-tenth piece of it.)  --Lambiam 08:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. ChignonПучок 18:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to the Appendix on numerals (or to an appendix on fractions), I think, although some of these may be covered by WT:COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect those that correspond to the entries for which previous consensus was developed at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/November#Written-out fractions. Specifically, these have single Unicode characters for the specific fraction (½, , , , ¼, ¾, , , , , , , , , , , , and ), which we treat as we would a single letter. The spelled-out forms are at least an alternate spelling of the Unicode form, so this is analogous to WT:COALMINE. Note also, per that discussion, the prevalence of "fourth" or "quarter" appears to be a regional variation. bd2412 T 13:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Pinging @SemperBlotto, Mahagaja, Wikitiki89, DCDuring, who also participated in the Beer Parlour discussion. bd2412 T 13:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Also pinging @Purplebackpack89, Donnanz, msh210, Algrif, Dan Polansky, who participated in the previous deletion discussion archived at Talk:three quarters. Note that twothirds and threequarters exists, and that a number of these entries are missing additional senses. For example, there is a rugby position called a five eighth, also citable without the hyphen, for which the plural is then five eighths. bd2412 T 13:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't see a consensus in that BP discussion you linked to. Canonicalization (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Consensus does not always require that participants in the discussion indicate bold-faced support. In this case, I made a proposal pursuant to consensus in a previous discussion (which was indicated with bold-faced support), and most other participants in the discussion of the secondary proposal provided insights into how the proposal should be carried out. This indicates that support for the proposition is such a given that the next steps can be addressed right away. bd2412 T 14:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all Purplebackpack89 01:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would keep all of these - and maybe add a few that are missing. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think anything is missing. My suggestion is that our inclusion of spelled-out fractions should track our inclusion of Unicode symbols for fractions. bd2412 T 20:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. DTLHS (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
A redirect wouldn't hurt. Equinox 22:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: A quick and dirty Google translate search of a handful of languages suggests that a number of these have single-word translations:
Dutch for three quarters is driekwart
Basque for one third is herena; one seventh is zazpigarrena; and one tenth is hamarrena
Bosnian for one fourth is četvrtina
Bulgarian for one half is половина (which is different than the word for half).
Corsican for three fifths is triplici
Estonian for one quarter is veerand, and one tenth is kümnendik
Finnish for one half is puolikas; one third is kolmasosa; one fifth is viidesosa; one sixth is kuudesosa; one seventh is seitsemäs
German for three fourths is Dreiviertel
  • bd2412 T 00:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • For all of those that mean "one X": there's nothing special about them. Bosnian četvrtina is simply a noun meaning "a fourth", Bulgarian половина (and its Russian homonym) is a noun meaning "a half" (I don't understand your note about that word), etc. Canonicalization (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I mean that Google gave a different translation in Bulgarian for "half" than it did for "one half". The fact that these are single-word translations means that we would have unique entries for them, and that the English phrases could serve as translation hubs for these phrases. They might do that anyway. In English, at least, constructions like sixth and seventh mean something different than one sixth and one seventh, and "a sixth" or "a seventh" is formally improper, and can be ambiguous between the fractions and the ordinal meanings. bd2412 T 04:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I tried that, and reversing the translation direction gave:
          • половина⇒half
          • наполовина⇒in half
        • Which just shows that Google Translate is not a substitute for knowing the language in question. As for a point you made earlier: Unicode characters are more like abbreviations than alternative spellings. The existence of ROTFLMAO doesn't mean we should have an entry for the spelled-out phrase. For that matter, there's also a Unicode character for a pile of poo: 💩- do we need to have an entry for the English phrase that represents? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
          • We have an entry for poo, which is basically what it represents. As it happens, we have entries for pile of shit and pile of crap, so an actual pile of poo entry does not seem at all far-fetched, if it can be cited. Spelled-out fractions, of course, can easily be cited, and many of the ones listed here also have additional idiomatic senses that can be found, as they quickly become shorthand for things like wrenches or pipes of particular sizes, animal breeds, sports positions, and the like. bd2412 T 13:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
            • If we have an entry for poo, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there is a Unicode symbol for it; same if we had an entry for pile of poo. I agree with Chuck Entz that "Unicode characters are more like abbreviations than alternative spellings". Their existence doesn't automatically warrant the "spelled-out" versions, in my view. Canonicalization (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
            • About your THUB argument, let's remember that "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term". Per that token, Dutch driekwart and German Dreiviertel don't warrant entries for three quarters and three fourths. Canonicalization (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Note that three quarters was previously kept by consensus in a deletion discussion. Can you guarantee whether any of these fractions exist in other languages in forms that are not a a closed compound word-for-word translation of the English term? I can't speak for the Basque or the Estonian translations, but we seem to be missing those words. The Finnish translations that we have do not appear to be a word-for-word translations. bd2412 T 20:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
                • Yes, and this decision is being challenged right now.
                • I'm not sure I've understood your question. I can't guarantee that, and I've precisely never pretended too. We don't keep translation-target entries because there could be qualifying translations: we keep those entries because there positively are qualifying translations. As long as no such translation is provided, I don't see a THUB basis for keeping.
                • I have no knowledge of Basque whatsoever, but I can see there's a "(-)rena" element occurring in all the words you've brought up. Maybe that means something. Canonicalization (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • Basque is an agglutinative language. That means that an amazing variety of things are indicated by prefixes, suffixes, interfixes and circumfixes that would normally be separate words. I don't know much about the language, but I would be very careful about reading too much into the presence of a single-word translation in Basque, unless you want to have entries for things like "for the benefit of those two people way over there". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • To be clear, I included the Basque words listed above because other Basque translations for other fractions on the list were two words. This was the case for a number of languages for which I listed these terms - that some of these fractions were translated as two word phrases, and others in the same language were translated as single words. This actually raises another concern for me, in that it appears that some other languages have nonstandard constructions for specific fractions. It makes sense to provide entries sufficient to clarify this for the reader. bd2412 T 22:49, 22 May 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)

