Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English


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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for 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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. 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


July 2019Edit

FD&C Yellow No. 5Edit

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

Mmmmmphhh there was a time I voted to keep all the "E numbers". Now I wouldn't. Still, what is this? Not a trademark, I suppose? Is it the normal name for the thing? Are there other names for it? I would prefer us to make the decision based on policy. Equinox 06:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The term is in use: [1], [2], [3]. Although our definition calls it a “color additive composed principally of tartrazine”, all sources that I saw suggest it is just tartrazine.  --Lambiam 12:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually if you read the FD&C Act, you will find that it is defined as a mixture containing certain limited amounts of impurities.[4] My understanding is that tartrazine is just the name of the trisodium salt which is the primary constituent of Yellow 5. But I am no expert on this. -Mike (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
What is the reason for deleting? I see it is in use, we may need to change the definition slightly but that isn't grounds for removal. Stephen G. Brown said in the original discussion: "I ran across these things frequently in my long translating career. American foods, drugs and cosmetics are full of them. They’re important. If a company is going to export its products to Europe or Asia, these terms have to be translated to "E" numbers." There were two explicit keep votes and no explicit delete votes in that discussion. --Habst (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Add the missing reds, blues. Dream up a category for them. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
FD&C Blue No. 1; FD&C Blue No. 2; FD&C Green No. 3; FD&C Red No. 3; FD&C Red No. 40 (sic); FD&C Yellow No. 5; FD&C Yellow No. 6. Category:FD&C certified color additives?  --Lambiam 07:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete the forms with FD&C at the start, I can imagine terms such as yellow no. 5 or yellow 5 surviving, but the full term is purely encyclopedic. This is no more lexical than, say, 21 USC § 841. - TheDaveRoss 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to yellow no. 5 and leave a redirect behind. Also, if kept, can the header be fixed so that it doesn't uselessly read FD&C? bd2412 T 04:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep FD&C Yellow No. 5. Consulting FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow, Yellow No. 5, yellow no. 5 at Google Ngram Viewer, it seems "FD&C Yellow No. 5" would be more common than "yellow no. 5", which is not found at all in this capitalization; "FD&C Yellow No. 5" is probably not found since it has too many items, more than 5. Stephen G. Brown reasoning above seems persuasive, and I failed to come up with a rationale for deletion to override CFI. (The nominator is Wonderfool. Even Wonderfool can make good nominations, but I would not like to count his vote, and he did not provide any CFI-relevant deletion rationale.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    Example quotation: "For these reasons, the Commissioner concludes that the use of FD&C Yellow No. 5 in drugs should be declared in the form of a precautionary statement, [...]"; more are at google books:"fd & c yellow". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that this revolves around the distinction between "47 N Main Street" and "10 Downing Street". Is this a legally defined, but meaningless label for a known specific thing, or does it have meaning in a linguistic sense? I'm sure there are plenty of durably-archived uses in court records of lawyers and police officers referring to crimes by their numbers in the criminal code- and the people they're talking to know exactly what they talking about- but do those numbers mean anything as English? Another example is the number worn by a famous sports figure. Any fan of their team will immediately know who you mean when you say the number, and it may be used as shorthand for the the player's name in durably archived sports writing- but does it belong in a dictionary? If you want to anchor this in CFI, the relevant part is conveying meaning. The problem is, of course, that semantics is a tricky field, there's no doubt disagreement among lexicographers and semanticists about what "meaning" means. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no question in my mind that "FD&C Yellow No. 5" conveys meaning; and there is no question that this is an English term, just like "the chemical element with atomic number 90", which I would argue is a sum of parts. We may need to update CFI, or come up with a rationale for interim CFI override. To do so, we need to provide a least a tentative exclusion criterion, and examine that criterion on a larger set of items. And maybe we should do that on an occasion different from Wonderfool being bored. We may start by looking at E102: it is a term that refers to something, but it may be annoing that it does so via a counting number attached to something, and that may be the same annoyance with FD&C Yellow No. 5, except that some people above seem to be rather annoyed at the "FD&C" part and are happy with yellow no. 5, which is damned by GNV as per my link above. Then what is the annoyance? I don't know. Let us note the customary capitalization; it seems the users of the term treat it as a proper noun rather than a substance common noun; then, the policy would be WT:NSE, and it would be up to editor discretion to keep or delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

PSSEdit

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

We should want them included if they are common enough (see WT:CFI) that users may plausibly look them up – precisely as for common misspellings. Send to RfV?  --Lambiam 07:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Misconstruction. Maybe it is just a typo and you should just delete it according to the recend motion about misspellings that are typos, for it is not motivated by certain considerations but by a slip. I would ask how you would even see that if somebody writes PSS he actuallly means PPS and it is not just a typo. Most people here cannot even understand texts of the field to distinguish the chemicals, I think. Maybe ask @Romanophile who created it. Fay Freak (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If someone adds a postscript labelled “PS”, and then adds a second postscript labelled “PSS”, and this happens just once, it can be a typo; but if an author makes a habit of this, it is a misabbreviation. The recent proposal sadly failed, so it is not a strong ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
back when people used to write paper letters, i definitely learned the acronym as "PSS", "PSSS", etc. and evidently my friends did too. i remember reading online a few years ago that it was "correctly" supposed to be "PPS" and was quite surprised as i had never heard that form. i don't think it's a typo so much as a common misconception, or perhaps a correct form given how often it is used. --Habst (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
keep very famous alternative form of PPS. per the doctrine of descriptivism, if a mistake or "misconstruct" is repeated enough then it becomes an alternative form, and this is one i've seen (and used) many times: [5] [6] (search for "pss pps" for more).
interestingly, the wiki page w:Postscript states that PSS stands for "post-super-scriptum" without a reference. it could be a backronym, but it's worth looking into. either way, definitely not a delete. --Habst (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: no CFI-relevant rationale provided; "don't see why we would want any misconstructions" makes no sense especially since we keep some misspellings per WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 18:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

VLTEdit

Initialism of Valletta (postal code of Malta)

I don't think we want postcodes. --Pious Eterino (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Is there anything at CFI to exclude postal abbreviations? We have the two-letter abbrevs for each U.S. state. Purplebackpack89 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Potential grey area. Some of the UK ones are abbreviations (RG = Reading, S = South London etc.) but others are codes that don't "stand for" anything as an abbreviation. Similar case with Internet domain codes. Equinox 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: nothing in CFI to lead to deletion; not much of reasoning to override CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Purplebackpack and DP --Uisleach (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

taboo nameEdit

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

I think the definition is unclear. It is not a name that should not be given, but a name that should not be uttered; see Naming taboo on Wikipedia. Japanese emperors also had taboo names, so this is not confined to Chinese culture.  --Lambiam 10:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
By chance, I was just reading about Ishi. Fascinating. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I see name taboos in descriptions of a number of American Indian cultures. Along with taboos on mentioning dead people, they're a real problem for preservation of endangered languages and cultures: most of the people who know anything are old and have no living relatives in their own generation and before. It's hard to get information about kinship terminology from people who can/t mention their relatives.
The question here is whether Chinese taboo names are a specific thing or just a name that's taboo, with encyclopedic information about Chinese culture determining the details of the taboos. As an analogy, cultures differ as to what a spouse is: it might be an adult of the opposite sex in one culture, while in other cultures it might include child brides or people of the same sex- but it's all referred to by the same term in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me like an RFV issue. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete. No need to bulk up RFV with this when it's clearly not restricted to that use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, it would be SOP if defined correctly (e.g., the person need not be exalted for their name to be a taboo name). - -sche (discuss) 06:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete--Uisleach (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

KDDIEdit

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

let's try to cite it first i disagree that generic usage is not possible just because it's a telecommunication company. for example, we do have entries like AT&T which is a telecommunication company, and given how much the industry has changed (and the way we talk about it) the last four years i think that Verizon would not be deleted if it were to be recreated today. --Habst (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
"We have AT&T" is not an argument to keep "KDDI" but rather an argument to delete "AT&T" which has exactly the same problem. Why does "how the industry has changed" in four years have anything to do with what is a dictionary word, and what is a company name? Who is paying you? Equinox 20:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
as i parenthesized, the reason why i mentioned how the industry has changed was because it also changed how we talk about telecom companies, specifically with regards to WT:BRAND and their defining qualities / "stereotypes" if you will. my editing topics on wiktionary have been very diverse, and i don't appreciate the insinuation that i'm a shill. nobody has ever paid me to edit nor do i have any conflicts of interest. i disagree with painting any class of lemmas, including companies, as unattestable or un-CFIable until we've rigorously examined the cites on a case-by-case basis. --Habst (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep in RFD absent consensus on company names; not a company name with a space. WT:CFI#Company names does not have consensual support. As for initialism company names, we have ABC, AEC, ALCO, ATA, BBC, CBC, CRC, CTC, BMW, GE, HP, IBM, ITV, MTC, NBC, PBR, SABC, SAS, SKG, TI, and TOC. Talk:Verizon was first kept in RFD since there was no consensus for deletion; then it failed in RFV since in RFV, the non-consensual WT:CFI#Company names was applied. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 15:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

xanthocroicEdit

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

  • I would rather consider it an alternative form, given how common it is in even academic work on Google Books. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Converted into a misspelling, and kept. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unstriken: this is not an obvious keeper per WT:CFI#Spellings, and therefore, a super fast closure faster than the normal length seems inappropriate. xanthocroic, xanthochroic at Google Ngram Viewer does not find the spelling; google books:"xanthocroic" does not find that many occurrences, and in lowercase "x" I am not even sure it is attested. Arguably, this is a relatively rare misspelling, and per WT:CFI#Spellings, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling given xanthocroic, xanthochroic, Xanthocroic, Xanthochroic at Google Ngram Viewer does not find the spelling. As for the possible objection that it is rare but not a misspelling, the mis- is hinted at by "ch" being expected based on χρώς (khrṓs), from which the term is derived. google books:xanthocroic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete all misspellings. - TheDaveRoss 13:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Votes: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings, Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

only too wellEdit

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

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

financial institutionEdit

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

  • Undelete. Basically a set phrase. bd2412 T 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Not clear what it means...many institutions are heavily involved in finance in one way or another, but only some of them are "financial institutions". Also there are lemmings - Cambridge, Macquarie Dict., Webs. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia starts by giving a much broader definition than these lemmings (but then, curiously, effectively narrows it to “bank”, even as it has an article Non-bank financial institution). Investopedia also has a much laxer definition. This is considered a sufficiently authoritative source that at least one bank links to it. It is not particularly hard to find uses of the term “financial institution” that are outside the scope of the narrow lemming definition (e.g. here). The recently proposed draft bill [”Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act“] says “A large platform utility may not be, and may not be affiliated with any person that is, a financial institution”, but strangely without defining the term. Presumably it would be interpreted as the definition given in US Code Title 15 § 6809, which is very broad again (essentially: any institution the business of which is engaging in activities that are financial in nature). If the lemma is restored with the narrow sense as a definition, we will also need a broad (basically {{&lit}}) sense.  --Lambiam 16:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to view the Wiktionary definition as it was before it was deleted? Mihia (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    The definition was "[a]n institution, such as a bank, insurance company or fund, that provides financial services for its clients or members". — surjection?〉 21:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Can anyone retrieve that definition (if so, how), or are you able to do it only because you have a special privilege? Mihia (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Any admin can see the full history of deleted pages. DTLHS (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@DTLHS: ... and by implication non-Admins have no way to retrieve deleted entries ... is that what you mean? Mihia (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
They can certainly ask an administrator. DTLHS (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The definition that was deleted is very much sum-of-parts. It is slightly less general than the definition in US Code Title 15 § 6809, in which the financial activities of the institution need not be “services for its clients or members”. It is much more general than the definitions of several financial dictionaries, in which these services are, specifically, “collecting funds from the public and/or other organisations with the intention of investing these funds into financial assets” (e.g. ABC Accounting Dictionary), or serving “as a channel between savers and borrowers of funds” (BusinessDictionary). Unless we can find three actual uses that count as attestations in which the term is used in this narrow sense, we should (IMO) not include it as a separate sense (just as we would not give “a hoofed mammal, of the genus Equus, used to draw a coach” as a separate sense of horse). Then we are left with the SoP sense that was rightly deleted.  --Lambiam 09:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete. In Talk:financial institution, I voted to keep. It still is not obvious to me that money is not a financial institution and that the practice of lending is not a financial institution, or the practice of lending on interest. "Money" would be a financial institution under a different sense of "institution", the one used in the phrase "the institution of marrigage". financial institution at OneLook Dictionary Search found lemmings (WT:LEMMING). I still think that the reader is better off with out having the entry. I still think that a label "sum of parts" or a usage note to the effect of "This term can be considered to be a sum of parts" would not harm. The notes made above by Lambiam are alone interesting material to read for the user of a dictionary, a tool that helps reader to engage in clarification of ideas, disambiguation of terms, research into possible meanings and uses of terms and related intellectually demanding activities usually undertaken by highly paid professionals. The interesting notes and facts collected by Lambiam will end up on the entry talk page anyway; now we need an entry for the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Money clearly is a financial institution, in that it's a thing that was instituted and belongs to finance. It's not the commonest usage of that phrase, but certainly that would work. I still feel this is SoP: schools, universities and colleges are educational institutions, obviously, but so is e.g. the subject of English Literature. Don't undelete. Equinox 21:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then the entry is actually even more useful in disambiguating the phrase than I thought. It captures lexical knowledge users of the language acquire: that the phrase "financial institution" is nearly always used in reference to organizations although it might as well be plausibly used to refer to the other kinds of institutions such as money. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    A water pitcher isn't someone/something that throws water nor is it made out of water, and pigeon droppings aren't instances of allowing pigeons(birds or people that have been duped) to fall. That doesn't mean it requires a dictionary entry (which has nothing to do with books coming into a place) to figure out the meaning of the phrases (which has nothing to do with arithmetic averages or music). The mere existence of multiple senses for a word does not make all phrases using it idiomatic. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    There is zero plausibility that "water pitcher" could be someone to throw water. What matters is how easy it is for the reader to perform the disambiguation of possible senses without help of the dictionary. My point is that the entry helps avoid an actual confusion on part of the language users, maybe non-native speakers. And lemmings seem to agree (M-W[7], dictionary.cambridge.org[8]), or have a different reason for keeping. I admit that the phrase may still be a sum of parts, but that is not the only thing that matters. On another note, the fact that the phrase is subject to various operational definitions is also of note; a quote: 'The High Court has confirmed it will adopt a broad definition of a “financial institution” for the purposes of the transferability provisions [...]'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't undelete. Canonicalization (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I count 4 bold undeletes including the nom and 2 bold against; that would be a borderline consensus to undelete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Undelete per BD2412. John Cross (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Undelete as a set phrase and lemming. Imetsia (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Sorry I missed this discussion earlier. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

aye manEdit

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

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

neobioticEdit

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

I have never heard of it. What evidence is there? DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
[10] for the adjective. [11] for the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

only toEdit

"Conjunction" with non-gloss definition.

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

Comment. The relevant sense at only appears to be:
Used to express surprise or consternation at an action.
She's only gone and run off with the milkman!
They rallied from a three-goal deficit only to lose in the final two minutes of play.
Are we quite sure that it is the same sense -- even PoS -- of "only" in both these usage examples? Mihia (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Three observations. (1) It seems to me that the sense is not so much to express surprise or consternation, as to mark a definitive reversal of fortune. (2) The collocation is always followed by an infinitive, which is not particularly an action, but rather a state change by which all hopes are dashed. (3) There is an action involved, which is in vain, but it is the action of the main clause of which the “only to” clause is a dependent clause. (“He rushed to the hospital, only to learn that his mother had already died.”)  --Lambiam 11:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
And, of course it is only too easy to confuse it with "only too". SemperBlotto (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention only two.
Oxford has only to as part of a phrase, and only too -. I'm undecided on this at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at a definition of only in the likes of Century provides a multitude of semicolon-separated items that take the form "(in, for, by) but one (purpose, means, result); (in, at, for, with) no other (manner, respect, place, direction, circumstances, condition, time, way, purpose, result) than". So Lambian's example (above) might be defined as "with no other result than". One could also say "I stood only to ask a question" where it would mean "for but one purpose". The insertion of only in the verb-infinitive structure emphasizes the singular result of the infinitive with respect to the verb.
I do think this is a question of how to properly define only and that only to should be deleted (or redirected). -Mike (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
One more observation: (4) only to announcing a reversal of fortune is preceded by a pause in speaking, often reflected in the punctuation when written, like a comma here and an em dash here. That is particular to this sense; one would not write, *“we don’t want to punish; we want, only to help”, or, *“I stood—only to ask a question”.  --Lambiam 22:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have created a new sense at only:
(with 'to' infinitive) Introduces a disappointing or surprising outcome. See also only to.
They rallied from a three-goal deficit only to lose in the final two minutes of play.
If only to is deleted, this "see also" link should be deleted, and additional content presently at only to can be moved to only as seen fit. Mihia (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Given the above, delete "only to". Mihia (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You can use it without to also, e.g. "I helped him out only for him to betray me". 76.100.241.89
Good point. I added that as an example. Mihia (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

evening mealEdit

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

But you posted this here to elicit a critical examination? Perhaps this can be defended as a useful addition to our Category:English phrasebook/Food and drink – although it has not been categorized as such – but only if we can populate the Translations section, for which the translations of dinner that identify the meaning as the evening meal form a good start. (Several others, such as Danish aftensmad, are also specifically the evening meal, even though not explicitly so identified.)  --Lambiam 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Possibly good phrasebook material as it is always a meal in the evening but might have implications varying by culture. But of course SoP and I am not a fan of having a general (non-phrasebook) entry. Equinox 15:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2019Edit

ChurchEdit

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

It is capitalized as expected when used as part of a proper noun, just like Association and Brotherhood, so there is no need for a special note.  --Lambiam 22:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for nominator’s reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete this sense, Oxford has an entry for Church Army which is more specific. DonnanZ (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • But Church Army is an entire proper noun and cannot be written lower-cased. The logic does not apply here. This case is more like having capital City or capital Tower because of New York City, Eiffel Tower. Equinox 13:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep or move to the Church. There have been many times where I've heard "the Church" used by non-Catholics to refer to the Catholic Church in places where one would expect further specification if it was merely SOP. If you saw a headline that said something like “President Joe Blow Criticizes the Church's Stance on Abortion,” would you be confused, or would you understand a specific church? (Although I don't exclude the possibility that my interpretation of the way I've seen it used is somewhat warped due to my own bias.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Moving it to "the Church" is IMO even worse. We don't usually put the on entries (cf. Eiffel Tower). We can always use en-noun to display the word "the" inside the entry: it needn't be in the page title. Equinox 13:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep but if we do keep we need separate senses for each organisation. There are cases where "the Church" is used without enough context to tell you which organisation it is but the fact the term used is "the Church" together with the limited context provided is enough for you to know. I think that is distinguishable from, for example "the Committee" where the full name of the Committee is used earlier in the text. John Cross (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah. It would be a shame to lose the quotations that someone took the trouble to enter. I could go along with both Andrew Sheedy and John Cross, Equinox is also flexible, or have (as an organisation) Alternative form of church (or similar) instead. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to keep this one. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Move/merge to church, with label noting capitalisation and article. However, for me, the present definition somewhat misses the main point of "the Church" as a separate sense. The fact that "the Church" can be used to mean some specific church, such as "the Church of England", does not in itself seem very entry-worthy. It seems more an ordinary feature of English that can apply to arbitrary cases. As Equinox points out, we may as well have an entry for "(the) Sea" on the basis that this could be used to refer to a specific sea. In the case of "the Church", yes, a specific church is meant, but the point of the separate sense is more that "the Church" has extra connotations, e.g. that it is recognised or understood as the main or established institution within the context. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Abstain. It could be reworked, I think that it is more commonly used of the Catholic Church than of other churches anyway as noted by Andrew Sheedy, but more importantly there is no sense "mainstream (non-Arian, non-Unitarian) Christianity". Perhaps if this fails it could be resolved to include that here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The most commonly intended church is probably region- or community-specific. In some places it may be the Catholic Church. In an English context, with no other information, "the Church" is probably understood as CofE. Mihia (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. These uses are exactly analogous to the uses of capitalized Association, Brotherhood, and so on, as short forms of the proper noun denoting some institution in a context in which it is understood which institution is referenced. A few examples: “Prior to each annual meeting the Association shall elect the Officers as provided for in Article 3”; “The aim of the Association is to support and strengthen comparative literature studies”; “The Association may maintain affiliation with other societies if the Governing Board determines that the affiliation would further the purposes of the Association; “The objector shall keep the Brotherhood informed of any change in address”; “The Brotherhood is controlled in each domination by a council elected by its members”; “The salary of the G E.B. when employed by the Brotherhood shall be $3.00 per day and $2.50 per day for expenses, exclusive of railroad fare.” All refer to completely different associations and brotherhoods, such as the Washington City/County Management Association and the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America; the terms have no intrinsic meaning.  --Lambiam 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The difference, as I see it, is that someone may refer to "the Church" with no prior context or information, and expect that it will be understood. This is not likely with "Association" or "Brotherhood". "the Church" seems to be a "thing" that exists other than merely as a shortened form of "the Church of X" used to reduce repetition or wordage, unlike these other examples that have been given. Mihia (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It is my duty to inform you that the Church finds your attitude problematic. You cannot say you have not been warned. How can the recipient of a message be supposed to understand what “the Church” refers to with no prior context or information? That does not make sense. In the two example quotations the first is from a Catechism of the Catholic Church, so there it is obvious from the context that this is not the Church of Satan. In the second, the reference to Salt Lake Valley gives away that this is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; also without that hint, the audience to the speech by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of which this was a fragment were attendees of a worldwide priesthood gathering of the LDS Church, so the Brethren understood the speaker was not referring to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Show me an example of use of “the Church” without any context in which there is a reasonable expectation that the audience will understand which Church this refers to.  --Lambiam 20:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
An example would be “Mindful of the Church’s teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before any others.” [12] No specific "Church of X" has been mentioned. It is just assumed that the reader will understand "the Church" as an institution. It is hard to think of a case where e.g. "the Association" would be mentioned out of the blue with no reference to which association is meant. Mihia (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Without context I could not know which church this referred to, but upon finding out the statement was issued by the sister of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (and daughter of its previous Supreme Governor), one tends to develop a hunch as to which church may have been referenced here.  --Lambiam 21:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not really important whether the reader/listener actually knows which specific church is meant. The important thing is that "the Church" is used and understood to mean the relevant established religious institution/authority, without further explanation. This is what makes it different from e.g. "the Association". Mihia (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Put that way, that's exactly the same as the X, for any X. "The College", "the University", "the State", "the Department" often goes without explanation, and I suspect in certain circles "the Association" is used the same way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree. "the Church" is expected to have a broader and wider understanding, with no further explanation, than any of those other things, except "the State", in my opinion. I think there is a qualitative difference. "the State" is similar to "the Church". Mihia (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think part of this distinctive use of "the Church" might have to do with the fact that members of a given church will typically see their church as the one true church, not simply a church among many. Given the predominance of the Catholic Church globally and certain other churches locally, this usage among members of the church in question could easily have bled over into usage by people outside of that church. This reminds me of phrases like "the Faith", used by Christians to refer to the Christian (and often specifically the Catholic) faith. The same does not hold for "the Association", "the Committee", etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
As a Catholic who cares very much about his faith, I would agree with that analysis. I certainly think of the Church in the way that you describe in your first sentence there. It's funny that you bring this up, by the way, as many early Christians called the faith "the Way". "Christian" appears to have been either originally intended as a pejorative of some sort, or was otherwise an exonym of some sort. In any case, I suppose that we reclaimed the word fairly swiftly. Tharthan (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Having a strong Christian belief doesn't make "church" and "Church" separate words. Equinox 00:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say "I am a Catholic, thus 'church' and 'Church' are objectively distinct". I was expressing concurrence with Mr. Sheedy's analysis, and noting that it is Catholic belief (and, as a Catholic, I hold the belief) that the Church is the subsistence of what was founded by Christ and initially headed by the apostles. And, furthermore, the usage of "the Church" for "the Catholic Church" is very typical in my experience, even when speaking to non-Catholics. So, again, I was concurring with (and giving personal witness to the veracity of) Mr. Sheedy's analysis.
Do keep in mind that I haven't voted either way on this RfD. I personally don't care whether we mark them as distinct or not. I can see justification for both positions, and I really think that this matter is more related to preference than anything else. I don't think that Wiktionary users would be missing out either way, because (taking as a given that those using this dictionary understand the concept of proper nouns) I cannot really reckon how someone would not be able to discern the meaning of "the Church" in a scenario (that "the Church" means what our current definition for it in the challenged entry describes). If it is contained within an article, the article would probably contain enough information for a reader to read between the lines. If there is not enough information for a person to figure out what "the Church" is referring to in the article (or what have you), I highly doubt that our entry would do much with regard to clearing things up. Tharthan (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
If you flip the case of a word (dog, DOG, Dog, dOG) is it really a different word? Hopefully not. If a noun is very important because of cultural reasons (the Church...)... I know we're not supposed to argue from imaginary hellscapes that haven't happened yet, but it seems so dumb. It makes me think of how Christians refer to God, with a capital H-"He". So: He, Him, His. Should we have separate entries for those? Probably not, bc they mean the exact same thing as he, him, his, and the purpose of the capital H is respect to God (like how Muslims say that special little mantra "peace be upon him"), it's not grammatical. Equinox 02:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Just pointing this out, but we have an entry for He, as well as an entry for peace be upon him. Tharthan (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
1. whataboutism. 2. Maybe I'll come for "He" later! (foot-in-the-door technique). I hope we won't keep this entry purely because "there are other similar entries" lol. Equinox 21:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
No need to mis-extrapolate my intentions. I have already told you that I don't care how this RfD goes. I was simply mentioning that, because I recalled that we had an entry for He. Tharthan (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 12:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Lambiam and per nom. I notice we also have a sense like this at "Court", which I would also delete (at the very least, the (US) label must be wrong, no?). - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment — Reviving this just to note that I added an extra sense at church, "Organized religion in general or a specific religion considered as a political institution", to cover cases where the term doesn't refer to a specific formal institution (the most obvious example being phrases to do with "separation of church and state"). This sense is often capitalised and is distinct from the standard proper noun usage that Lambiam noted, which might explain a little of the confusion above. —Nizolan (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

read throughEdit

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

  • Keep read through per the nonbinding WT:LEMMING: M-W[13]; see also read through at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk)
  • Leaning keep, to distinguish from readthrough. I believe I have seen instances of a formal script reading denoted as a "read through"), so it might be either an alternative spelling or common misspelling of that. bd2412 T 15:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Also from the same anon:

go beforeEdit

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

  • Keep go before per WT:LEMMING (non-binding): M-W[14], Macmillan[15]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. PUC – 15:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    @PUC/Chignon: Can you explain how "go before" in the sense of "To present oneself for judgment to" is sum of parts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
go in sense 1 (move) or sense 5 (attend), and before in the sense of "in front of", i.e. facing somebody. Compare: "He was up before the judge for stealing"; "You'll have to explain yourself before the tribunal". Equinox 10:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Equinox. I'm generally a big supporter of WT:LEMMING, but here the case that the term is SOP is too persuasive. Imetsia (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

fine-ass-lookingEdit

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

Keep --this is REAL English. This is commonly heard in very informal speech everywhere. Leasnam (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - commonly heard everywhere. 70.24.109.163 22:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, non-idiomatic sum-of-parts. We have fine, ass and looking. Re it being "real" and "commonly heard", so is nice butt, but that doesn't mean we ought to have an entry for nice butt. - TheDaveRoss 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like sum of parts to me: fine-ass + looking. 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - this is an individual adjective (as opposed to nice butt which is a phrase), and the meaning is not at all clear to me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
fine-ass is an adjective using the -ass suffix. It's not the noun "a fine ass", like "nice butt". Equinox 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I was unable to parse this until I saw your comment. Canonicalization (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sonofcawdrey: No change of mind? I think Equinox's/BD2412's analysis is convincing. PUC – 10:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Isn't this just fine-looking with "-ass" as an infix? It seems to me that you could add "-ass" in this sense to any adjective. Blue-ass-looking sky. Tall-ass basketball player. Big-ass football hero. Etc. bd2412 T 20:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Funnily enough, forgetting about this, I just created fine-looking. DonnanZ (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you also nominate that for deletion as even more patently SoP than the entry under consideration here? - TheDaveRoss 12:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, delete as SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, there are also plenty of hits for good-ass looking or cool-ass looking confirming this is the -ass suffix. Ergo, Delete.  --Lambiam 21:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP per Equinox. Canonicalization (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm an ESL learner. I have never seen this word before in my life. Does it mean [fine] & [ass-looking] or [fine-ass] & looking ? I need Wiktionary to help me. Thank you kindly. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Leasnam (talkcontribs).
Nice try. But I can totally believe you're an ESL learner, given your history here. Equinox 05:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete; SOP per BD. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete per BD and Lambiam - Uisleach (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

On HMSEdit

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

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

lightEdit

I'm not sure this really is an adverb. I had second thoughts after creating travel light (the usex was already there), I think this is actually adjectival. Consider also make light of, make light work of, and light engine which is a locomotive travelling light, without a load in the form of a train. DonnanZ (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how feasible it is to describe someone as "light" in this sense, which seems to be the consequence of it being adjectival. If we saw someone at an airport with only one very small bag, would we say that s/he was "light"? "light" in "travel light" also seems to answer a "how" question, though unfortunately this is not always 100% conclusive. M-W dictionary lists it as an adverb. Another question is whether the purported adverbial sense exists in any context other than the phrase "travel light". If it doesn't, maybe we could avoid the question and treat "travel light" as an idiomatic set phrase without troubling over its grammatical explanation. I can think of perhaps "run light", as in "The locomotive is pulling well" / "Ah, that's because we're running light today". In this case "light" does seem adjectival, as we can say that the train (or load) is light. Hmmm. Mihia (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I can easily see these as being ellipses of "travel (with) light (luggage/baggage)" and "we're running (with a) light (load/workload/cargo/weight) today" = adjectival Leasnam (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
My feeling is that if "travel light" means "travel with light luggage/baggage" then "light" is adverbial. This is because the "with ~" phrase is adverbial, and, if you like, the adjectivity cannot "transfer out of this". The only way I see "light" as being adjectival is if e.g. "He travels light" means that he is light. Mihia (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have entered several citations for adverb senses (with help from Century). Also, travel light should probably be deleted since it is just SOP. -Mike (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

fine-lookingEdit

Seems SoP. Raised above under #must-see. Compounds like "fine-looking" can be created in fairly arbitrary combinations according to standard rules of English: tired-looking, indistinct-looking, harsh-sounding, clever-seeming etc. etc. I don't believe that we need to list all possible combinations separately. On the other hand, I would support keeping good-looking. As much as anything, I am listing this to see if there are any objective criteria, other than frequency of use (which I believe we should not take into account, provided a minimum threshhold is reached), that would allow us to keep good-looking, and possibly also fine-looking if desired, while disallowing e.g. indistinct-looking and a million™ others similar. Mihia (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It would depend on how common it is. I came across the term when extracting some quotes from an old magazine, and thought it merited an entry, having found enough usage. There is no problem with good-looking, which probably has lemmas anywhere you look. However, this entry is infinitely more preferable to fine-ass-looking. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but my understanding is that we don't include or exclude entries based on how common they are, provided only that the minimum threshold for CFI is met. Mihia (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'd delete as meaning nothing more than "it looks fine". Equinox 21:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
If it was spelt finelooking nobody would bat an eyelid, but it isn't. I would keep it as a synonym - there may be times when one would prefer to use fine-looking instead of good-looking, as the author of the quote did. DonnanZ (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
To refresh your memory, you created bad-looking a few months ago. DonnanZ (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
See also good-looking, foul-smelling, gutaussehend, etc. Note that while in German this gutaussehend is quite lexical one can quite arbitrarily mash together participles with adverbs and other parts of speech, writing together. Fay Freak (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so this is the first victim of your brainchild. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Donnanz, your only rule seems to be that you hate anything being deleted. Other people actually apply coherent rules to what they think is keepable or deletable, even though those rules differ from user to user. For you to accuse people (repeatedly) of being rabid/unprincipled deletionists is silly since you're a more rabid/unprincipled "keepist" than anyone. Equinox 15:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
No, his only rule is whether he likes a term or that to which it refers. He'd vote to delete dog if one bit him, but he'd vote to keep "I like trains" if he could do it without people laughing at him (I'm exaggerating, of course, but at times it's not that far from the truth). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Both of you are being unfair. You never see terms I reject, and there's plenty of those; today, for example, I looked at transport hub and single-bore and passed over both. DonnanZ (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Imagine a non-native speaker – let’s call him Deniz – trying to grasp the meaning of fine-looking after he overhears an attractive woman saying of him that he is a “fine-looking man”. Naturally, he will consult Wikipedia. Assume now that in the meantime we have deleted the entry, so he sees on the discussion page that it was deleted as being a sum-of-parts. All he has to do now is to decipher the meaning of fine-looking from its parts. Naturally he proceeds from the assumption that the overheard comment is equivalent to the statement that he looks fine. The first meaning of look is “to try to see, to pay attention to with one’s eyes”. This requires an adverb; skipping the definition “Expression of (typically) reluctant agreement”, which he suspects does not apply, he hits upon “well, nicely, in a positive way”. So did the commenter express the opinion that Deniz tries, in a positive way, to see (or that he pays nicely attention with his eyes)? Somehow feeling that this was not the utterer’s intention, he looks further. What about look meaning “to appear, to seem”? And perhaps nice = “being acceptable, adequate, passable, or satisfactory”? (Deniz is humble and does not consider himself to be of superior quality.) This results in the meaning ”to seem passable”. This meaning appears satisfactory to Deniz; satisfied with this answer and unaware of a missed opportunity, he concludes his semantic quest.  --Lambiam 18:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't give up your day job, Jonathan Swift. "Fine-looking" may in fact mean "looking fine" in pretty much any sense, not just one. So the mistake that you would blame on our not indicating which sense of "fine" is intended (hello, "brown leaf") could equally go badly the other way if we did have, say, the AAVE-style sense ("that's one fine-looking honey!") but omitted others. Equinox 18:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Three examples: "Damn baby, I don't know if I want to let your fine looking ass go, cause I know damn well muthafucka's gon be all over my tender white thickness" (Davine 2014; "fine" = attractive, sexy); "Glancing over the crowd, I noticed a fine-looking carriage and horses" (McLean 1886; "fine" = handsome, elegant); "the inside of the teeth will peel, and by rubbing coke or a piece of grindstone over the teeth's face, it will result in fine-looking teeth" (Dyson West 1882; "fine" = narrowly spaced). Equinox 19:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
You could always add those quotes to the entry... I did find "fine-looking cricketer" and "fine-looking goalie" (admittedly very few hits) where fine-looking seems to refer to the fact they appear to be good at their job. But looking at fine#Etymology 1#Adjective I'm not convinced that fine-looking is covered, the closest is sense 3, good-looking, attractive, but I'm not entirely convinced by the examples. In Oxford (1.6) is the closest, I think, (1.6 Imposing or impressive in appearance. ‘Donleavy was a fine figure of a man’). But I think "fine-looking" is not properly covered here either, and is something else again. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
If you take the argument that including SOP terms because their components have multiple meanings, but then you also include all permutations of those meanings on the SOP terms page, how have you helped Deniz know which sense was meant? He was just as well off looking up the component terms and deciding among their meanings. Better off, really, since we are more likely to have things like translations on the component terms. - TheDaveRoss 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Adding those citations to the entry suggests I am validating the entry, whereas I actually think it is fucking stupid and should be deleted. I specifically found those cites to prove that "fine-looking" just means "looking fine IN ANY SENSE OF FINE". Why does it still exist? Equinox 05:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
In this case looking is really just taking on the old obsolete noun sense of "appearance". And because fine is an adjective that modifies looking, you really have an adjective-noun combination being used attributively to modify the man (in Lambiam's example). (Of course participles being what they are, you could analyse it as adverb-verb, but you should get the same result.) One from a previous era could have probably called Deniz "a man with a fine looking". -Mike (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
At the moment this compound sense of looking is not covered (yes, these are compound words, which some users prefer to overlook, probably because of the hyphen). It isn't regarded as a suffix, but there was a suffix entry once, before it was redirected as the result of an RFD. To be fair, Oxford doesn't deal with it either. DonnanZ (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I made an attempt at explaining this at looking. DonnanZ (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you can complete this by adding a sense at fine: “in relation to the visual appearance of a person: physically attractive”.  --Lambiam 22:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
As with bad-looking below, I think we should keep: does fine-looking also mean "slender/thin-looking" ? fine means "slender/thin". Does it mean "powdery-looking" ? fine can mean "consisting of minute particulate" ? We need to provide the accurate definition. Leasnam (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It can mean slender/thin-looking, and other things too, yes; see my three examples above. Equinox 23:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Equinox ! I only lightly glanced over the entirety of the conversation. My bad :\ Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Leasnam: So, will you maintain your keep anyway? Canonicalization (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

November 2019Edit

wine bottleEdit

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition made me cry laughing. Are bottles normally made of glass? and not wood? well fuck me. Delete. Equinox 10:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I’ve seen plastic wine bottles.  --Lambiam 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
And you will see plenty of (full) plastic cider bottles in an off-licence. DonnanZ (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep due to typical characteristic shape/appearance/material. Mihia (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
If using that criteria, then there should be Alsace bottle, Bordeaux bottle, Burgundy bottle, Champagne bottle, Port bottle, and Provence bottle (with or without capitals as appropriate), each of which has its own distinctive shape.[16] -Mike (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not personally familiar with all of those, but if the regional ones have some distinctive or recognisable characteristic besides merely coming from that region, and the type-of-drink ones have a distinctive or recognisable characteristic besides just containing the stated type of drink, then they are eligible for inclusion IMO. Mihia (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
comment: a wine bottle is not a bottle of wine. --Vealhurl (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Vealhurl A wine bottle may not always be a bottle of wine, but it is a bottle for wine. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
In some languages it depends on whether it's full or empty. DonnanZ (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep as translation target. Also have edited def to incorporate some of the characteristic features of a wine bottle. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sonofcawdrey: What are the translations that support WT:THUB? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Ah, seems I didn't really understand WT:THUB regs. So, I suppose none of the translations listed qualify (except perhaps Slovene: buteljka). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE: winebottle is citable. – Einstein2 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep DonnanZ (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep- perDonnanz at 19:45, 2 May 2020 John Cross (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. When people think of a wine bottle, they are first and foremost thinking of a bottle (for) wine. They are not thinking of a bottle of a very specific shape/appearance/material. I was going to use cardboard box as a similar example of something that could be said to have a very specific shape and appearance, except that is an entry too! Somehow... And so is water glass (first sense). Thankfully soda can, plastic cup, and coke bottle aren't entries yet (the latter not as a noun). PseudoSkull (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus for deletion. PUC – 10:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

beer bottleEdit

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 10:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Beer bottles generally have a different size and shape to wine bottles, and not forgetting milk bottles which are also different. Maybe some images would be useful. DonnanZ (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I could see this and the abovementioned entry meeting the fried egg test. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep due to typical characteristic shape/appearance/material. I would say that water bottle probably has less claim than either wine bottle or beer bottle, since AFAIK there is nothing distinctive about a water bottle except that it contains water (or, as the entry helpfully informs us, "other drinks"). Mihia (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I ought to add, of course, that the present definition, "A bottle designed to contain beer", is pure SoP and does not explain any additional distinguishing characteristics that might make it otherwise. Mihia (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep per WT:COALMINE: beerbottle is citable. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep DonnanZ (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete, per my reasoning for wine bottle. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus for deletion. PUC – 10:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

for funEdit

Deleted per previous RFD. I'd like to restore/undelete this. It seems sufficiently idiomatic, it's found in several other dictionaries, and it would be useful for hosting translations. See also for a laugh / for laughs (which I've created, admittedly), Talk:for kicks. Canonicalization (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

From a translation viewpoint I can see that this is valuable. It is a unit. Doing something "for fun". So at the very least it should be in phrasebook. Regarding the entry I will boringly abstain. Equinox 10:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I note it is included in the OED: for fun (or for the fun of it) - in order to amuse oneself and not for any more serious purpose: I paint a bit for fun. Let's keep it. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    • A keep for me. --Vealhurl (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete (=Keep) per WT:LEMMING: M-W[17], Lexico[18]. As for translations and WT:THUB, none were mentioned so I can't tell; some uses would be translated into Czech as pro zábavu, other uses probably as z legrace, none of which is terribly supportive of WT:THUB. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

O forEdit

"Preposition" defined as a sentence, with a non-gloss supplemental definition: "I wish that I had; may there be granted; elliptically expressing desire or prayer."