mass shootingEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B127:DCB2:F8C7:15E6:42AE:2ABF 10:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The word mass has multiple meanings. So keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't push for deletion, but this argument is shit, as usual. ChignonПучок 11:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Semper. Not quite the same as mass murder. DonnanZ (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A definite keep (per SemperBlotto). --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Once again Blotto uses the fallacious polysemy argument which goes against Wiktionary policy (note our example of "brown leaf" as deletable, yet "leaf" can be a page of a book). Equinox 13:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, mass has multiple meanings, but that's not what makes this unclear (the recent atrocities in Sri Lanka could be construed as "mass bombings" in at least two different ways, but that's exceptional). The main difficulty in parsing this is the result of the grammatical construction: neither the attributive noun modifier (it's not an adjective) nor the verbal noun it modifies are inflected, so there's no way to tell subject or object unless it's inherent in the noun or verb- and in this case, it isn't. The question arises: is the mass shooting or being shot? Are we talking about a very large firing squad, or a large group of victims? In practice, though, the first scenario is rare and unlikely, so without context indicating it, it should be clear that we're talking about the other one. I'm sure it would be possible to come up with a number of such constructions using a variety of verbs. As a side note, I think those who want to use the "multiple meanings" argument should spell out enough of the alternate interpretations to show that confusion is at least plausible. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The current definition is SOP, but also wrong (or, really, imprecise). We should improve the definition and keep. It would not be a mass shooting if a person killed their spouse and then themselves, for instance. I know that the criminal definition varies by jurisdiction, and that there are varying examples of it being used for shootings of different "sizes" and durations, but we can be clearer than we are to show that there is idiomacity. - TheDaveRoss 19:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


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)

movie theaterEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B125:5044:65D7:F159:35EB:ED27 00:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: refers to a theater that is not used exclusively for drama or opera. — Cheers, JackLee talk 04:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems a bit weird not to have an entry. Historically there was a thing called a "theater" where one would watch (live-acted) plays and presumably this was the most natural word to adopt for new technology where one would watch recorded plays (films/movies). Saying "we're going to the movie theater" is a bit different from saying "we're going to the theater" (I think — as a Brit, I'd say "cinema", so maybe I'm out of the loop). Equinox 04:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep per JackLee talk It's to clarify what type of theatre/theater, as the word alone would normally mean performing arts. --Dmol (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep, Am. English, I agree with Equinox re cinema. DonnanZ (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I think some movie theatres started life as true theatres, or had a double life - the Civic Theatre in my home town was used as a cinema as well as staging shows; my secondary school held an annual show there. DonnanZ (talk) 15:17, 5 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)