It seems transparently O + for. DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it is SoP. You can't say it without O, can you? You can't just say "for a horse"! — Note we also have oh for, but without this sense (!). Equinox 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Any idea what the etymology of the sports senses of oh for is? For the wish, there are also the variants O! for and Oh! for. Webster 1913 glosses O for as “would that I had; may there be granted; — elliptically expressing desire or prayer”. The collocation is not really a preposition in the grammatical sense.  --Lambiam 07:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Presumably "oh" means zero (as in phone numbers etc.). It reminds me of the cricketing phrase "X for Y" (X runs for Y wickets). Apparently "X for Y" means "X successes out of Y attempts" generally. Equinox 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Grammatically, "O for" does not seem to me to be a single phrase or unit of meaning, yet, as Equinox points out, "O for X" does not seem to merely mean "O" + "for x". It is a bit of a puzzle. Mihia (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone remember that song: Oh To Be In Love? --Vealhurl (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete, since "ah for" ("Ah! for wings to soar") and "oh but for" ("Oh! but for a message from thee, dear love, Oh! but for a word, one word") and other variations exist. If we don't just view it as simple ellipsis of "I wish" prior to "for", and instead wanted to cover it somewhere, we could cover it in "for". - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI, I have added a new sense at for:
Indicating something desired or anticipated.
O for the wings of a dove.
And now for a slap-up meal!
Mihia (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Carriage and Insurance Paid toEdit

So, it's an incoterm. For some reason, it doesn't seem like I want this in my dictionary. Plus, it was made by Wonderfool pretending to be someone who knew something about international business (he had no idea). Also, we could probably delete and/or revise a few other incoterms on WT - probably some mistakes in them. --Vealhurl (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Carriage Paid ToEdit

SOPpy Incoterm --Vealhurl (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep syntax of use not transparent. Object of to is a destination, not a payee. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding:

Delivered Duty PaidEdit

Keep Syntax of use not transparent. Supposed to be followed by a place. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ex WorksEdit

Keep Syntax of use not transparent. Supposed to be followed by a place. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Free CarrierEdit

Keep Not obvious what either component term means DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. It is sufficient that we have the abbreviations (CIP etc.).  --Lambiam 14:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Equinox 15:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. Canonicalization (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • These votes appear to be arbitrary expressions of dislike for commercial activity. Applying normal lexicographic tests should be how we determine inclusion. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep all per DCDuring. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

stuff (2)Edit

RFD sense 12:

1. (transitive) To fill by packing or crowding something into; to cram with something; to load to excess.
I'm going to stuff this pillow with feathers.
2. (transitive) To fill a space with (something) in a compressed manner.
He stuffed his clothes into the closet and shut the door.
....
12. (transitive) To form or fashion by packing with the necessary material.
  • Jonathan Swift
An Eastern king put a judge to death for an iniquitous sentence, and ordered his hide to be stuffed into a cushion, and placed upon the tribunal.

Sense 12 quotation and definition are mismatched, but whichever way round it's supposed to be, it seems redundant to senses 1/2 ... unless we want to make a distinction between forming/fashioning something by stuffing and other types of stuffing?? If deleted, quotation can be moved to sense 2. Mihia (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The quotation is ambiguous; the judge’s skin could have been used as the filling of a cushion, or it could have served as the cushion case, to be stuffed with horse hair or whatever. I assume that Swift, in his letter to the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Molesworth, meant the latter, which is confirmed by the original account of Herodotus in Histories 5.25.2 (and Samuel Johnson agrees). So then poor Sisamnes’s hide was indeed fashioned into a cushion, meaning there is no mismatch. I think it does make sense to make a distinction between the senses of “forming/fashioning by stuffing” and of stuffing without the objective of giving form.  --Lambiam 12:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, looking again, I think you may be correct. In ordinary modern usage, if something is "stuffed into a cushion" it means that that thing becomes the stuffing, but it seems that this may not be the intended meaning in this quotation. Mihia (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Further to the above, it seems to me that, if the quotation read "stuffed and made into a cushion", it would be the usual sense 1. The pillow is stuffed with feathers; his hide is stuffed with whatever. So the distinctiveness of this usage is perhaps the phrase "stuffed into" rather than the verb "stuff" per se. Mihia (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

point of no returnEdit

"The moment when orgasm is felt to be inevitable."

This seems to be a direct application of one of the general senses. There are plenty of citations to refer to. DCDuring (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete, just sense 2 applied to some specific situation. Examples of the term meaning “inevitability of war” rather than “inevitability of orgasm” by its application to the path leading from peace to war can be found in the discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#point of no return. Here we see the term applied to the complete gravitational collapse of a star, becoming a black hole. Here it is the inevitability of the wrath of the Lord strafing those who persist in their folly. Here it is the inevitable decline of civilization brought about by our collective ecological folly. Many of such specialized applications are attested through three or more uses, much like the term cup can be attested as used for a tea cup, a coffee cup, and so on. Yet these are not senses that warrant separate definitions. Sense 1 is worth retaining because it is the original, literal sense; the others are a figure of speech.  --Lambiam 09:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Lambiam. This may be a cliche in porn, but it is still just a case of definition 1. Kiwima (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sense 2 seems sufficient for everything and could be argued to be SoP... Equinox 23:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox: Do you mean we could delete the aviation sense too (I agree, or at least I don't see why it should get a pass if this doesn't... unless it's the source of the figurative generic sense, but I have my doubts), and possibly the whole entry (that seems a bit much)? Canonicalization (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know enough about aviation to say, but yeah, it does just seem to be the point at which return is no longer possible. Couldn't one use the same term about (say) a car journey, when one has gone so far beyond the last petrol station that it is impossible to drive back for more petrol? Equinox 03:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I vote to keep the aviation-specific sense as it is non-obvious that the reason one cannot return is because of fuel. I abstain on the "orgasm" sense. I never look at pornography, so I don't know anything about that. Mihia (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete if the aviation sense is deleted too, keep if not. Canonicalization (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

Ludgate HillEdit

No reason in the entry to suggest this is dictionary material. It has an interesting etymology, perhaps... But so does "Bob Avenue" - a street in my neighbourhood named for Bob, who got run over by a truck on the street. --Vealhurl (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought all street names are to be included too, like all place names. Every hill in Rome, Madison Avenue, etc. Only that we do not have sufficient means to disambiguate often-used names as with coordinates (there would be hundreds or thousands of Schillerstraße). Fay Freak (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Street names are not listed in the section Names of specific entities of WT:CFI as a kind of names to be included or excluded. Therefore the following sentence applies: “The editors have not yet reached a consensus as to whether or not the names of places and geographic features other than those listed above should be included in Wiktionary.” I give the term more chance of being kept as being not only the name of a street, but also (and more originally) of the mound on which St. Paul’s Cathedral was built, considered “one of London’s three most ancient hills”, the other two being Cornhill and Tower Hill. As to the etymology, the name comes from the historical Ludgate, an actual gate in the defensive wall around (the City of) London first built by the Romans; it was demolished in 1760.  --Lambiam 08:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, we don't have a notability criterion and there are enough street names in the world to crowd out just about everything else. For every Ludgate Hill, there are thousands of Main Streets and Third Streets, and countless variations on Oak, Elm, Maple, Hill, Valley, Lake, Central, West, East, etc. If you're ever bored, try typing random English words into Google followed by "road" or "street", and see what comes up. Some of my favorites: Dork Street, Flounder Road, Peuse Road, Pancake Road, Sponge Road, Peep Road, Carrot Road, Plotz Road, Weasel Road, Drain Road, Sprat St... All of these bring up a Google Maps display (at least in the US, they do). As for Bob Avenue: there are at least four of those- in Rosedale, California (not far from Calamity Lane), Wichita Falls, Texas, Muskegan, Michigan and Canal Fulton, Ohio. I'm sure many of these also have some kind of interesting story, but the information that makes Third Street distinct from Lemming Street (which is in Lakewood, California, by the way) is all encyclopedic. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
My favourites are Warning Tongue(s) Lane, in Bessacarr near Doncaster, and There and Back Again Lane in Bristol. Oh, and Powder Mill Lane, in Whitton near here, was named after the gunpowder mills that used to be nearby until they blew up. DonnanZ (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Ludgate Hill is not the name of the area it's in, just a thoroughfare, unlike Muswell Hill and Denmark Hill which are both suburbs and thoroughfares. I would keep this anyway, like Broadway, Downing Street, Fleet Street, Main Street and other entries of this genre. DonnanZ (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
All the examples of streets you gave have figurative senses, but this one doesn't. Delete. Old Man Consequences (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes the use of hill is a misnomer corresponding to a rise in the ground which is hardly a hill; this certainly applies to three places in my neighbourhood, Hampton Hill, Strawberry Hill and Marble Hill. However, Richmond Hill on the other side of the Thames is a true hill. DonnanZ (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I would delete it just for the presumptuousness of using "the City" instead of "London" in the definition. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
That was easily fixed. DonnanZ (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete absent any reason why this has anything to do with a dictionary. Mihia (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Despite there being no entry for Ludgate? There is in Wikipedia though: see Ludgate. DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Why would the lack of an entry for "Ludgate" be a reason to keep "Ludgate Hill"? Mihia (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Etymology, my dear Watson. DonnanZ (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, all of the world's billion street names and place names have an etymology. If we are to decide to keep some such entries as being notable despite their definitions having no traditional lexicographical content, I'm not sure that having an etymology, even an "interesting" etymology, should be part of the notability criteria. Mihia (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I daresay more users would want to know about Ludgate Hill than about millions of other streets; I used to live in Ythan Street (named after a Scottish river), but I wouldn't create an entry for it. But even that name has a little story that I didn't know about [19]. DonnanZ (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I would keep this and other similar entries - but not go out of my way to add further similar entries. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep all. We are not a normal, paper dictionary and we have plenty of room for these. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I dropped boldface since one bold keep from Semper is already above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep per Semper and because it isn't an SOP name. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

JulietEdit

"One of the main characters of William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet." Encyclopaedic material, not dictionary material. (We can keep the figurative senses derived from this, like "a great lover", and explain the character in the etymology, as we do for many other words derived from character names.) Equinox 05:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much sense in removing it; this sense (2) ties in with sense 4. DonnanZ (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The relation between the character of the play and senses 3 and 4 can be presented in the etymology section; then an entry for the fictional character is superfluous.  --Lambiam 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with Lambiam and Equinox. This is etymological, not lexical, information. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, move relevant info to the etymology section. Canonicalization (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep consistent with WT:NSE and WT:LEMMING, for which see below. This is the name of a fictional character, and the policy is probably WT:CFI#Names of specific entities; WT:CFI#Fictional universes does not seem to apply since Julia is a fictional character but not from fictional universe. For comparison, Cinderella has a fairy tale and a dedicated character sense; there is Category:en:Fictional characters featuring such items, having 139 entries. Some fictional characters were deleted, e.g. Talk:Uncle Scrooge, but there, one RFD first was kept, and only second lead to deletion, with mere two supporters. As for WT:LEMMING, Shakespeare's Juliet is in M-W[20] and Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition at collinsdictionary.com[21]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

work like a charmEdit

SOP: work + like a charm. The definition isn't terrible either. Redirect to like a charm. Canonicalization (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Redirect.  --Lambiam 21:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Does "like a charm" collocate in other ways? I note the OED includes "work like a charm", but not "like a charm". ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"run/play/fly/drive/start/pivot/operate?/trot/gallop/survive/speak/go off/dispell/allay like a charm" can all be found at Google Books. Some uses of "work like a charm" are more or less literal. "How does the amulet work?" "It works like a charm.". But "work like a charm" seems to represent more than 80% of the total figurative use of "like a charm". DCDuring (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Until about 1900 act like a charm was more popular: [22]. (I expect the more literal uses to use the simple present; sentences like “The amulet worked like a charm until last year, when it lost its power” will be exceedingly rare.)  --Lambiam 11:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. "work like a charm" and "works like a charm" and so on are so much more common than any other use of "like a charm", plus readers are likely to want an explanation of where the phrase came from, which makes more sense in the case of "acts like a charm" becoming "works like a charm" than trying to explain "like a charm" meaning "effectively" (presumably a back-formation?). Maitchy (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirect -Mike (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep: (work like a charm + works like a charm + worked like a charm), like a charm at Google Ngram Viewer suggests this is the predominant use of "like a charm". If not that, at least redirect and don't delete. work like a charm at OneLook Dictionary Search finds the phrase in M-W, Oxford Dictionaries (now Lexico), and Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, so much for WT:LEMMING. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

wine caveEdit

DTLHS (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend towards Keep for the following reason. Like an ice cellar is a place for storing ice brought in from elsewhere, and a wine vault is a place just for storing (and consuming) wine produced elsewhere, one might be tempted to think a wine cave is just a cave for wine storage, Bur a wine cave is typically constructed specifically for wine production; although this may involve storage, it is storage for the aging of wine as part of the production process. This is not obvious from the individual parts.  --Lambiam 00:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
cheese cave, beer cave and probably other products that are aged are similarly used. DTLHS (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
It reminds me of bierkeller. DonnanZ (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete cave #3 is "A storage cellar, especially for wine or cheese". Neither wine cave's "an underground wine cellar" nor wine cellar's "An underground place for storing wine at a constant temperature." expand on what the storage is for, which is encyclopedic. (I'd say the wine cellar's "at a constant temperature" is a bit encyclopedic; is it not a wine cellar if the temperature varies some?)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The conditions of a wine cave must be more specific than those of a wine cellar, right? This means it is less SOP than wine cellar, which may be about any cellar in which wine is stored. It’s just that as a consumer one hears the former less often to believe it is idiomatic. Leaning to keep. Fay Freak (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Not according to our definition, where a wine cave is an underground wine cellar, and a wine cellar is by definition underground, where a cellar is by definition underground. cellar also says "A wine collection, especially when stored in a cellar."--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn’t look at the definition, understanding an underground structure designed in a certain fashion for wine business. Fay Freak (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
        • If needed, we can amend the definition, for example: # an underground location for the storage of wine OR "# a subterranean grotto for the storage of wine." However, the idiom "wine cave" is certainly notable and should be in Wiktionary. TFSA (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Notability is not a relevant criterion for this discussion. DTLHS (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Prosfilaes. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • <humor> Redirect to Pete Buttigieg </humor> Purplebackpack89 21:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that there is any place that is a wine cave but isn't a cave. Equinox 04:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep on the understanding that this is a set term with specific meaning in the wine production industry, and is not just ad hoc for any cave in which wine might happen to be present. Mihia (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Prosfilaes; there are plenty of senses at cave that cover the artificial caves. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus for deletion. PUC – 10:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

January 2020Edit

InsertEdit

The name of a button on a keyboard. In my life, I have never pressed the button to insert anything, or to have anything inserted in me. That is an irrelevant comment, of course. Anyway, I remember years ago a similar page was kept, much to my chagrin - PrtSc? or Page Up or Scr Lk of F12 or whatever. --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It has some limited use. Occasionally, switching to overtype mode is useful when making repetitive manual replacements in text files. Mihia (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This kind of thing has been discussed before; e.g. Talk:F1, Talk:Bild ↓ Talk:Esc key. - -sche (discuss) 10:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
As discussed before I would delete the names of keys, joypad buttons, microwave oven controls, etc. (at least where the name describes what the key does; the Commodore 64 for example had a Run/Stop key, and the ZX Spectrum had one for inverse video). Regarding the use of the key: it usually toggles overtype mode as stated, but I think I've encountered a few rare scenarios where it is used for pasting. Equinox 19:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep: The sense is attested; "Insert" acts as a noun; what is the statement of the deletion rationale in relation to WT:CFI? If it is a sum of parts, which parts? An example of kept button is Talk:Start; multiple buttons were discussed in a discussion archived at Talk:Delete, which does not seem to have a clear and proper closure but was archived anyway. An example of deleted button is Talk:eject. One more note on "Insert": it does not even mean "button labeled Insert" since, on my keyboad, it is labeled "Ins". A note on examples given above: Esc key is dissimilar (it would be about Insert key); Esc is similar, and it says "Abbreviation of escape key. (on a computer keyboard)"; Escape is even more similar and is a redlink. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

route redistributionEdit

This entry is for a 2-word phrase, not a single word. 66.82.144.143 23:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not in itself a reason to delete: some two-word phrases, like black magic, are includable. The important question is whether the meaning is obvious by putting the two words together, as in black car. Equinox 00:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what makes some people tick - it has been RFD'd by the creator. DonnanZ (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
It was a test edit that is no longer needed. I was trying to create some other entry but the edit filter blocked me and I wasn't sure why. That being said, it is a legitimate technical term, and also "author requested deletion" seems not to be a speedy-deletion criterion on Wiktionary like it is on Wikipedia, so if somebody else thinks that it should stay, that's okay with me. 66.82.144.143 01:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep. It appears unlikely to me that someone would guess the meaning of the term solely from the components. For one thing, what is being redistributed are not routes themselves, but information used for routing. Then, this information is not redistributed between network nodes (routers) as in some network protocols, such as STP, but between different routing protocols running on a single node.  --Lambiam 08:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Israel firsterEdit

By PAM. If it were correctly defined, as more generally someone who puts Israel and its interests first in their priorities (etc), wouldn't this be SOP? One just as often hears of an google books:"America firster", google books:"Germany firster", google books:"Britain firster", etc. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel unhappy with the existing definition, which seems non-neutral. I'm not familiar with the usage of this term myself, but as far as I can gather from a very quick scan of some search results, the term is held, at least by some people, to be racist or anti-Semitic. I wouldn't have necessarily understood this from Israel + firster. If this is felt to be an important aspect of its usage then possibly we should say so somewhere, either in this separate entry, or at firster if similar connotations may apply to other "firster" phrases. Mihia (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the people you mention regard any criticism of Israel or its government or (as here) its [government's] supporters, including criticism by Jewish people, as anti-Semitism; that's not something specific to this word that would make it any more idiomatic, IMO, since they also regard other SOP phrases like "Israel lover" or "stooge for Israel", and even non-word concepts like the concept of boycotting Israeli businesses, as anti-Semitic. Quite likely our entry on anti-Semitism/anti-Semitic should mention (in usage notes, or perhaps a sense) that some people regard criticism of Israel or its government/policies/supporters/etc as anti-Semitic, but I don't think it makes phrases that have "Israel" in them any more or less idiomatic than they would otherwise be. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

m³/sEdit

Translingual, not English. And I thought we were deleted stuff like this. --Yesyesandmaybe (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There was an earlier discussion at Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/September#Units X per Y, but it was somewhat inconclusive as to whether the soppiness of such formulas is covered by the SOP clause of our CFI. We do have an entry E=mc², which by the way looks horrid to me in non-italic font and without proper spacing. These spaces are like a canary in a coalmine: they depart from this physical plane and then the term is considered includable.  --Lambiam 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#mg/dl. I say, Delete all.  --Lambiam 11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to note that we also have e.g. m/s, , , cm³, km², and most probably others too, possibly on the basis that these are defined characters in Unicode (, , , , ), which we redirect to the "plaintext" versions. is a case where there is no redirect. Is it our policy to have entries for all Unicode characters? If so, the content at e.g. m/s would presumably need to be moved to should the former be deleted. Mihia (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
We have entries for many Unicode characters, including quite a few for which I have no idea how one would use them (e.g. “arc”, or “tie over infinity”). I have no objection to having entries for the Unicode characters ㎧ etc., which is preferable IMO to having them be redirects.  --Lambiam 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

dirty copEdit

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. It has become effectively exclusive of police with poor hygiene or who have just come from a mud fight. It is even exclusive of those who use "below-the-belt" fighting tactics. bd2412 T 06:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. To bd's point, this is true of e.g. "dirty politician" as well, and is a result of the fact that cops and politicians don't often engage in literal mud fights in the first place—it's not that "dirty" is somehow unusually restricted on a lexical level to "unethical" in just this phrase, it's that on a practical level, people don't go around talking about cops' (or politicians') literal cleanliness that much in the first place (look at the Ngram for "unclean cop", for example: it's too rare a phrase to plot), but do talk about their corruptness. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per -sche. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per -sche. -- Uisleach (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

February 2020Edit

seeEdit

"Interjection"

  1. Directing the audience to pay attention to the following
    See here, fellas, there's no need for all this rucus!
    Synonyms: behold, look; see also Thesaurus:lo
  2. Introducing an explanation
    See, in order to win the full prize we would have to come up with a scheme to land a rover on the Moon.
    Synonyms: look, well, so

How is the imperative of see an interjection in the usage examples? DCDuring (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We've got an entry at see here, BTW. Equinox 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Given that we don't even label the interjectional (read: interjection-like) sense of "read" that I just used as an interjection, it does seem inconsistent to present these as interjections. - -sche (discuss) 07:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It is very similar to “Listen, guys – we have to talk“, which we do not list as an interjection. On the other hand, we do list look as an interjection (as well as lo and behold). I have no strong opinion as to whether we should list such imperatives also as interjections, but it is IMO obvious that see in “See, it isn’t that hard” is not meant as a literal command to exercise one’s faculty of sight. (BTW, this use fits neither of the two given senses.)  --Lambiam 21:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete just the imperative. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

cease to beEdit

This seems SoP to me. I suspect it exists only for the opportunity to insert the citation. DCDuring (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say that "X has ceased to be" and minor variants is a sort of catchphrase, repeated after the said comedy sketch. Mihia (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I think saying that to be equals having a pulse is rather far-fetched. "be" means "To exist; to have real existence". The parrot has ceased to be, yet, it still exists. It's dead (or pining.. no, definitely dead), yet it ceased to be. So I lean towards keep. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Seems like the same sense of be as in "To be or not to be" (from a soliloquy in which Hamlet is contemplating suicide). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger I better add a sense to be then. (done) Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion; see below. PUC – 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 10:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. --Uisleach (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

as far asEdit

Adverb PoS. I have added conjunction and preposition PoS sections, moved L4 header content, and added a usage note. I believe that the Adverb PoS section was in error. AHD and MW online have conjunction and preposition PoS definitions. Oxford calls it a phrase. I have not yet found any reference that calls it an adverb. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the preposition (and also presently adverb) sense "With respect to; as relates to", with examples such as "As far as financing, there will be no problems", I have always considered this usage an error in which the speaker forgets to say "... is concerned", or does not understand that "... is concerned" is required. Or perhaps some people confuse "as far as" with "as for". I feel that some sort of label might be in order. Mihia (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The omission of "is concerned" does not need to be an error; it may be intentional to achieve brevity. M-W:as far as[23] has this in its "as far as preposition" section and does not contain any proscription tag, although it does say that it is "chiefly in oral use".
As for the adverb section nominated here, it seems it can be deleted now that DCDuring has created the other sections, but I did not check carefully. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
According to [24]:
Usage Note: As far as is often used as a preposition meaning "as for" or "regarding," especially in speech. This construction derives from the term's use as a conjunction (as in as far as the election goes), but with the verb of the clause omitted (as far as the election). A large majority of the Usage Panel frowns on this usage. In our 2011 survey, 71 percent found the prepositional use unacceptable in the sentence As far as something to do on the weekend, we didn't even have miniature golf. And 74 percent objected to as far as when followed by a noun clause in the sentence As far as how the victim got shot, we don't know yet. Objection to this construction has decreased slightly among the Panelists since 1994, when 80 percent objected to the first sentence and 89 percent to the second.
To me "as far as" used in this way without a completion is purely nonsensical, but it seems that the longer it persists in use, the more people forget this. Mihia (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The source you have found (AHD) could be used to source the "sometimes proscribed" tag. But let me add from AHD:as far as[25]: "Our Living Language Despite the admonitions detailed in the Usage Note, it is the case that many speakers often drop the verbal part of the as far as construction, as in As far as a better house, I don't want one (instead of As far as a better house is concerned ...)". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

madly in loveEdit

SOP. The Czech and Polish entries given as translations should be moved to až po uši and po uszy respectively, and added to the translation tables at madly and head over heels. Canonicalization (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete: the sense at madly (wildly, without control, etc.) is perfectly adequate to explain this. Equinox 06:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Meanwhile, the translations include the following:

If madly in love gets deleted via RFD, let us create head over heels in love and put the translations there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

TardislikeEdit

Arguably, this is a rare misspelling since it is not found in Tardis-like, Tardislike at Google Ngram Viewer, and therefore, no frequency ratio can be determined for it. Delete accordingly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that "like" can be used as a closed (i.e. no-space, no-hyphen) SoP constructor, which we presently do not or cannot legislate for, whereas we have rules for spaced and hyphenated SoP combinations so that we do not need to list a billion™ combinations that people can easily enough figure out for themselves. Mihia (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The nomination rationale is not sum of parts (SOP) but rather rare misspelling. Let those who agree that this is a rare misspelling post delete; the policy is WT:CFI#Spellings, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
What is the basis for considering this a misspelling rather than an alternative spelling (as it is currently labelled)? As Mihia says, using -like without a space is possible, and permissible in standard English as far as I know, as in ratlike, kittenlike, Frenchlike, or (to pluck a random example out of the air and show that citations of it can be found) pronounlike, even if a hyphenated spelling of often more common. Hence, I say keep on the grounds that it's not a misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The basis is the frequency ratio. Normally, I would use {{R:GNV}} to determine the frequency ratio but this spelling is so rare that it does not appear in {{R:GNV}}. This stands in contrast to ratlike,rat-like at Google Ngram Viewer, which finds both spellings, and kittenlike,kitten-like at Google Ngram Viewer. Still, your argument has some force: there is nothing mis- about the nominated spelling, very rare as it may be, and it fits a pattern as you have shown. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this is probably not a misspelling. As you say, people can add "like" with no space or hyphen to almost anything, and it is hard to say that the result is misspelled. My point above really is whether we need to add "Xlike" entries for all of the potentially very large number of possibilities, or whether in some cases, such as perhaps "Tardislike", we should take the view that people can figure it out for themselves. It is straightforward SoP, except for identifying the boundary between parts. Mihia (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
BTW, Tardis-like should also be deleted as SoP. The "unexpectedly capacious" property is properly a property of Tardis, not of SoP derivatives. Mihia (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

if possibleEdit

Isn't that just sum-of-parts? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2407:7000:982F:D899:B849:D504:9B89:C00B (talk) at 08:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

Delete, SOP. Compare if acceptable, if affordable, if available, if doable, ...  --Lambiam 09:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 02:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Abstain Weak keep as the creator. It's SOP, yes. However, it has idiomatic translations (French autant que faire se peut, or even the word-for-word translation si possible, which is more lexicalised than the English - you can't say *si faisable, *si disponible, etc.), plus it has a lemming. I don't consider these two criteria to be definitive, but they tell me that the entry is mildly useful. Canonicalization (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep: 1) it looks set-phrasey; 2) it has WT:LEMMING: M-W[27]; 3) Canonicalization above reports usefulness for French, and the Czech translation pokud možno is set-phrasey; Czech does not have *pokud přijatelno (if acceptable), *pokud dostupno (if available), etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep - it is not particularly literal. A person might say "If possible, I would like to go via the cash machine" out of politeness knowing full well that what they are asking for is not impossible. John Cross (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

KaguyaEdit

RFD-sense: Kaguya (mouse), a particular fatherless mouse, conceived by parthenogenesis, and born circa April 2004. Do we want this kind of thing? We don't have a sense at Lassie or Cher for the specific dog or human, respectively; OTOH, we have R-Pattz. - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Also not for proper nouns of any other real named animals I checked, including the cloned sheep Dolly, the cloned cat Little Nicky, any of several cloned dogs (Missyplicity, Ruppy, Snuppy, Toppy), or the cloned horse Prometea. This seems to be governed by our non-policy WT:CFI#Names of specific entities: “many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which”. The practice appears to be not to include; I'd make an exception for those that have become household names. We do have some fictional animals: Akela, Bagheera, Baloo, Daffy Duck, Donald Duck, Goofy, Mickey Mouse, Scooby-Doo and Winnie the Pooh. I suspect some may violate WT:FICTION, but these are all very much household names too.  --Lambiam 10:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
We also have Ancient Greek etc mythological dogs (Argos, Cerberus, Laelaps, and Orthrus, though we only have Garm/Garmr in Japanese at the moment), but then, we (reasonably, IMO) treat Ancient mythologies different from modern stuff in general, like we also include the Aeneid where we wouldn't include a modern book title (we even deleted Talk:Pearl of Great Price, although Liber AL vel Legis has apparently never been RFDed). - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nara periodEdit

There's the corresponding Wikipedia article; but as a English Wiktionary entry, this appears to be a sum of parts. ~ POKéTalker) 20:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

On one hand, nothing currently in the entry Nara allows one to work out the timeframe of the Nara period; OTOH, there are a lot of such "periods" and "eras", all of which have numerous collocations: not just "Nara" but also e.g. "Edo" and "Showa" can be attested together with "period", "era" and "epoch". This suggests that the information about timeframe could be noted on "Nara", "Edo", "Showa" etc if we wanted to note it somewhere in the dictionary, and/or maybe we consider it encyclopedic. We do seem to note the timeframes of e.g. the "Regency period" and "Victorian era" in Regency and Victorian. Btw, we also have a number of Chinese dynasties like the Tang dynasty, even though it could be worked out from Tang + dynasty (and we have non-Chinese dynasty, the Slave Dynasty). I'm on the fence and will wait for more comments before casting a !vote. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Even noting when Nara was a capital at Nara wouldn't tell you that its namesake period matches the time it was a capital without some knowledge of Japanese historiography. Spans of time seem potentially lexical to me, and this one is useful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I figured if we wanted to move the timeframe content to Nara, it wouldn't (just) be by mentioning when Nara was the capital, but perhaps by "...capital, which lent its name to the Nara period (710-794)".
Do we want, say, the google books:"Camelot era"? "the Watergate era"? Then again, both of those are more SOP than this, since Camelot/Watergate already conveys a particular time. What about "Hellenistic period" or "Post-exilic period" (Jewish history)? We do have Gilded Age, Dust Bowl ("the period of time when..."), and Roaring Twenties. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
There's already an entry Jomon, from 縄文 (jōmon). Might as well add Asuka, Heian and Azuchi-Momoyama for the sake of argument? ~ POKéTalker) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Meiji periodEdit

Same as above. ~ POKéTalker) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020Edit

sexa-Edit

As was noted on the talk page, all but one of the derived terms are about sixty, not six.

What I noticed is that removing the prefix leaves things that don't seem like real morphemes (genarian?, gesimal?). Also, the compounding seems to have been in Latin, not in English.

Finally, this is simply not used in the dictionary: none of the derived terms references it in its etymology, and the category for the prefix is empty. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • It's an old form of hexa-. I've modified it accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    It’s not just a matter of age but of provenance; sexa- meaning "six" is dog Latin, whereas hexa- is from the genuine Ancient Greek prefix ἑξα- (hexa-).  --Lambiam 11:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
A New Eng. Dict.[28] mentions it in passing as an irreg. form of sex-, sexi-. It looks like the definitions of sexa- and sex- in Wiktionary are a bit mixed up. -Mike (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep I don't see how this one page can be deleted when it is part of a linked series of parallel terms (numeral prefixes), with quinque- before it and septua- after it. It was never the issue that sexa- was incorrect as the prefix for "six" but that the examples provided were for "sixty". Just find better examples!! Also, there is an issue of "taboo avoidance" in English concerning the prefix "sexa-" because it conjures up too many naughty images. This should be noted in the entry. English has leaned to preference for the Greek "hexa-" even in otherwise Latinate contexts. Again, this should be noted, but the special circumstances or connotations surrounding "sexa-" do not invalidate the entry itself. 70.27.169.176 15:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

dwagonEdit

Eye dialect spelling of dragon. We don't have twuck, twicycle, etc. and I don't think we ought to. I'd go further and say that having eye-dialect spellings of any kind are not really of value -- they are infinitely and arbitrarily constructible, and they are not words in their own right but transformations of words -- but I am guessing that is a fight I would lose. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This particular transformation is completely rule-based, like "igpay atinlay". Remember the gag in Life of Brian based on it? "Welease ... Woger!" Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to RFV. If it can be cited CFI-compliantly, keep it; if not, delete it. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per TheDaveRoss. But I know others like to keep silly "transformations" of this kind, like the autological duuumb. Whyever doesn't the OED bother, I ask myself. Equinox 18:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep; we're not paper, and we're not indexed by words, but by letter sequences.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this an argument that equally applies to all requests for deletion, or has it, in some way I was yet unable to detect, some more specific applicability to the present proposal?  --Lambiam 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
CFI lists various things that aren't included, largely because they're more encyclopedic than dictionary. It is an argument against deleting things that are clearly lexical and not called out in CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • With some exceptions on phonetic or orthogwaphic gwounds, "r" can be changed to "w" to suggest "a childish voice or a speech impediment" pretty much anywhere it occurs, in a wegular and pwedictable way. It is like dropping an "h" or the "g" of "ing", as in 'overcraft or 'appenin'. Do we want entries for all these regular "eye dialect" variants? I don't think so. Where the alteration is predictable and regular, I think we should include only examples that have some special usage or quality. So, absent any such rationale for dwagon, delete it. Mihia (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • What we need here is a rule limiting usage to cases where a reader may actually reasonably need to look up a word. I would propose something along the lines of the rule we use for brand names: three independent citations in sources that do not otherwise provide the context for the word. For example, a book with a passage saying, "Bobby pointed at the dragon and said, 'look, a dwagon'" would be self defining, whereas a book containing such a "dwagon" reference with no proximate reference to the word "dragon" would not be, and would count as a cite. I would make this a presumptive rule so that the term could be sent to RfV, and deleted automatically if three such citations are not provided. I am fairly confident that such a rule would eliminate from inclusion variations such as "wegular" "pwedictable", "orthogwaphic" and "gwounds". bd2412 T 20:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
How would you apply the rule about "not providing context" to a word such as "wegular"? What sort of context would you require (or not require)? Mihia (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Much the same - are there sources that use "wegular" without some reasonably nearby use of the word "regular" to provide the sense that the eye-dialect version is a variation of the normal spelling? bd2412 T 23:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
When I search e.g. Google Books, I see a few hits for "wegular", mostly in dialogue, few or none of which, as far as I can tell, have the word "regular" anywhere nearby, and nor would I expect them to. Mihia (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Barring those being typos or a different sense (apparently "Wegular" is also the name of a font), that might end up being a term that a reader could come across and want defined. I suppose it should also matter if it is part of a string of clearly eye-dialect text, so that even a reader unfamiliar with the language might realize that it is not the normal spelling. bd2412 T 04:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I’m afraid such a rule would not do much: agweeable, bwoken, celebwate, dweadful, ... The problem is that it is supposed to indicate a speaker’s slightly peculiar pronunciation of the ‹r›, which can affect the spelling of any word containing that letter.  --Lambiam 17:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
(Keep) Meh. It's a grey area; one side of the spectrum has e.g. Winterpeg (changing the spelling to highlight Winnipeg's coldness) that are IMO clearly includable, the other side is baaaaaaad (chaning spelling to mark intensity, drawn-out pronunciation, or whatever), which we decided to make redirects. Is changing spelling to indicate childish, accented or speech-impaired speech includable? It's closer to baaaaaaad, I admit, but I still lean towards yes, keep, especially if we're just discussing one of the zillion eye-dialect spellings we've long included. (Also, and I'm surprised Mahagaja didn't raise this: is this really eye dialect, or a pronunciation respelling?) I get the idea of excluding eye dialect in general, but I worry that could have negative consequences (e.g., in the case where a word itself is limited to dialect, valid spellings might get suppressed), and (like Prosfilaes, I think) I don't really see a benefit to excluding such words. - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The "eye dialect" issue that you mention has been raised several times I think. As I understood it, we are now consensually using the term "eye dialect" to include words such as "dwagon", per sense #2 at eye dialect: "(more broadly) Nonstandard spelling which indicates nonstandard pronunciation." If we aren't then, as has been pointed out, large numbers of "eye dialect" words are incorrectly labelled. Mihia (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's a consensus. There's simply a general inertia surrounding this issue. PUC 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/March#.22Eye_dialect.22_label. Mihia (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This strikes me as a stylistic device, rather than a lexical phenomenon. Ordinary language is distorted to evoke an image- the distinctiveness is in the pattern, not the words it's applied to. One may have a character saying "I'm fffreezing! It's cccold in here!", or "I habe a code in by dose", or "it maketh my tongue feel tho numb". Then there are all the ways of representing all the stereotyped accents that character actors and cartoon voice actors like to use. One character may go the "thee-yater", while another goes to the "theatuh". Think of all the "w" words that can be attested with "v" spellings in stereotypical German dialog, or all the "h" dropping in stereotypical Cockney dialog, or all the things that happen to vowels and syllable-final "r"s in stereotypical Southern dialog. We don't have snowclones in mainspace, and we shouldn't have this kind of thing, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we can't find some alternative solution that allows us to record evidence of citations for these forms without specifically having entries for them. bd2412 T 04:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
When any "r" in any word (subject to certain phonetic or orthographic restrictions) can be changed to "w" to indicate defective pronunciation, and thus any example can created in an ad hoc manner at any time according to an author's choosing, does evidence of citations actually matter? Does it actually matter whether or not someone so far ever wrote "orthogwaphic" or "cowonaviwus" or any other? I say no. Mihia (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Wiktionary isn't just for people who know the phonetic or orthographic restrictions. It is also a resource for language learners and foreign readers who may come here because they come across "dwagon" or the like in print, and are genuinely unclear as to its meaning. bd2412 T 03:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think some wires have got slightly crossed. The issue of being able to look it up is one thing, but you were talking about recording citations without having an entry that people could look up. That is the suggestion that I was specifically responding to. Mihia (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I would presume that any system we set up to maintain such citations would note in some way that they reference an intentional misspelling, with the correct spelling being referenced (and linked) in some way. bd2412 T 03:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, not lexical.  --Lambiam 17:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Abstain, though I'm somewhat curious whether this could pass RFV. Similar cases are waycism, waycist. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've cited it. I see no reason it would fail RFV; cites are plentiful, from a broad time period, and clearly independent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, the CFI is not absolute but is a work in progress, and it is with the aid of investigations such as this that it may be developed. Mihia (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, then, here, here, here, here, here, and here is a mother lode of new entries- enjoy! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
If you propose a workable principle, we can add it to CFI or even use it as a CFI override. "What is rule-based is excluded" is not a workable principle, as per preferpreferred or redredness. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Undecided. But I like the idea of including terms used by children, they are underrepresented in dictionaries. – Jberkel 23:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete this particular usage of the "w" for "r" replacement, but I'm for waycism because it is (apparently) commonly used by adults for mockery. Note the distinction between this and adult eye dialect terms like cunnel (for colonel) and yeah#Etymology 2 (for year). Eye dialect forms in other cases are not easily predictable, and can therefore in many cases be mistaken for something else. There is no one rule for these. However, there is only one rule for this: replace the "r" in any term, except the "r" at the end, with "w".
By the way, has anyone thought of creating an entry for -w-? This would allow Wiktionary to explain how this phenomenon works, and having an entry like that would be more useful and concise than having thousands upon thousands of "w forms" of words. It might also be useful to have an appendix page for childish dialect in English. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not -w- because it can occur at the start or end of a word, not only as an interfix. It's simply replacing one letter (or sound) with another. Equinox 19:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete--non-lexical. --Uisleach (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