Ohlone peopleEdit

Sum of parts: should be either a plural noun (the Ohlone) or else it's an adjective modifying "people", like "Swedish people" etc. Equinox 19:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete Julia 17:19, 13 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)


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)


A "misspelling", probably not very common, that is spelled the same and would thus direct any searcher to the correct one. Equinox 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


Rfd-sense: James Cook. We are not Wikipedia. 2600:1000:B11D:99F:6CB8:1F86:45CB:CDFF 10:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I moved the sense into its proper position. I am less interested in keeping villages and ghost towns than famous explorers. -Mike (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Not only were the Cook Islands named after Capt. Cook, also Cook Strait and Mount Cook, the highest mountain in NZ. DonnanZ (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep it - as an explanation of the various placenames containing his surname. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Collapse into the definition in the manner of Darwin or Mao. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Semper. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep, per above. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Should not IMO have a dictionary sense line. Maybe under "see also" etc. Equinox 10:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't see any harm in adding an image of a famous bearer of a name. I did this for Fridtjof. It could also be done for Washington, Lincoln, Churchill etc. DonnanZ (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Regardless of how famous they are, I don't agree that any specific person is really a "sense" of a word. The sense is "a surname", and then there's a further general rule of English that you can refer to any person by their surname. (They needn't be famous, either: if I'm referring to some obscure academic paper by Quentin Z Cook I will still call him "Cook" for the same reason.) Equinox 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    But take for example this sentence, "Captain Cook, as soon as he had anchored, ordered the boats to be hoisted out." The word Cook in the context from which it was taken doesn't mean "a surname", but rather "the person with the surname of Cook who was also given the name of James", or in short "James Cook". Of course, you can have a less specific meaning in a sentence, "He read aloud the name Cook." In that case Cook would mean "an English surname" because it doesn't refer to anyone specifically. -Mike (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not all that convinced. If "Cook" alone means "that person" then how are we to analyse "Bob Cook" or "Mr Cook" (or indeed your "Captain Cook")? It's the whole NP that refers to the person. Equinox 01:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. When an etymology (e.g. for a place name) refers to an individual, we should link to that individual in Wikipedia. People are encyclopedia content, not linguistic content. Mike's example would also support including every individual with the first name "James" since people often say things like "James is on his way" not meaning the name James but rather an individual with the name James plus a surname, also perhaps a title and a middle name as well. Cook never means "an English surname", it is an English surname. You cannot define a surname because it is not have meaning. - TheDaveRoss 17:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, and add a link to w:Cook (surname). Since we don't have a notability requirement in CFI, there's nothing to stop someone from adding a sense for, say, w:James Cook (Australian footballer). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Added the direct link. DonnanZ (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete as an independent sense; collapse into the general surname defimition, per Meta. But we don't seem to have any consisteny practice on this; Hitler also has a separate sense for the specific tyrant. (Also: Stalin is defined as a surname, but is it, or was it just a codename formed from the word for "steel", like "Lenin" may have been a codename formed from the river Lena? For added confusion, our entry on Lenin has no surname definition even though the etymology section mentioning a Nikolay Lenin suggests one might exist...) - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


Canonicalization (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


[62] Canonicalization (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


[63] Canonicalization (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


[64] Canonicalization (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Canonicalization (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Canonicalization (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all - no reason given to delete. It's a good job that I'm not paranoid - or I might think you are out to get me. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Absurd misspelling with only 2 Google Books hits. Delete. Equinox 20:53, 11 May 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)

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)


Canonicalization (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


Canonicalization (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


Canonicalization (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

spelling errorEdit

SOP, see #spelling mistake above. Julia 17:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. @Donnanz, please justify your vote — if we needed a SOP entry for its synonyms, why would we need two of them? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, error and mistake are synonyms, and spelling error and spelling mistake are the most common synonyms of misspelling. The concept that certain synonyms are not allowable merely because they are considered SoP by some users is rather bizarre. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:23, 21 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)

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" ([65], [66], [67]), "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)

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)