pearl-necklaceEdit

crappy attributive-form page --Alsowalks (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's also an Alternative form. I've added several citations. Keep Leasnam (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it an alternative form of the non-SOP variant of the term as well? - TheDaveRoss 12:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the noun entry pearl-necklace: no CFI-relevant rationale provided, and this is not an attributive form of a noun for which recently there was a vote to delete those. For reference, nominated by Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Redirect or delete, this is an alternate form of an SOP term, which is only kept because there is a figurative usage as well. - TheDaveRoss 16:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

umbrella bodyEdit

SOP: see umbrella sense 3, "Something that covers a wide range of concepts, purposes, groups, etc." (also used in umbrella term and umbrella organisation, but I'm not going to RFD those). PUC 12:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 

borrowin'Edit

Test case for -in' endings. Any -ing word (at least, of more than one syllable) can be written like this to indicate dialect or defective pronunciation. This is a rule that people can learn, and not expect to be able to look up every one of thousands of possibilities individually. Mihia (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Why borrowin' and not borrows and borrowed? I'd argue that there's more reason to have borrowin' than borrows, since people can learn the rule about changing -ing to -in', but they will have learned the rules of basic verb conjugation in English by the time that they encounter borrows.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Take to RFV; keep it it can be attested in a CFI-compliant way, otherwise delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep (if attested); I just don't see the harm in these, although I don't think I'd oppose hard-redirecting as many as possible (i.e. any where there's no other, idiomatic sense, or other-language term spelled the same way). Frankly, we could do that for all inflected forms, but we've opted to provide information on the nature of the inflection, and I don't see why we wouldn't do that here. (Although the utility is marginal, I do think there's utility to having entries for the inflected forms, including obsolete/archaic ones like "thinketh", so anyone looked them up or copypasting them into search reaches the definition after a click or two.) - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cited, per Mahāgaja's comment, back to 1858 (and probably earlier). One interesting note, possibly of relevance here. Citations before that tend to show the same usage for "borrowin" without the apostrophe at the end, which would at least be an obsolete alternative spelling. E.g., 1834, Seba Smith, et al., The Life of Andrew Jackson: President of the United States, p. 233: "...I thou't a spell on the borrowin of the post-office, and the necessity of havin interested who wou'd shell out the kett tu keep power in their hands. The borrowin tu electioneer from the Bank at Nashvil, reconcil'd you tu state banks...". It would be interesting to determine how the apostrophe was gained. bd2412 T 04:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Useless. PUC 22:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a transformation which is arbitrary and can equally be applied to lots of words without changing their meaning but only changing their pronunciation. At most redirect to the word being transformed. - TheDaveRoss 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • We should at least be keeping records of citations for these forms somewhere. bd2412 T 03:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
      I would put them on the citations page for the transformed term, just like a letter-case variant. - TheDaveRoss 13:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Either keep (or rather make entries for) all of 'em, or not go there at all, thus a delete (in this instance) - once upon a time when I was creating a spellchecker to spellcheck a corpus of literature, I ended up having to include "-in'" forms for every single continuous participle in the base dictionary because these "dropped G" forms are ubiquitous in representations of speech in literature. One way to look at them is that they are available and regular (albeit nonstandard) orthographic forms of the words. We could presumably programmatically create entries for all that simply had a def along the lines of "(in representations of speech) a form of XXX indicating an unvelarised pronunciation". Personally, I think there would be no problem with this. Wiktionary is not a dictionary of only standard English (or other lang), after all. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The Northern Irish always seem to drop their g's, but I wouldn't create a load of g-less entries because of that. DonnanZ (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - kinda - Actually, we need to go further - I think we should use a bot to automatically create pages for "dropped-g" forms of all -ing suffixed words. Once when I had to create a spellchecker to check a corpus of literature (mostly novels and poetry) for new words I had to add dropped-g forms for every -ing word so that the spellchecker would accept the countless cases throughout the corpus. It is a regular orthographic variant form of the English language, just nonstandard. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not comparable to existing entries such as borrows, borrowed, and so on because it's not a separate word .... its just a respelling of an existing word. All such words should be deleted UNLESS they have gained a specific meaning for the new spelling, as perhaps with obscene words (and even that is questionable). Soap 16:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • So we canonize one spelling as correct? By that logic, we should delete "color" as just a respelling of an existing word. Borrows was chosen as a response to the nominator, not to your argument, novel to this discussion. Is borrows really a separate word? It's just "borrow" with a grammatical marker tacked on; it's only English orthography that leads you to believe they're one word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree with you about borrows.... a traditional dictionary wouldnt have an entry for borrows either ... Im not sure why we do, perhaps it's to reduce the effort at looking something up or making a link. However such a convenience doesnt really apply to words with -in' which are seldom used in print and do not represent a grammatical form distinct from -ing words. As for color/colour, I would agree with you there too if there were duplicate forms for every single noun in the language, but there aren't ... this spelling variation applies to just a subset of nouns, whereas the ing ~ in' variation applies to every English language verb. Soap 16:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

lower extremeEdit

upper extremeEdit

SOP. See the discussion at Wiktionary:Tea room/2020/January#lower extreme, upper extreme.  --Lambiam 22:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete both. Equinox 21:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

boomer removerEdit

Why was this deleted as a creative protologism? It's clearly in use, clearly in the mass media. And it was referenced to news articles, from the New York Post and Newsweek. -- 67.70.32.186 04:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Those all seem to be mentions, not uses. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The uses are on social media that Millennials use (as mentioned in the news articles). Thus this is an internet-used word. Like Reddit [33][34] or Twitter ; The news articles prove the term exists, and shows that it has entered the notice of the social consciousness of the world at large. -- 67.70.32.186 00:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Only one of the three links you provide there is a use, one is a mention and one is a hashtag term. While this may indeed be entering the lexicon, I don't think there is any need to get out ahead of it before it is established in some meaningful way, that is what UrbanDictionary is for. - TheDaveRoss 16:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a question for RFD. Feel free to move this to RFV. PUC – 10:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Maastricht FormationEdit

I'm thinking we probably don't want names of formations... it's rather encyclopaedic, even more so than geographic names. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I’d be in favour of keeping these if they were true proper nouns, but in Dutch this is Formatie van Maastricht, in French Formation de Maastricht and in German Maastricht-Formation. Next to compounds with formation, there are basins (like the Michigan Basin), faults (like the Alpine Fault), groups (like the Areado Group), rifts (like the Asunción Rift), and so on. It is a bit arbitrary whether the classifier is capitalized; one also finds Maastricht formation. Also, why limit such entities to geology; what about politics (Maastricht Treaty, Connecticut Compromise) and events (Dixon Bridge Disaster, Ludlow Massacre, Wanpaoshan Incident, ...)?  --Lambiam 12:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19Edit

English entry is redundant, because a Translingual entry already exists for these exact senses. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  • The synonyms are not Translingual synonyms, they are English synonyms. Where does that information go then? -- 67.70.32.186 00:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm divided. I don't think it's ideal to move synonyms etc out of what may be the most common name (and: move them to where? coronavirus, which is itself at RFD?); OTOH, one could add language sections with synonyms for several other languages as well. But, back on the first hand (we'll sure have to wash these hands after touching all these topics!), the same is true of coronavirus, that string too is used in lots of languages and yet also can have other synonyms in them: so it might be useful ask whether and on what basis either COVID-19 or coronavirus should be said to be, and especially to exclusively be, Translingual, vs to be words in various languages? Neither is used in all languages in that specific form, Portuguese accents the i in coronavírus, and French title-cases Covid-19, and languages that don't use Latin script seem to additionally (if not sometimes exclusively) use other things, like โควิด-๑๙ (COVID-19). And where would those translations be listed, if the English entry goes? Can translations be listed in Translingual entries that are not taxonomic names? So, I'm inclined to keep. Perhaps disease-outbreak names are theoretically Translingual, set by some authority for all languages to use without change, but this disease has clearly become so common and so notable than numerous languages have also "naturalized" the name into their own lects and preferred capitalizations and scripts and so on. - -sche (discuss) 15:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There is also a pronunciation given now (unsourced though, and I don't know if there's consensus on it yet…) for the English, whereas obviously there is none for the “translingual” section”. I think it is fair to say the word has gotten a lot of usage in English already, so it's part of the language. Ajfweb (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    • This is anecdotal evidence, but I've heard "COVID-19" a lot on the radio and in person and nobody has ever used a pronunciation other than /ˈkoʊ.vɪd naɪn.ˈtin/. —Tanner Swett (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think deleting all but the Translingual entry is practical because if this were done, the language-specific information on pronunciation and synonyms that would have to be awkwardly stuffed into the Translingual entry. — Eru·tuon 22:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as it appears in English text. I have just entered a quote using it (but not for this term). One thing I have learnt with quotes is that words other than the quote-word can be linked to using square brackets, e.g. [[COVID-19]]. Very useful. DonnanZ (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I have since added a few more linked indirect quotes. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep. I think I've seen this primarily as "Covid-19" in French, but "COVID-19" in English. And pronunciations vary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I should also mention that different languages have different genders for the term, and genders are not translingual. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong keep. Why would it be removed? It is an English word, and having to merge everything into the translingual entry makes no sense! Hkbusfan (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep The English meaning "a species in family Coronaviridae ..." is included in the Translingual term, but any other meaning is likely to be specific to English unless we get attestation on other languages and/or change our habit to ignoring the translinguality of terms that are in use in multiple languages such as those from medical and legal Latins (or is that latins). DCDuring (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Kept: looks like there's a clear consensus for keeping. PUC – 10:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

EpsteinEdit

RFD-sense of "Jeffrey Epstein". CFI does not clearly protect or proscribe content like this. My view is that not every notable, or rather notorious individual belongs in a dictionary. We might as well add a royal bevy of Henries. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted out of process. I think the term has acquired a hot-word meaning, something like “child molester who is enabled by the high and mighty”: “How many more Epsteins are out there?”; “And if we don’t deal with this fundamental fact, there will always be more Kochs, more Epsteins, and all the other depraved elites who would happily commit us to extinction if it means another dollar”; “no doubt there are many more Epsteins around”.  --Lambiam 12:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
And restored again.  --Lambiam 11:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hm. We do have 'generalized' senses at Eichmann and Hitler. It does seem like a grey area, since many famous people's names are used (and theoretically any could be used) to refer to their characteristics. "Boris Johnson is England's Trump" or vice versa, and how many more Trumps will arise in America in the future, etc; or, on Google Books I see someone writing that "it scares me that there aren't more Obamas in Congress." (We have both the president and an adjective sense at Obama, besides the surname sense, which seems questionable.) - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not recommending that we add this generalized sense before it has stood the test of time; it was just an observation that might be of interest.  --Lambiam 11:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. There are many notable individuals who may be referred to as Epstein; one has marked, but almost certainly quite temporary, notoriety; soon it will be more likely the surname used in isolation refers to some other individual.  --Lambiam 11:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

provided thatEdit

I disagree that it's an alternative form of provided. The presence or absence of that is not a lexical feature but a grammatical one. PUC – 18:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that only if and as long as are mostly synonymous with provided:
  •  You can ask questions here provided you have done your homework first.
  •  You can ask questions here only if you have done your homework first.
  •  You can ask questions here as long as you have done your homework first.
But they are not if the sentence uses provided together with that:
  •  You can ask questions here provided that you have done your homework first.
  • *You can ask questions here only if that you have done your homework first.
  • *You can ask questions here as long as that you have done your homework first.
So this seems not to be just a grammatical feature. Personally, I feel the two ought to be swapped, with provided that as the main form, with synonyms, and the conjunction provided defined as an alternative, shortened form of provided that. We should have usage examples, though, with tmesis, as is possible in many multi-word expressions; that is, the components are separated by the insertion of one or more words, as in provided furthermore, that.  --Lambiam 12:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of yoten.Edit

(Deleted by @Robbie SWE.) It's a humorous past participle of yeet, and still linked to from that entry. It's in use ([35], [36], [37], [38]). See also yote#Etymology_3. grendel|khan 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the regular/expected past-tense form yeeted is attested, other past tense forms would require citations from CFI-compliant media (printed books, magazines, newspapers,... or decentrally archived Usenet, but I see nothing there...). In the absence of such citations — if the forms are rare and internet-only (and jocular) — yoten and yote should be removed from yeet (and yote should be deleted, although that is, strictly speaking, an RFV matter). - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

exponential growthEdit

Sounds SOP. PUC – 10:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. - TheDaveRoss 12:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
At any rate, I have amended the (to me) backward-seeming definition at exponential, that defined the word in terms of two admittedly common but essentially arbitrary examples of usage, so that that definition is no longer dependent on the separate existence of exponential growth or exponential decay. Mihia (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I would tend to keep this. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as set phrase and per the non-binding WT:LEMMING ([39], [40]). Imetsia (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider "the number of coronavirus cases has been growing exponentially" and "the growth in the number of coronavirus cases has been exponential" and "there has been exponential growth in the number of coronavirus cases". Where exactly does it change from independent words expressing a concept to a single lexical unit? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Mihia and Chuck. Equinox 19:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete...though I don't feel strongly about it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Unfortunately. It's in the OED. Lemmings. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Lemmings is not a policy and is non-binding; it failed a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: So what if the lemmings principle failed a vote, it's still a valid consideration for Wiktionary not to lag in coverage compared to other dictionaries. bd2412 T 19:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@BD2412: Tooironic said "Unfortunately"; my point is that there is no CFI-driven and no consensus-driven compulsion for him to vote "keep". And if we ever pass lemmings, it will probably be as an option, a card that editors can play on a discretionary basis.
More on the substance of this RFD: exponential growth is growth characterized by exponential function; there would then be linear growth (characterized by linear function), quadratic growth, polynomial growth, etc. These terms do find some use, while exponential growth is the frequency leader, exponential growth, linear growth, quadratic growth, polynomial growth at Google Ngram Viewer. linear growth is not in lemmings: linear growth at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus for deletion. PUC – 10:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

marine mammalEdit

SOP. Has been RFD'ed and kept before, but I haven't seen any compelling argument from the keepers. The fact that polar bears are marine mammals might be surprising, but it has nothing to do with lexicology: it's a question of biology, ethology, ecology, what have you. There's Wikipedia for that. PUC – 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep again. DonnanZ (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The present definition is "A mammal, such as a whale, seal, sea cow or polar bear, which lives wholly or primarily in seawater." Strictly speaking, it is hard for me to see why this is anything more than "marine" + "mammal" along with a list of examples. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article (and the inclusion of polar bears in the list) suggest that the definition is wrong, they don't need to leave in seawater, but they must rely on the sea/ocean ecosystem for survival. If we consider similar terms, say saltwater fish and farm animal, I would place marine mammal on the farm animal end of the spectrum. If it were, as you say, merely a mammal which lived in the sea then I would put it on the saltwater fish end. Unless Wikipedia is wrong, I would say fix definition and keep. - TheDaveRoss 13:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Isn't that just a part of the definition of "marine", though? I mean there are e.g. marine birds too, which may not live all the time "in seawater". So, even if the definition is adjusted along your lines, wouldn't it still be just as SoP? Mihia (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on our definitions of marine it is close to SOP, perhaps the right thing to do is clarify marine so that it clearly covers this sense. - TheDaveRoss 20:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
A slight complication is that the relevant sense of marine presently reads "(zoology) Inhabiting the high seas; oceanic; pelagic. (distinguished from maritime or littoral)", while maritime is defined as "Living near or in the sea". On this basis, possibly polar bears should technically be maritime and not marine animals, and indeed I have found some references to them as such. Unfortunately I do not have the technical knowledge to adjudicate on this, but, regardless, I do not believe that the word "marine" assumes any special meaning, be it loose or technical, in the term "marine mammal", beyond what we could and should explain at "marine", so Delete. Mihia (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I had updated marine a week ago, and I updated maritime today. -Mike (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SOP per updated def at marine. Ultimateria (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • In the previous RFD I voted keep but I am no longer certain given the definition that can cover "marine bird" along "marine mammal". What about a redirect? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep again. The problem is that our def is incorrect (and seems SOP), whereas the Wikipedia def is correct (and doesn't seem SOP). In the last iteration of this discussion I remember that pretty much no one could reliably state the set of mammals that should or shouldn't be classified as marine mammals, strongly indicating that it is not SOP. If it were SOP then it would be obvious. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I have edited the def to make it more specific as to which animals the term covers. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is any different from the issue surrounding aquatic animals. As User:Dunkleosteus77 says on the talk page for w:Aquatic mammal, "Is there a set definition or list of what constitutes an aquatic mammal? I get river dolphins and maybe even beavers as aquatic mammals, but I'm wondering if it would also include the fish-eating bat. Is it just any mammal that depends predominately on food from the water? Is it any mammal that lives primarily in the water?" Since this ambiguity seems to be present in the component parts, as with "aquatic animal/mammal", I say delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Under U.S. law (which need not reflect common use) as interpreted by the EPA[41]: The term “marine mammal” means any mammal that is morphologically adapted to the marine environment, including sea otters and members of the orders Sirenia (e.g., manatee, dugong), Pinnipedia (e.g., seal, sea lion), and Cetacea (e.g., dolphin, whale) or primarily inhabits the marine environment (e.g., polar bears, sea otters). Personally I think of a sea otter as a marine mammal but I do not think of a polar bear as a marine mammal. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MavenEdit

"A build automation tool used primarily for Java projects." Specific branded software product, along the lines of Microsoft Visual Studio or Adobe DreamWeaver. Equinox 19:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to add Word, Excel too? Even if the proper name would be Apache Maven, Microsoft Word etc., the (informal/inofficial) short form should still be subject to WT:CFI#Brand names, right? --Apunite (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Apparently the proposer is not eager to add these “too”, since the request is for deletion, not for addition.  --Lambiam 11:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
They could be added to the deletion request. However, the "man in the street" probably knows what Word and Excel are, but not Maven, so I'd rather not mix things up here. Equinox 12:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WT:BRAND.  --Lambiam 11:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per ibid. -Mike (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
DeleteJberkel 20:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020Edit

one hundred sixEdit

Tagged by Uranographer with the comment "this is an outlier: there are no entries for similar numbers" on 26 February 2020 but not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I was supposed to add the deletion request here? Oops! And thanks J3133. Uranographer (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This was redirected from one hundred and six in 2010, which I consider to be the standard form. Should we remove the redirect and delete this one? DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • All numbers surrounding one hundred and six were deleted per RfD, but this one was spared for no reason I can think of (other than being overlooked by dint of being a redirect).  --Lambiam 10:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete in line with the community's policy. John Cross (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WT:CFI#Idiomaticity: "An attested integer word (such as twenty-three or twenty-third) or a decimal numeral (sequence of 0, ..., 9 digits) that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. In sequences of digits such as 125, the digits are considered to be separate components for the purpose of idiomaticity, and therefore, the sequences are often not idiomatic." The nominated entry has no idiomatic sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per our numbers policy. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

blame America firstEdit

Sum of parts, no? Blame + America + first. There could be a number of different insinuations depending on the speaker's intent. Not particularly lexical IMO. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete, obviously.  --Lambiam 10:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete: SoP; no idiomatic meaning. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. Political parties and companies etc. are usually something for Wikipedia, so we have e.g. Netscaper but not Netscape. We do seem to have a habit of including particularly well known companies and parties though. Maybe WT:BRAND issue. Equinox 14:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
America First is a movement, not an established political party, and "blame America first" is a tongue-and-cheek reference to that movement. Purplebackpack89 23:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
According to our entry America Firster, the term refers to an adherent of the marginal isolationist America First Party (1943–47), subsequently absorbed into the antisemitic Christian Nationalist Crusade. I think it is more commonly used for a member of the popular but short-lived America First Committee (1940–41), which did not survive Pearl Harbor.  --Lambiam 08:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Lambian. I am going to modify the definition. Purplebackpack89 18:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I took the plunge and created America First. Purplebackpack89 19:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as stated. Tongue in cheek usage is not automatically idiom generating. "That's a great coat" said with an eye-roll can be tongue in cheek. bd2412 T 04:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & BD. --Uisleach (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

quarter ofEdit

Per Talk:twenty-five to. The appropriate sense is already at of. Ultimateria (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete or maybe redirect to quarter. —(((Romanophile))) (contributions) 10:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 20:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep; the use in the following seems peculiar to me as a non-native speaker: 'I need twenty minutes to get to the shop." "You'll be late. It's already a quarter of."' In M-W[42] (WT:LEMMING). These deletions of useful entries surely are not making the dictionary any better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

quarter of an hourEdit

SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Abstain: mildly useful as a translation target. PUC – 20:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep: quarter of an hour, quarter-hour at Google Ngram Viewer suggests this is much more common than the synonym quarter-hour, and it is in Lexico[43]. And the translations, if correct, are nothing like obvious; for Czech, it is čtvrt and it might fit for the Lexico sense 1.1, but for a period of time it is čtvrthodina. I would like to see in the entry an example sentence like the one in Lexico for their subsense 1.1. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

take responsibilityEdit

Sum of parts. Take + responsibility. Also definition is inaccurate - blame and fault are not essential. You can take responsibility by just deciding to be a responsible person in general. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the present definition is imperfect, but I would be inclined to keep this as potentially not entirely obvious from the parts, especially when you look at how many senses "take" has. For example, is it totally obvious from the parts that this is (normally) something that one does voluntarily? Noting also that we have many "take ~" compounds (see search results), some admittedly more clearly idiomatic than this one. Mihia (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I see the term used in two related and sometimes overlapping but nevertheless clearly distinguishable senses, corresponding to different senses of take. One is to accept responsibility , which is a social act: it is not something you can do in secrecy but only in a social context. In this sense there is an explicit or implied conduct, circumstance, event or outcome for which the responsibility is taken (for example, the door having been left unlocked). Another is to resolve to act responsibly, to take control of one’s actions so as to ensure they do not cause unnecessary harm. This can be a purely internal act. In this sense there is an explicit or implied aim for which the responsibility is taken (for example, one‘s health). Both senses seem a sum of parts, but perhaps the polysemy is nevertheless a reason to keep the entry.  --Lambiam 15:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is a good example of the second sense. For the first sense, just Google [Trump crisis].  --Lambiam 15:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "take responsibility" can in itself mean "resolve to act responsibly". The Billie Eilish quote may be an error for something like "behave responsibly", or "take responsibility for their own actions" could be implied. In one place the full quote is given as "Please take responsibility for your endurance of this", which hardly makes sense to me. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The mention of "behave responsibly" reminds me of one of my favourite T-shirt messages: "When They Make 'Responsibly' Beer, I'll Drink Responsibly". Ha-ha! Mihia (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. It can be added as a usage example to take. It's true that take has many senses, but does that mean we are going to have entries for phrases like take medicine, take one's temperature, and so on? — SGconlaw (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. As already stated, the definition cannot easily be gleaned from the sum of parts, because of the 50+ senses "take" has. In addition, we already have entries like take a joke (sense 14), take a nap (sense 14?), take a picture (sense 41), take out of context (sense 3; otherwise, sense 1 of take out), take a seat (sense 30), and so on. At first blush, these may look like SOP. But these expressions and more are so common (and their meaning would not be readily apparent to a non-native speaker) that they feel like set phrases meriting their own entries. Imetsia (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
That is equally true of "take aspirin", "take the third exit", "take $5" or "take Calculus". Chuck Entz (talk)
There's probably no bright-line rule for determining whether a certain term is "set phrase enough" or "idiomatic enough" that it overrides its at-first-glance SOPness. Your examples pretty obviously aren't, and therefore everyone would agree that they shouldn't be included as entries. But the sheer number of meanings for "take" makes it difficult to sort out the meaning of "take responsibility". That, combined with (1) the fact that the locution seems subjectively "set-phrase enough" and (2) our (by no means binding) precedent of including many similar "take" compounds should be compelling enough to keep the entry. Until we have a solid rule to eliminate this penumbra, these determinations will be made ad hoc. Imetsia (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Abstain, it feels like a set phrase to me. In any case, fix the definition. PUC – 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

infectious disease specialistEdit

Probably added as a translation hub. SOP. --Vitoscots (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep per WT:THUB, supported by Czech infektolog and German Infektiologe. I expect more languages to be added. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Override THUB in this instance and delete, too SOP to my taste. PUC – 13:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
WT:THUB expressly allows override. Let me note, though, that THUB is designed to override SOP considerations with another keeping rationale, and that degree to which something is or is not SOP does not in any way lead any meaningful input into the rationale. We cannot keep all SOP terms so we need something like the SOP-exclusion policy; THUB states a rationale for lexicographical value of SOP terms. Let me also note that it was not entirely straightfoward for me to discover "infectious disease specialist" as the good translation; I started with infectiologist, noted that it is rare and started to look for a really common term, and then found it. I then stored results of my lexicographical effort in a multi-lingual lexicographical database, the English Wiktionary, for me, and so that people who do not want to do lexicography can find answers to lexicographical questions. Makes sense? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I don't put as much stock in statistics as you do, however. There can be a certain degree of randomness to them, and it seems to me that that's the case here. It being more common doesn't make it a lexical unit. If native speakers disagree and do feel that it's a "thing", though, that's something else. You'll no doubt disagree with me and say that objective data should always trump feelings, but IMO it's very much wrong to think like that in linguistic matters. PUC – 13:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The statistics are completely clear: infectious disease specialist, infectious disease doctor, infection specialist, infectiologist, infectologist at Google Ngram Viewer; infectiologist, infectologist are not found in the Ngrams at all. Statistical phenomena are subject to chance variation, and a proper statistical analysis accounts for that. Chance variation does not render statistical analyses worthless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Put the translations at the rarer but extant term and use that as the translation hub. - TheDaveRoss 12:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
This kind of reasoning is addressed by WT:THUB as follows: "The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term: the existence of Anglistics, which is rare, does not disqualify English studies." --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep, as the guidelines at WT:THUB suggest using the commonest English phrase even if it is longer. Soap 22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep, somewhat reluctantly, per WT:THUB. Imetsia (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per the above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep as thub — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus for deletion. PUC – 09:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

conceptual modelEdit

"A model that is represented by concepts or related concepts formed after a conceptualization process in the mind." The last part ("formed...") seems entirely redundant since being formed in the mind is always part of a concept. The rest is SoP. Equinox 19:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the RfD process now also required for removing redundant parts of definitions? I must say, after removing this, the definition remains opaque. In practice it appears to mean a model represented by a picture consisting of an assemblage of text balloons connected by arrows for which it remains mysterious what they represent, reminiscent of a conspiracy theorist’s pin-up board.  --Lambiam 20:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I propose deletion of the entry; I said "the rest is SoP". Equinox 20:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, Delete. If this is entry-worthy by dint of having an idiomatic meaning, whoever is up to the task will be better off by having a fresh start. I looked at the Wikipedia page, but apart from trivialities it is mostly blather and hot air.  --Lambiam 10:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless. Mihia (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

elite leagueEdit

Appears to mean no more than "elite" + "league". Previously considered at RFV. Mihia (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. Old Man Consequences (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, I don't think it passed RFV. - TheDaveRoss 20:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

main pageEdit

See Tea room discussion --5.41.222.252 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

forkEdit

"(geography) Used in the names of some river tributaries. West Fork White River and East Fork White River join together to form the White River of Indiana." I believe this is covered by another sense: "One of the parts into which anything is furcated or divided; a prong; a branch of a stream, a road, etc.; a barbed point, as of an arrow." Also, the challenged definition doesn't actually explain what it means in a river name; it's like saying that "Inc." is used in some company names, without explaining about incorporation. Equinox 17:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a separate sense. Mihia (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If the current sense 9 is deleted the usex can remain as part of sense 8. But there is a synonym here, "branch" can be used instead; Ashburton River North Branch and South Branch, and there is a settlement named Ashburton Forks. Beat that. DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Sense 8 is about splitting in the upstream direction into distributaries. Sense 9 is about the confluence of tributaries. Wikipedia states that this is specifically US usage.  --Lambiam 13:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Rereading sense 8, it is the actual point or place where the forking occurs, but it doesn't specify whether this is looking upstream or downstream; many rivers have islands in them or deltas at the river mouth where branches are formed. I suspect these are usually called branches but this may differ from river to river. On the other hand, sense 9 refers to the names given to tributaries for perhaps their entire length from source to the place where they converge. This is true of the Ashburton River, even though the tributaries are called branches and not forks; and branch is a synonym of sense 9 but not necessarily of sense 8, which can be compared with a junction. DonnanZ (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Rereading Equinox's nomination again, he is saying it's superfluous to sense 7, not sense 8. But I think it should be kept in some form. DonnanZ (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

bitten-to-the-quickEdit

Seems NISoP to me, = bitten + to + the + quick#Noun. DCDuring (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I see two issues here. The first is whether the phrase bite to the quick (and inflections) is eligible, which it probably is not as SoP; the second is that even if we had an entry for that, we shouldn't list bitten-to-the-quick separately because it is a hyphenated attributive form that essentially means nothing more than the unhyphenated phrase. (I am assuming that this entry is supposed to be for the attributive form; at least, the sole example is of that.) Delete. Mihia (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if it changes anything, but there is usage for a figurative sense of "bite to the quick"- apparently a variant of cut to the quick. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This underwent RFD before (with little input) and was kept; see Talk:bitten-to-the-quick. I would delete. (Also, why only fingernails and not toenails?) Equinox 19:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I, for one, can't put my foot in my mouth. DonnanZ (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You could put someone else's foot in your mouth. Equinox 10:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but I don't fancy toe jam anyway... DonnanZ (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I suddenly feel like rapping, |beaten|to the|punch|and|bitten|to the|quick|...  --Lambiam 20:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please don't. Mihia (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 19:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

reciprocal of the probabilityEdit

Sum of parts - it's the reciprocal of the probability. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. As SOP as it gets.  --Lambiam 08:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. --Uisleach (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 10:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

kicking teeEdit

This is just a tee used for kicking. It is also not exclusive to rugby. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Apart from the Wonderfool hallmark of no definition, it is an interesting variation of tee#Etymology 3, sense 2, that isn't covered there. I would keep the quote at least, and transfer it there. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Romance languageEdit

RFD'd once before, but kept with one vote two votes. This is arguably just Romance (see the senses on that page) + language, and in that sense, not any less SOP than Germanic language, Italic language, whatnot. Also note related discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#romaaninen kieli. — surjection??〉 22:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the big question is, which came first? Did the adjective "Romance" come from "Romance language", or did it have its current sense (rather than just "related to Rome") when it was used to describe languages? If "Romance" as an adjective in the current sense came before "Romance language", the latter should be deleted. Otherwise, it should be kept. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It's going to be difficult to determine - the etymology of Romance says that the term was extended for all languages derived from Latin, but not whether this was due to use in Romance language. — surjection??〉 10:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Rees's Cyclopædia of 1819 has an entryRomans, Romant, Romanic, or Romance, the polite language formerly ſpoken at the court of France”. After calling French ”only an improvement” (!), the rest of the text gives a more general meaning to the term Romance, mentioning Tuscan, Spanish, “the Romanſh language” spoken “near the ſources of the Rhine and the En”, and Provençal. This suggests that the use of the single term Romance as a noun preceded that of the attributive use for the language family. However, from reading the rambling and not particularly clear full entry, too long to reproduce here, I have the impression that the author thinks that Romance was one specific language that emanated from the French court and spread from there to Spain and Italy, were it was corrupted instead of improved as in France. Only two years later François Just Marie Raynouard published his Grammaire comparée des langues de l'Europe latine, in which he explicitly formulated the theory that what we now call the Romance languages were derived from a common post-Latin language. The present view that all in their own way derive from Latin – in other words, that Latin was the most recent common ancestor, and not a hypothetical ancestor dubbed “Romance”, was put forward by George Cornewall Lewis in his 1835 book An Essay on the Origin and Formation of the Romance Languages, in which he writes, “M. Raynouard, however, constantly applies the name of Romance to the language of the Troubadours: and M. Champollion-Figéac, who has since discussed this subject, adheres to his use of the word, and makes the Romance language a common term for the dialects of Provence, [...], and Catalonia. [...] I shall attempt to show that although the ancient language of oc, the language spoken in Southern France and Catalonia, was a Romance language, it was not the Romance language: that it was merely one of the dialects arising out of the change produced in the Latin by the Teutonic invasion.” (pp. 56–57.) A footnote on page 57 points out that George Ellis had already observed that the term Romance in its widest sense had been used for any dialect based on Vulgar Latin. In conclusion, the situation is unclear. The current sense of the term Romance language arose of a reappraisal of the meaning, originally being a SOP of attributive Romance (a putative language being a descendant of Latin and the common ancestor of French, Spanish and Italian). After the change of meaning, is it still an SOP? The first component cannot be Raynouard's Romance, but it could be Ellis's. In that case the meaning is not the one we list for the noun (a group of languages), but instead “any language derived from Vulgar Latin”. But then it is slightly unnatural to keep using (as Lewis does) the forms a Romance language and the Romance languages instead of simply a Romance and the Romances – just like we do not say a patois language or the dialect languages. Therefore I lean towards inclusion. I’d like to see the attestation for the 17th-century date given at Romance; based on the preceding, it appears unlikely that the term had already then the collective sense of our definition.  --Lambiam 12:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I would guess that the attributive noun came first, but I don't know if it really matters. I usually figure that compound entries like oak tree, tuna fish, &c. are unnecessary when they are really not idioms that cannot be understood by the components. But I realize I'm in the minority. -Mike (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per the non-binding WT:LEMMING: M-W[44], Macmillan[45]. For reference, kept in previous RFD in 2009. If not keep, at least redirect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

bad dogEdit

I think this is a transparent collocation, and a pretty stupid entry. DCDuring thinks that it's idiomatic, which proves he can't tell jokes apart from idioms. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an interjection with "bad" that is typically only used with "dog", "cat", "boy", and "girl". People don't say for instance, "bad human!" as an interjection. I'd say it should be kept. Fish900 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I say "bad human!" all the time. Gender-neutral, right?? --Vitoscots (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Being able to say "bad [X]" is strictly a matter of your relationship to [X]- it has nothing to do with anything lexical. Human beings aren't really in a position to address other human beings as "human" in such a manner, but if they were, then "bad human!" would be quite natural. One can certainly find instances of "bad human", but they're far outnumbered by false positives, so it's probably not worth the trouble.. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. You are just telling the dog that it was bad. -Mike (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
"Good dog!" and "naughty dog!" are also extremely common, and I can imagine others like "silly dog!". Equinox 18:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Like “silly goose!”?  --Lambiam 05:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Silly goose! definitely should have an entry because it is referring to a person. Fish900 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
It definitely should not. "You ugly bastard" and "greedy child!" also refer to people, but they are obvious from the individual words. No multi-word entry needed. Equinox 16:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"silly goose" refers to a person, not an actual goose, therefore an entry is appropriate. As far as I know, people aren't referred to as geese except in this expression.172.58.171.159 16:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I don’t see how that would make the combination non-SOP, as goose has a meaning that it is derogatorily used for a human. DeleteFay Freak (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Bad entry! Delete. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per DCDuring's "This term is used to scold humans. Therefore it must be an idiom", unless the term is in fact not used to scold humans. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dan Polansky The challenged entry does not mention humans. DCDuring wrote that only on the talk page. Equinox 15:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Equinox True enough. The idea is that a phrase that is so readily repurposed to refer to humans must have some setness/idiomaticity to it. The idea may be debatable, but it is there. Admittedly, the entry might be improved by adding a humorous sense to it; we do not do this in Czech (we do not say "zlý pejsek" to humans), and therefore, it is language behavior worth documenting. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    I have no desire to check, but I would suspect that BDSM literature might have some interesting permutations. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP, see dog senses 5, 6, 7. PUC – 10:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
How is that relevant to the proposed deletion? In the sense of the interjection as defined in the challenged entry bad dog, the sense of the noun is obviously that of dog sense 1.
Sorry, it was my answer to the suggestion above that if this is used for a person it makes it non-SOP. Yes, SOP per sense 1. PUC – 20:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Of the many ways in which exasperated English speakers might shout at their naughty canine (“disobedient dog!”, “perverse pooch!”, “contrary cur!”, “misbehaving mutt!”, “fiendish flea bag!”), “bad dog!” is the utterance of choice. This is sense 6 of bad: not behaving or misbehaving; mischievous or disobedient. So this appears to be SOP. The only claim to idiomaticity might be that this interjectory use is reserved to pets; at least, I think parents would not generally shout “bad daughter!” to their disobedient child.  --Lambiam 06:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've personally heard "bad boy!" and "bad girl!" directed at very young children. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
"Bad kitty!" Delete! PseudoSkull (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, thank you for the lols. …also dog wheelchair. whelp. – Jberkel 18:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Bad dog wheelchair!  --Lambiam 13:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

my storiesEdit

Soap operas that a person follows regularly. This entry is redundant because:

  • We already have the US soap-opera sense at story.
  • "my" is not unique to this phrase; indeed, the 2005 citation at Citations:my_stories says women often refer to soap operas in the first person singular possessive, "my stories," for instance, or "my soap," or "my show". So if anything, we might need an extra sense at my (and his, her, etc.?).
  • "my" (or other possessive) is not unique to phrases for soap operas either. Consider "she loves her pop music", "he's watching one of his westerns". It's the same thing.