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)

sun symbolismEdit

Sum of parts? (not mentioned in the given reference work) SemperBlotto (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with the "sum of parts" argument. The term "sun symbolism" has meaning that can not be easily derived from the term itself. Just like a red herring is more than just a herring that is red, the sun symbolism has cultural significance as the symbol of truth. The references section of the article give specific examples of the idiomatic nature if sun symbolism.--KeyFinger (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see any uses of the term “sun symbolism” in the article. All I see is the statement that truth may be likened to the sun. Yes, that is symbolic, but other authors have likened God to the sun (Psalm 84:12). That is not an argument for including a sense “An analogy used to associate the Sun with God”. As John Brown wrote, “Almost every thing very glorious, lovely and useful, is likened to the sun”.  --Lambiam 23:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say delete for the nominator's reason. Also, the definition is unclear to me – what does a "collection of analogies" or "an analogy" mean in this context? — SGconlaw (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 09:44, 17 May 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-sense: "very hot, roasting" (adjective). You can't say "very baking", "more baking than", etc. And you can say "I'm going to bake if I stay in that hot car." i.e. the "hot" sense isn't restricted to the present participle. Also, we already have a sense at bake (#5), which is therefore covered at sense #1 of baking. Julia 17:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I would keep: this is the overwhelmingly more common form, and "*the day baked yesterday" is impossible. Will Self wrote of "the local Anglos' proclivity for stuffing themselves with wads of hot food in the very baking oven of midday" (unless he means it like "the very heart of the city"). The 1898 journal Sketch uses "the most baking weather". Equinox 17:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I can see this as "the very (i.e. "quintessential") baking-oven (compound noun) of midday" Leasnam (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Adverb bakingly also exists. Equinox 17:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think baking in this sense is short for baking hot, in which baking serves as an intensifier of hot, so you can’t say *very baking hot any more than *very extremely hot – which may explain why you can’t say *very baking either.  --Lambiam 18:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you could replace "baking" with "baking hot" in the first usex ("I'm baking – could you open the window?"). Canonicalization (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
You can say "really baking" though, e.g. "It's really baking in here". Of course, "really" can modify verbs too, but the role of "really" in "really baking" in that example seems to me to be the same as its role in "really hot"; cf. "Are you really baking in that old oven?" Mihia (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep per Equinox. I advocate deleting present-participle attributive "adjectives" where the sense is no more than that the modified word is doing that action. However, "baking" seems to me to have acquired a sufficient "life of its own" as an adjective. Apropos of this discussion, we probably should also review verb sense 5 at bake:
(intransitive, figuratively) To be hot.
It is baking in the greenhouse.
I'm baking after that workout in the gym.
It seems to me that "baking" in these examples should be an adjective rather than a verb. Mihia (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mihia Actually "It is baking" or "I am baking" is using the present participle of bake. They can be adjective-like. -Mike (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
By derivation, "baking" is the present participle of "bake". However, the question is whether the meaning in some particular context is sufficiently adjectival to be labelled an adjective. For example, we would say that "boring" in "He's boring" is an adjective. In my view, an example such as "I'm baking after that workout" is sufficiently adjectival, though opinions may vary. Mihia (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: A couple thoughts given the new input:
  • Change the verb sense to "to be made hot" – hence "I baked in the midday heat."
  • Keep the adjective but add "chiefly predicative" qualifier or usage note. It certainly is almost always predicative for me; I don't know about others though. Julia 21:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


and -week-old, -month-old, -year-old. These are just not suffixes. Equinox 04:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See also day-old and year-old; day-old at least should remain, I can remember my father buying day-old chicks. DonnanZ (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP, just like -foot-long, -mile-long, -yard-high and -fathom-deep, all of which can be attested. —This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talkcontribs).
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relatedly, is it time to also renominate Talk:years young? - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The previous nomination is only 744 days young.  --Lambiam 15:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
How is years young a noun? *“I can’t find my years young; I must have misplaced them.”  --Lambiam 15:51, 25 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.[68] 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)

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)

lower lipEdit

A translation hub but with one language.2600:1000:B117:DF86:1D02:6C1F:C3D2:C9BC 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Now with eight.  --Lambiam 12:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep: the current translations don't qualify, per WT:THUB: "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is:
  • a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term;
  • a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term".
That said, I think the entry is still rather useful. Canonicalization (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, we have upper lip too Leasnam (talk) 15:55, 25 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)

there is no comparison between themEdit

SOP, not lexicalized. See sense 3 of comparison, sense 4 of compare. Julia 22:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)