Equinox 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Alice and BobEdit

"(cryptography) Two people wishing to communicate securely with each other, Alice sending Bob information." They are a common pair, but so's coffee and donuts; they don't need to occur in the and-formation. We have adequate entries at Alice and Bob for these cryptographic placeholder people (plus there are others, like Mallory the malicious interceptor, and Peggy and Victor, the prover and verifier.) Equinox 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 12:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Del. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 14:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep My preference would be the removal of the entries at Alice and Bob in exchange for keeping this entry, but I realize I am in the minority and likely not within policy on that front (since I don't contribute much here). –MJLTalk 01:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Then we won't have any entry that explains a sentence like "Alice transmits message M to Bob". We cover words and phrases, not topics, and Alice can occur without "and Bob", as shown. Equinox 01:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. We should add some usexes/quotes for this sense to Alice and Bob. – Jberkel 09:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

no-smokingEdit

Seems SOP as "no" (sense 3) + "smoking." And by adding a hyphen, any such "no-[X]" construction can become an adjective — e.g. "no-soliciting sign," "no-food-or-drink zone," etc. Imetsia (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really; I didn't realize these were even entries, although they do sound equally as SOP. Imetsia (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete this. @Donnanz:: non(-)smoking is not the same because it actually means "not smoking", e.g. a nonsmoking adult, whereas a "no-smoking sign" is named after the words on it, more like a "turn-left sign" etc. Equinox 02:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Equinox: Yes, I knew that. But I didn't realise this one is a new entry. DonnanZ (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to keep this, as I regard it as the correct form for no smoking as an attributive adjective, although many people wouldn't bother inserting a hyphen. And there are no-smoking signs every-bloody-where these days... DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
But isn't the consensus that we don't keep "attributive form" versions of words? (We even had a vote on it). In any event, the more basic question is whether no smoking should even be kept in the first place, since the SOP rationale provided in the request for deletion seems to apply just the same. Imetsia (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
By sense 3 of no, “Not any possibility or allowance of (doing something)”, no smoking is definitely SOP. No fighting, no drinking, no spitting, no gambling, no playing outside, no pleading your way out of it, no crying for mama.  --Lambiam 06:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SOP, IMO. ("No smoking" can at least be, and has been, argued to be a useful phrasebook entry.) - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 20:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020Edit

playing apparatusEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be anything other than playground equipment. DonnanZ (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the issue? SOP? The term is used: [46], [47], [48].  --Lambiam 06:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I would call this a playset, but we seem to not have that definition listed. Soap 17:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
And so I have decided to add that definition, which I think is the more common term for what this is. I would even go so far as to say there's a difference between a playset, which is a unitary structure, and the often freestanding structures seen on large wide-open playgrounds ... e.g. a playground is often going to have a separate swingset, one or more slides, maybe some sand to play in, etc... but most people dont have 26 kids so they buy a single piece of equipment that combines all that into one (and saves space too). By contrast playing apparatus looks like it covers the broader sense of any furniture, typically outdoors, that children are able to play on. Soap 18:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nazi helmetEdit

Nazi & helmet? —(((Romanophile))) (contributions) 06:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing visually distinctive about the helmets worn by the German Army during the Nazi period, compared to what the Reichswehr had been using since WWI, except for the decal of an eagle gripping a swastika with its talons. (image) The SS had their own insignia. This model of helmet (sometimes imported from Germany, sometimes copied) was also used by the armies of Argentina, Bolivia, Chili, China, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, and Spain. It is doubtful whether the uses tend to refer specifically to the 1935 or later Third Reich issues, or generally to this model of helmet – in which case it is debatable how SOP this is.  --Lambiam 07:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it's an RFV matter, to see if e.g. "WWI Nazi helmet" is attested (it does not seem to be), and conversely, whether other styles of helmets the Nazis used can be referred to as Nazi helmets (I expect so). I don't know. The current contents of the entry are not compelling. - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

have the time of one's lifeEdit

Since this tends to be used to mean "to experience the greatest time in one's life", I suggest that this may be simply the sum of its parts. Tharthan (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Move this one to time of one's life per Lambiam's and TheDaveRoss' reasoning below. Not only does it sound idiomatic/set-phrase enough to my ears, but it's also supported by (non-binding) WT:LEMMING ([49], [50], [51]). Imetsia (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Move to the lemma time of one's life, just as two of those "lemmings" do. It can be used with other verbs (e.g. it was the time of my life) and with have it is SOP. Redirect from the have version. - TheDaveRoss 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Move per TheDaveRoss and possibly make this a redirect. Equinox 23:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to of someone's life, or time of someone's life is there's no consensus for the former option. PUC – 14:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

cut through the jargonEdit

SOP: you can cut through many things ("cut through the bureaucracy", "cut through your primitive beliefs", "cut through the crap", etc.). However, I think our definition at cut through ("to deal with an issue quickly") is inaccurate. Doesn't it mean do away with? Or get rid of? Or see past? PUC – 10:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. The commonality of cut through is that the speaker expresses their opinion that one can do without whatever it is they find burdensome, and their conviction that there is some way to avoid it. I suspect that the initial metaphor is that of “cutting through the thicket” with one’s machete, to open up a more expedient passage. It may be hard to find a verb that covers all applications; some others that come to mind are skip and ignore. But used as in “cut through the thicket of local regulations” – which one cannot get rid of or skip, and should not ignore – deal with quickly/deftly/expertly is a better fit.  --Lambiam 12:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
DeleteJberkel 14:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Some searches: cut through the jargon, cut through the bureaucracy, cut through your primitive beliefs, cut through the crap, cut through red tape at Google Ngram Viewer; "cut through red tape" is the leader, followed by "cut through the crap". cut through the jargon at OneLook Dictionary Search finds nothing. What does "cut through the jargon" really mean? Does it mean for an author to avoid using jargon or does it mean for a reader to successfully deal with excessive jargon used by an author or a group? For instance, "Unless you can cut through the jargon like a knife through butter, it is much better to deal through a broker (who can) instead of direct with a company" would suggest the latter (a reader). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Firstly, when you see something like "cut through X like a knife through butter", that's not quite the same as seeing "cut through X" alone, but more like an entire flowery metaphor of its own; I don't think that kind of thing supports this shorter form very well. Secondly, you ask what it means: it doesn't mean to avoid using jargon. It means that jargon exists and you skip the difficulties of the jargon and find your way to the real "meat" or meaning. Like cutting through an obstructing hedge to reach your destination. Equinox 10:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Therefore the current definition "refrain from using technical language" is completely wrong. I am certain about this. Equinox 10:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The point about the methaphor seems fair enough. Let's takes this: "This chapter attempts to cut through the jargon, to define the key terms that you really need to know about and to give you a working knowledge of other terms that you might hear"; what does the chapter do to the jargon? If it does not avoid using it, does the "cutting through" consist in clearly defining the terms used in the jargon? Or in "The Air Force stylistic conventions are similar, exhorting writers to “get to the point quickly” and to “cut through the jargon and passive voice, use the right word for the job and don't make [the readers] wade through an overgrown jungle [...]", would no the conventions exhort writers to avoid jargon and passive voice? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It means that there is a lot of jargon out there in the world, but "this chapter" is going to break through that difficult barrier of jargon, and explain things properly. It's not saying they are simply going to avoid it themselves. You cannot break through X if X isn't already there. Trust me. Equinox 10:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Naturally there is a minority of poor writers who will misuse a phrase or copy it without understanding. I doubt they are enough for us to add an extra sense. Equinox 10:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Very obvious delete for English native speakers. You can cut through anything of this sort. Equinox 10:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I guess you can, but what does it mean? And does it always mean the same thing? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: "Cut through X" (in this kind of construction) always means that X exists, and you are making your way through it forcefully, to get somewhere. Ignore the "refrain from using" at this particular entry, since it's wrong; see my other comment in this thread. Equinox 10:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

home loanEdit

SOP. Since a loan contract is not agreed upon without economic purpose (else what has passed from the lender to the loanee can be reclaimed according to the rules on unjust enrichment), so here the loan is for a home “one’s own dwelling place”. Like there are car loans, mine loans, and so on; the exaltation of one’s homestead doesn’t change anything in this. This page has been created for Chinese translations which may also be SOP, originally defining “home loan” as “mortgage” while a mortgage is a specific type of contract being a loan with an accessory pledge (an in-rem right splitting off the right to realize the value of the thing from the ownership right), which is not needs the case with the term “home loan”. So it does not appear to be a legally fixed term and there is in comparison no fixed term in German since there is in general nothing peculiar about such a loan, the general rules on and practices of loan contracts and the provision of securities apply; so one agrees upon a loan and independently or not but not necessarily upon a security consisting in a pledge on real estate. The Greek translation looks pretty much SOP too. The Finnish entry asuntolaina begs the question what the systematical construction in Finnish law is, the gloss with both “mortgage” and “home loan” and the claim “in English ‘mortgage’ is a wider concept than asuntolaina” lets the presumption arise that its author, @Hekaheka, had too little of an idea of Finnish and comparative law to actually put into English what it is. Fay Freak (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. A well set phrase, and one used as readily for the purchase of a house one does not intend to use for living in (i.e., not a "home") as for a condominium or other unit that is not a "house", and therefore might not be defined as a "home". bd2412 T 19:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • “Home” is not defined as “house”. For example in the Wiktionary definition it is “a house or structure”. Why the condominium should change anything I see not. If that is the example for something that is not a home than I say that a condominium is a home, like a retirement home. Of course one may also take loans for speculation to sell homes to others, so it is not necessary that one oneself intends to live in it, but it is implied that with the money a home is made. And businesses may have a home. So if like you seem to suggest it is also for real estates becoming the objects of commercial rent, it only shows how colourless the term is and still SOP. And still, the types of (home) loans may be extended at pleasure, any reasons why not to create the following terms? home purchase loan, house improvement loan, house construction loan, land purchase loan, plot purchase loan, NRI home loan? Freedom of contract is what makes these names, it is not an idiomatic set phrase but a naturally occurring collocation. Fay Freak (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in the OED. ---> Tooironic (talk)
  • Keep. The fact that it has an alternative form as one word—unlike *mineloan and *carloan (~150 Ghits but only one meaning an actual car loan)—and the fleet of lemmings militate in favour of it being a fixed phrase to me. Btw, the OED lists another (dated?) definition as "a government loan raised in the home country rather than abroad" with examples, which should also be included. —Nizolan (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

hic et ubiqueEdit

Supposedly English. I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a noun (except in the rare sense “Royal Forester”[52]), more an adverb. This expression sneaked into English discourse through a dialogue between Hamlet and the Ghost (Hamlet Act 1 Scene 5). The Bard may have lifted it from a prayer.[53] While widely recognized as a Latin phrase, some Latin phrases are so entrenched that they are considered part of the English lexicon, such as ex post facto, pro tempore, and quod erat demonstrandum. Some citations of hic et ubique in English texts: [54], [55], [56]. Is this code-switching? The authors expect the reader to understand the phrase.  --Lambiam 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

glacial speedEdit

SOP. "glacial progress", "glacial pace", "glacial rate", "the speed is glacial", etc. PUC – 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

But the sense “very slow” of the adjective glacial is derived from the figurative use of glacial speed,[57][58] not the other way around. If anything, it is the literal sense that is SOP, not the figurative one.  --Lambiam 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't personally see a reason to think that the "very slow" meaning of "glacial" must be from the specific phrase "glacial speed" rather than from the general association of slow movement with a glacier. Mihia (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
But the sense "very slow" for glacial isn't quite universal. "That car is glacial", "The clerk was glacial", "This medicine is glacial to work": none of those make sense. The geological sense was added by User:SemperBlotto btw. Alexis Jazz (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how the non-universality of the figurative sense is evidence that it comes specifically from the phrase "glacial speed", if that's what you mean. Mihia (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
No, it's evidence that "glacial" doesn't mean "very slow" in every context. In fact, it would seem to only mean that in some rather limited context. (progress, pace, speed, rate) Without a word like that, it doesn't mean "very slow". Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
If usage is thought limited enough, then an appropriate label can be added to the sense at glacial. As long as there are more than a couple of possible collocations, which there are, and given that I think these cannot be precisely circumscribed, a single explanation at "glacial" is preferable to having separate entries for all the possibilities, IMO. Mihia (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Google turns up "Bottas drove well but the car is glacial compared to the others." Glacial is polysemous and still moderately non-literal in this sense (it hasn't completely ossified), but I would be hard pressed to say "rather limited".--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes that was written on a forum and not part of any well-written piece. And I think it's a rather odd line. The car is glacial? Without context I'd think the air conditioning was stuck at the highest setting. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Languages are not limited to their use in formal writing. I can't really think of any case where I'd take "the car is glacial" to mean it's freezing cold, but again, polysemy does not necessarily imply we need an entry; "the car is green" has at least three different meanings and the fact that "the car is not broken in yet" would be an unusual one does not make phrases using that sense of green not SOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You are right that languages are not limited to their use in formal writing, but we wouldn't accept an entry because someone on the internet once said something. Searching Google for "car is glacial", I get 14 results. 8 of those refer to glacial white or glacial silver, a color. One refers to temperature: "good thing the AC in the car is glacial". The other 5 are mostly forums using glacial to refer to speed:
  • "The acceleration of the car is glacial on highways and overall it is woefully unsatisfying by hitting sixty miles per hour in 12.7 seconds." (glacial refers to acceleration)
  • "The reload time on the T7 car is glacial." (glacial refers to time)
  • "Every movement, from bed, to chair, to bathroom, to car, is glacial." (glacial refers to movement)
  • "If 60mph in 4.7 and 1/4 mile in 13-14 seconds is slow with a car that is fantastic at handling then they must have very high standsrds and must think that your car is glacial, do you?" (glacial refers to car)
  • "Bottas drove well but the car is glacial compared to the others." (glacial refers to car)
Glacial (when it means "very slow") really tends to refer to things that aren't tangible. Speed, movement, acceleration. I wouldn't bet on whether "glacial" referring directly to something tangible could be attested. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not a formal cite, but it is an example of English usage. It tends to refer to things that aren't tangible, but that's not a justification for keeping glacial speed; at best, that's an argument for a note on definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Some ngrams: glacial speed, glacial progress, glacial pace, glacial rate at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
All 19th-century GBS results for "glacial progress"|"glacial speed" are non-figurative.  --Lambiam 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, adequately covered by glacial. bd2412 T 02:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - TheDaveRoss 12:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Like Mihia, I don't buy the idea that this sense of "glacial" originated from "glacial speed" (I would expect other collocations to have been earlier...). - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete per -sche. --Uisleach (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

live life to the fullestEdit

Redirect this to to the fullest, and live life to the full to to the full. PUC – 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wacky WatermelonEdit

RFD for the second time. This is simply sum-of-parts alliteration to make a manufactured product's flavour sound more fun. Compare these that I found on the Web just now: Awesome Apple, Bangin' Banana, Succulent Strawberry. Equinox 00:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete I agree. This is not like wildberry where the candy/soda industry has hit on a specific formula, it's just another word for watermelon. Soap 17:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete, not dictionary material. - TheDaveRoss 18:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Del per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The entry is fun, but delete, this can easily go out of hand. Fay Freak (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I myself prefer the Delectable Deletion flavor. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete per TheDaveRoss -- Uisleach (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
RFD failed - Consensus to delete is clear. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

DogEdit

A name given to a dog. The citation refers to someone "muttering to his dog, called Dog". Not too convincing. I think you could call any animal by the term for that animal, without it being a name (compare "hey man!" and "come here, boy"). Equinox 12:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
This was originally made by Wonderfool as a copyright trap. --Undurbjáni (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Undurbjáni How do you know that? @Equinox need more cites? Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like a WF comment... DonnanZ (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Donnanz you presumably mean the edit comment "Hmmm, this is dodgy" for the page creation? But if for the sake of argument we assume the entry was created by WF, how did Undurbjáni determine it was intended as a copyright trap? Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether Undurbjáni is WF, but the comment made is typical of WF. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, I got it all backwards. It's interesting that a recently registered account would reference WF. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, WF is never dull. All of his previous accounts have been blocked, so his current accounts are always recently registered. Weird, but our arrangement with WF has enough benefits in balance that the community is okay with it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
We had a dog named "Doggie" years ago. Like Dog, not very original. DonnanZ (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep, forgot to "vote". More cites can be found if needed. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Ridiculous. Mihia (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mihia Sorry, but I don't understand. Is Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Given and family names restricted to humans? Because cites are not the problem. Should we indeed not add Tiger, Tigger and Smudge as common cat names and remove that sense from Kitty? Bye bye Fido and Spot? Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Dogs can be called almost anything, like Pooch, Mutt, Hound, Woof, Boo, Thing, You, Oi, etc. etc. I support including "proper" standard dog names such as Fido or Rover, but not every single daft name that we can attest has ever been given to a dog or other pet animal. To me, this entry seems like someone's joke. Mihia (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mihia: And who gets to decide which names are proper and which ones are daft? You? What will the criteria be? And will this apply only to animal names or all names? Because I think Summer is a pretty daft given name. I know there are several notable people called Summer, but it's still a daft name. And did you realize that the name Dog is given to animals that aren't dogs on various occasions? (several citations) Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
If the meaning is as diluted as "a name for anything" then it feels even less includible somehow! Equinox 20:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Animals are not "anything". This name can be attested, Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion includes names and I haven't heard a logical argument as to why Dog shouldn't be included. "not too convincing", "ridiculous" and the unsubstantiated vote from PUC are not logical arguments. You should be able to explain why you believe Dog fails Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
There comes a point where we have to use our common sense, rather than insisting on seeing some written policy that explains why "Dog = A name given to a dog" is a stupid entry that we should delete. Mihia (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
People do give their animals all kinds of names that are normally used for people or for various things- even random words like "moreover". These generally aren't specifically animal names, just arbitrarily pressed into use in that context. To put it another way: there are lots of names of dogs that aren't dog names.
People give names to estates/plantations/residences (Tara, Blair House, Buckingham Palace), cars (General Lee, Eleanor, Christine), ships, swords, horses (Affirmed, Seattle Slew, Secretariat), etc- even certain body parts. These aren't of lexical interest as names for any of those, though there are some that have acquired lexical meaning beyond their literal reference. CFI doesn't explicitly address those, but having "a name for x" entries when there are three unrelated x with that name is just an invitation for compulsive people to stuff our entries with random trivia. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: So.. raise the number of required cites for names until it no longer includes "Dog" but still includes "Fido"? Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Contested entries would have to be decided here, as with any other case. Mihia (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete, Fido is a name commonly associated with being a dog name as opposed to a name for anything else, while Dog is just the noun we use to classify this animal, except used as a name. I can guarantee you that there are humans out with the nickname "Dog" (comparing them to the animal, not like dawg), but that doesn't mean this should be an entry either. I can also tell you there are probably a few people who have named their dog "Cat" or their cat "Dog" (maybe because they had traits associated with the other animal, or they named it this just to give it a funny or outlandish name). Going by this example alone, you can see how the reasons behind a naming like this can be quite ambiguous and thus not lexical enough for our inclusion. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Typical of the time-wasting tomfoolery of this so-called "useful" dictionary in recent years. Newbies who don't use the brains that God gave them. -- ALGRIF talk 12:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Algrif: I am usually the last person to call for professionalism on a wiki, but please everyone, just stop. This is embarrassing. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Having an entry "Dog = A name given to a dog" is certainly embarrassing. Mihia (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I've stricken my vote. There is something in CFI that likely excludes Dog as a name:
With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense.
This means that in the case of Dog the name would have to be attested in non-fictional works because nobody will use it in an attributive sense. Attestation in non-fictional works may or may not be possible, but I can't be bothered to try. I just wish someone had referenced this instead of calling names. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, all too many editors recently pretend that CFI does not exist, and seem to think that "Ridiculous" is somehow a rationale for deletion. It is not since we surely do include all sorts of ridiculous terms that meet CFI. Another editor seems to think that "Delete." is somehow a valid rationale for RFD purposes. I cherish the hope that we can raise the level of discussion in our RFD process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I almost never see you challenge unmotivated "keep" votes, even when valid arguments for deletion have been brought forth. This should not come as too surprising, since you almost always cast "keep" votes yourself. Double standard?
Also, as RFD seem, over the years, to have become plain votes rather than argumented discussions, I indeed don't feel the need to try to formulate a rationale (most of the time). That's unfortunate, but I'm lazy and don't want to think. If you want to force me to do it, then fix the RFD procedure. PUC – 10:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
In my view, people who are lazy to think should abstain from RFD and from any other deliberative process, especially people who have not seen a paying customer in their lives. On the other hand, "delete per nom" is pretty effortless and delegates the articulation job to someone else. The RFD procedure is nowhere defined and therefore, it probably does not need so much of a fix as a rejuvenation. Part of that rejuvenation are posts like the one I made above. As for the double standard, it may be true that I more often challenge problematic posts supporting deletion than those supporting keeping; someone else can pick up the job for the keepers, and I remember some did, complaining of pro-keeping non-reasons. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep in RFD: no CFI-relevant rationale for deletion provided. But "muttering to his dog, called Dog" is a mention, not use, and would not count toward attestation. I do not remember Czech dogs being called pes, as an analogue. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a note to anyone who has been following, or has bothered to reach the end of this over-long discussion --- Please, please, please check out the HUGE number of red-links available on the project. You can spend the rest of the year happily whittling away at those "real" words and phrases, and still have a mountain of stuff left for the next lockdown. Not to mention the "real" words that haven't even made it to a red-link! Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 14:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I rather think that we should administer each RFD on its merit. RFDs do distract us from creating new entries, but the RFD process is worth it, preventing entries from being deleted on administrator whim or assessment, allowing keeping the likes of master's thesis or all the translation hubs that were saved in RFD before translation hub became a policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should we also have entries for Cow, Bunny, and Antelope? [59] No, an ordinary common noun capitalized so it can be pressed into service as a proper noun is not a separate term but just a somewhat creative use of the ordinary term. In English, this can be done for any familiar animal and for many other words as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Granger. Children's books are a rich source of examples. One can do this with any animal name: "Come here, Giraffe, said Hippo and Gazelle, urgently." "All on his own, Aardvark looekd very sad." - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
RFD failed - Overwhelming consensus for deletion. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

weak-teaEdit

Attributive form of weak tea. Deletion is warranted per our vote to remove attributive form entries. Imetsia (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't support the notion that all hyphenated attributive forms should be removed, but I have no objection to the removal of this one. DonnanZ (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete all entries "that define hyphenated compounds merely as an attributive form of the individual components", per vote. Mihia (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I would never say "delete all"; there are some that should remain, so they should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Mihia. PUC – 20:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete according to our previous decision concerning hyphenated attributive forms. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be a clear case per the lamentable Wiktionary:Votes/2019-05/Excluding self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
RFD failed. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

startledEdit

The sense "extremely shocked" seems either redundant to "surprised and slightly frightened" or if not I doubt it's correct. If you found a Xenomorph to be standing behind you, you wouldn't be "startled", would you? Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that startlement is not "extreme". Equinox 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons stated above. Mihia (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This is really an RFV though, if we think it's worth asking for cites for the second sense of extreme terror. But any such cites would have to be clearly not the sense 1 of mild alarm. Equinox 16:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

JigglypuffEdit

My concern about this entry is that it relies on an entirely in-universe definition and citations simply refer to this in-universe character. We do have Pikachu though, but I'd vote to delete it too. If we could have this entry, why don't we have Kirby, or Link, or heck, even Mario? I'm sure you could find similar citations for those. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete. You mention Kirby, Link, Mario... people are so short-sighted that they think only "their" toys count. When you think about it neutrally and take a step back, there have been millions of toys and game characters, not just the ones that are popular on YouTube etc. Many of them have been occasionally mentioned in a book without a whole lot of context. It's just out of scope; delete; Wikipedia has reams and reams of stuff about toys and characters. Equinox 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually a pet peeve of mine is that (America-centric) gamers think the history of video games was basically: Pong, Mario, Doom, [everything modern]. Equinox 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, a disclaimer: Pokémon are not "my toys". I have never played the Pokémon video game, although I have been exposed to the anime episodes which my 1988-born brother watched, videotaped, and rewatched incessantly. Khemehekis (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The above seems to ignore WT:FICTION, and rather provides arguments with no obvious bearing on CFI but rather seem to argue in favor of policy change, or maybe rather a policy override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete: doubt that it satisfies WT:FICTION. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete, per Equinox. The simple discussion of this entry makes me drowsy. ;) Tharthan (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep per evidence in the entry. For instance, 'And when your body type is "Kirby" or "Jigglypuff", finding a style that is meant for your shape is next to impossible' does not seem to be in universe, nor does 'They sleep when you on the mic, you're fucking Jigglypuff'. It depends on what one means by "independent of reference to that universe" (WT:FICTION). And then things get lexicographically interesting when one notes French Rondoudou and German Pummeluff. For further calibration, one may look at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Fictional_universes, where an example quotation supporting inclusion is e.g. "[...], was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball." --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There's another thing: The criterion "independent of reference to that universe" seems to pertain to common nouns and such, not to proper names, although that is merely implicit in there being a sentence covering "names of persons or places from fictional universes", which uses a different criterion, namely "shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
What on earth do you, @Dan Polansky:, think that "you're fucking Jigglypuff" means, without reference to a Pokémon? Shall we have an entry for "Bill Gates" because someone said I look like Bill Gates? Equinox 14:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Equinox: There sure is a reference to Pokémon, but is it "in universe reference" or, rather, is it true that "they are used out of context in an attributive sense"? I'd think the latter is true and relevant, and a distinction between "X is B" and "X looks like B" should be maintained and the "X is B" taken as a stronger attributive use of B where B is a proper name. And what does "was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" mean without reference to Darth Vader, an example from that very policy? Bill Gates is not covered by WT:FICTION, but if he were, he would be inclusion worthy per the example given by the policy, via e.g. "Edison was the Bill Gates of his day." --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Note I am arguing in terms of policy, not in terms of general inclusion-worthiness driven by my taste. In disregard of CFI, I would say, "Jigglypuff" is a single word attested in use, has pronunciation and non-trivial translations => let's include it. It is lexicographically marginal but so are all the species names that can be included. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If you think "is a single word attested in use, has pronunciation and non-trivial translations" is really on its own justification for inclusion in a proper dictionary, I'm just staggered. But I think whoever publishes Harry Potter, and hundreds of other kiddie books, might want a Czech translator. Equinox 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I do think that it is a justification for inclusion in a ridiculously inclusive dictionary. And a dictionary that includes all the place names that we do and will (all the village names if I get it right), all the two-word species names that are attested, all the names of chemicals, you name it, is a ridiculously inclusive dictionary. By the way, I would not really miss Jigglypuff, and I don't care about Pokémons; I miss Tolkien's Shelob, in Czech Odula. By another way, it is in the slogan: all words in all languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
From yet another angle, Wikipedia's article is about the Pokémon, Wiktionary's entry is about the word Jigglypuff: how do you pronounce it, etc. Is Jigglypuff fit for an encyclopedia proper? I don't really think so, but the thing is, Wikipedia is ridiculously inclusive, covering all manner of popular culture that many would consider unfit for a serious encyclopedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If having a pronunciation is enough then we should include every commercial trade name? pls Gooby... Equinox 20:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If you see that it's ridiculous then you should be arguing against that ridiculousness because being ridiculous is inherently a bad thing for a reference work. If you just wanna say "well we're shit, so let's dump another ton of shit on top" then umm. Equinox 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I did not say having a pronunciation is enough; I required attestation, which requires three independent uses, and I mentioned translations. That is a much stronger filter. I would admit that making even stronger filter is up to a meaningul discussion, but what I reject is the idea that if something stems from popular culture, it should therefore be excluded.
I have spent a lot of effort to make Wiktionary better, and I do not want to make it "shit". Let it be accurate, let it provide very extensive coverage of terms but only in so far as existence can be verified and let it dispense with genuine cruft such as certain absurd image captions and absurd quotation identifications. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep: What does Scheherazade mean without reference to 1001 Nights? The entry seems to pass WT:CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
After reading the quotations, there may be some value in keeping a definition that boils down to “Someone/something that is similar to the Pokemon Jigglypuff in some way” (with the actual definition detailing the properties that may be shared between the refernt and the fictional creature). We have similar situations in Nazgul (the first def; the second is a different deal) and сталкер (stalker) (the second def).
Out of the current citations, the only ones I find convincing for such a definition are 2007 and 2015. As for the definition as it currently stands, delete as it doesn’t pass WT:FICTION IMO. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
WT:FICTION does not say anything about definitions, only about names. The name has to be used in an "attributive sense", but CFI does not say that such a sense should be put on the definition line. Indeed, I find a practice where the proper-noun definition is replaced with some kind of invented common-noun definition unwise and not based on the practice of other dictionaries concerning fictional entities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep: various uses that aren't in-universe. (@Dan Polansky, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: and I added some more) Being a reference to the Pokémon universe doesn't disqualify it IMHO, you're not going to remove all the generic trademarks either. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
As the creator of this entry, I'm going to !vote strong keep. It meets WP:FICTION, as none of the cites except the "swelled in size" one give any indication to those who don't already know it that Jigglypuff is from the Pokémon universe. They would have to look it up. Also, it's important to note that the word "Jigglypuff" in English (and "Purin" in Japanese) refers to both the famous anime character and an entire species of Pokémon, a species with possibly millions of individuals on Earth (or whatever planet the Pokémon universe is set on). So it's not just a proper name. Also: why not have Kirby, Link, or Mario? As for character names in general . . . two-part names identifiable with a human ethnicity (like Harry Potter, which is an English first name combined with an English surname) need to be used figuratively, for the same reason we can't have a Walt Disney entry (until someone finds the perfect three cites at least), but we have lots of one-word person's names, like Confucius, Aristophanes, or even the Biebs or the Trumpster. Jigglypuff, even when referring to the character rather than the species, is one-word. Khemehekis (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

superhabitable planetEdit

Per WT:Tea room/2020/May#superhabitable planet SoP?. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete then; seems like the commonest collocation but still SoP. Equinox 14:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

stroke itEdit

It's just stroke + the implied it meaning penis (or I guess clitoris maybe). I might add a subdefinition under def #1 at stroke, but I think it's adequately covered there. We also certainly don't need two definitions that mean the same thing, so it's a double-whammy. Twice the deletion for your buck. 76.100.241.89

I agree with you, but if we delete this, how would we handle the entry at Thesaurus:masturbate? Can we pipe the link to just stroke while it still appears as "stroke it"? I wouldnt want to leave a redlink in the thesaurus even if the meaning is redundant. Soap 17:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it can just list stroke as a synonym. It can be used that way without it, e.g. here. That means the same thing as "he masturbated himself". 76.100.241.89
Okay. What about jack it, then? The definition is identical to this one, but is it worth keeping because its meaning can't be easily pieced out just from knowing the meaning of jack? Soap 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm undecided about jack it. As a verb jack can have the same meaning (he jacked his cock) but it is much rarer IMHO, and is just a shortening of jack off, whereas stroke is a verb whose primary definition can be applied directly to masturbating. 76.100.241.89
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete as above (and jack it too). -Mike (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep, per the lemming principle. Merriam-Webster's Unabridged lists this as a separate entry. Khemehekis (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

bounce offEdit

One of the senses just means bounce + off. 76.100.241.89

Delete or change to &lit as we sometimes do, if people really feel the need. Equinox 18:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Unchallenged sense 3 also seems like SoP, if bounce can mean to move or flounce in a certain manner, which I suppose it could. The off just implies motion away: you can storm off, wander off, ramble off. Equinox 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Equinox's idea for sense 2 is okayish, but I don't see much point in altering it. The usex should be kept at least. All the usexes are useful.
Sense 3 seems like a figurative sense - a bouncing motion without actually bouncing. DonnanZ (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete sense 2, "To come off something with a bounce", but retain the example "The ball bounced off the wall" under an "&lit" line. Per Equinox, Sense 3, "To move away with a bouncing movement: She bounced off out of the room", also seems suspiciously SoP under e.g. sense 5 of bounce: "To leap or spring suddenly or unceremoniously; to bound: She bounced happily into the room." Yes, maybe it is figurative, but figurative of "bounce" rather than specifically "bounce off", I would say. Mihia (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Dog (2)Edit

RFD sense:

A nickname for a person, especially a tough man
1994, Larry Woody, A Dixie Farewell: The Life and Death of Chucky Mullins
Brewer, whose coaching nickname is "Dog," recognized that same stubborn, dogged determination in Mullins.

Initially I listed this at RFV, but I have now moved it here as I can't think of a verification that would persuade me that this is a dictionary-worthy item. Nicknames for people are a totally open-ended class, where practically anything might be citable somewhere as a nickname given to someone due to some association. Mihia (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Verbs, nouns, adjectives, and manner adverbs are also open sets. You have not provided a rationale for deletion per CFI. DCDuring (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not concerned at this stage about whether a relevant rationale for deletion presently exists in the CFI. If people think that we should exclude these kinds of entries, we can try to formulate something for the CFI in due course. Mihia (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Is this an attempt at CFI override for this term? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As for RFV, 'whose coaching nickname is "Dog,"' is a mention and does not contribute toward attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think "override" is a misnomer. If there is no provision for such cases in the CFI, then there's nothing to override, is there? PUC – 08:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This case is covered by CFI's general rule "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic". CFI further contains more specific rules that add exclusion beyond the general rule, but none seem to apply. Going by CFI alone (which does have a general rule covering basically everything), the nominated sense would be kept. A proposal to delete the sense anyway is therefore a CFI override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, ok. Tells you how much I know about the CFI. PUC – 10:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The most recent keeper for a human nickname that I know of is at Talk:Zizou; Talk:J-Lo passed in 2016. A generic nickname is e.g. in entry Crouchy, "A nickname for somebody with the surname Crouch." We may delete some nicknames (contrary to CFI), but we need to get at least a vague idea by which criteria we pick them; maybe nicknames that are just capitalizations of common nouns would be more liable to deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
And even if we disregard CFI, how can "are a totally open-ended class" be anything like a rationale for deletion? Like DCDuring said, there are all manners of attested open-ended sets of terms. Like, any adjective can have -ness attached in principle, so the set of -ness nouns is open-ended, so let's drop -ness nouns? Any person surname can have -ian attached in principle, so let's drop -ian nouns? What kind of sense does that argument, so often repeated recently, make? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
In this particular case, I believe that "open-ended" certainly IS a good rationale. No doubt some people are nicknamed "Peanut" or "Spanner", or "Big Bo" or "Bog Roll" or almost anything you can think of. In my view it is not the job of a dictionary to list every possible example of a nickname that can be found attested. "Standard" nicknames, yes, I would support. For example, I would support keeping Lofty. Personally I think that Dog is insufficiently "standard", but I am not absolutely adamant about this point, and if the consensus is otherwise then I would accept that as a reason to keep. Mihia (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A rationale cannot be good in a particular case; to the contrary, the validity or viability of a rationale as a working principle is tested by trying to apply it to as broad range of cases as possible and see where it breaks down. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree at all. A rationale can be valid in one case but not apply to another. Mihia (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A rationale for a particular case C is a statement of principle P such that P applies to C. P may apply to case C but not apply to case D; so far we agree. But my point is that principle P can only be accepted as part of a valid rationale if its application to a large range of cases fails to produce problems, or falsifiers of principle P. The general validity of principle P cannot be tested on a single case; it has to be tested on the whole universe of cases to which it could be applied. The principle implied--and please provide a different principle that you have in mind--is that "Any term that is part of an open-ended set of terms should be excluded". That is an obviously untenable principle. Maybe you have a different principle in mind, but I do not know what that principle says. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not talking about a "general principle". I am talking about why we should not include every nickname that we can find attested, because it would get ridiculous. I am talking about the need to somehow narrow down the inclusions so that we can include only "standard" nicknames, however this can be best arranged. I honestly do not understand why this concept is so hard to grasp, even if someone should happen to disagree with it. Mihia (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tentatively, perhaps what we are grasping at is the idea that if a potential sense of an entry could apply to a very large number, if not all, entries, then that may not be worth including. One example is "a mention of the word the" in the entry the, which we have discussed before (e.g., "There is one the in this sentence"). Another might be the matter under discussion now, as senses like "a name given to a pet" or "a nickname for a person" could apply to many, many nouns or adjectives, and perhaps are to be distinguished from more "name-like" names like Fido or Monty. Perhaps for this reason names need to be given special treatment. Just off the top of my head; please help to refine the thought. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So if sense line "first name" applies to a very large number of terms, these terms should be excluded? Or if sense line "English surname" applies to a very large number of terms, these terms should be excluded? (The mention thing above does not seem to work anyway: a mention of a term does not invoke the semantics of the term, and therefore, e.g. the word "the" does not have any sense "the word 'the'".) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Initially, I thought the comparison above (to defining any X as "an occurrence of the word X") was suspect because this seems like a much smaller class, but I concede that I can see how it's fairly open-ended; one could nickname a person who habitually wheezes Wheeze, nickname a (former) car mechanic Motor Oil, nickname someone with glasses Four-Eyes, nickname a proponent of hydroxychloroquine Hydroxychloroquine or Mr. Hydroxychloroquine, etc, etc, and at least in non-durable media I can find nearly all of these. And in cases (unlike Fido, but like wheeze, four-eyes, etc) where the lowercase term exists to explain the basic semantic meaning, it does not strike me as worthwhile or valuable for a dictionary to treat the capitalized form as a lexical item meaning "A nickname." in all cases. So I am weakly inclined to delete. But I would prefer if we could come up with a rule, about what nicknames we want to include and what we don't. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@-sche: would it be too broad to say that in general an ordinary adverb, adjective, common noun, or verb should not be defined as a nickname? If so, what exceptions (if any) to this rule are desirable? — SGconlaw (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Grace is a given name based on noun grace; there is Faith, Hope and Charity. Should given names be given a license different from nicknames? And, assuming for the sake of analysis that the dubious argument via open-endedness is accepted, how open-ended really are the WT:ATTEST-compliant nicknames created by capitalizing a noun? What are some ten attested examples of such nicknames, attested in sources that meet the WT:ATTEST requirements? And isn't there a generic rule creating open-ended set of nicknames like 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) 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think nicknames like J-Lo, etc., are not problematic because they are not ordinary adverbs, adjectives, common nouns, or verbs. But it's true that names like Grace create an issue. Your preference would be to allow any nickname that passes our general WT:ATTEST rule? — SGconlaw (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess that would be my preference unless someone presents a good rationale for doing otherwise and thus for overriding CFI. How large is the set of capitalized-noun nicknames meeting WT:ATTEST, approximately, and what are some ten examples, or at least five examples? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pan-Edit

This is identical to pan-, but with an optional capital when attached to a word already capitalised (Slavic -> pan-Slavic or Pan-Slavic). Just like the capital-N New in New York, which failed RFD at Talk:New. Equinox 13:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, just like we only have ur- and not Ur- (see Talk:ur-). - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, as creator of the entry, from a time when our standards for inclusion where substantially different. bd2412 T 02:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
RFD failed - Everyone, even the creator, voted to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ScheherazadeEdit

RFD-sense: A fictional character, the wife and storyteller of the king Shahryar in One Thousand and One Nights.

Should this sense exist in the English Wiktionary, in addition to sense "A female given name from Persian"? In Scheherazade at OneLook Dictionary Search, a similar sense is in M-W[60], Lexico[61], and Collins[62]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep since we have the likes of Snow White which I suppose won't be going away any time soon. This is a name of long standing that literate people might well expect to encounter in passing while reading other texts ("it was like one of the tales of S~!, he said"). Equinox 15:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW the adjectives Scheherazadean and Scheherazadian exist. I'll create 'em. Equinox 22:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep, although I wish we had some sort of objective notability criterion that we could apply to such cases. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
We have WT:FICTION. Does the name comply with the policy? — SGconlaw (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's have a look: google books:"the Scheherazade of" looks very promising: "Thus, to put things succinctly, Mandelbrot, if not the Scheherazade of the natural order [...]", "This was none other than the Scheherazade of my dreams and imagination with her glorious and slender stature and her round radiant face and black eyes which emitted the legendary magic with which she tamed the beast.", "I'd mentioned some bizarre case history from Oliver Sacks, the Scheherazade of neurobiology, and he asked me—with real intensity—where I'd read it", "Angleton had become the Scheherazade of the Cold War". Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes mentions "[...] was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" as an example of out of universe use. Whether Scheherazade really originates in a fictional universe is another question; this fictional character seems to be imagined to exist in this universe, not a fictional one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
"the Scheherazade of neurobiology" is fantastic (in the good sense) because it literally just means "storyteller" with no implication of telling stories to save your life, or to defer a fate (as in the Nights). So there has been dilution of the sense. BTW Sacks is great. Equinox 13:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I've always thought a "fictional universe" doesn't have to mean one that is apart from the world we are in, or the universe occupied by planet Earth. It could be an imaginary place on Earth populated by imaginary people, or simply a community of fictional people living on Earth. Batman (a fictional character) occupies a fictional universe in that he lives in the fictional Gotham City which is somewhere on Earth. King Arthur and Merlin are fictional characters supposedly living in bygone Britain. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The policy says what it says. It says "names of persons or places from fictional universes" rather than "names of fictional people and fictional places", and it uses Harry Potter books, Tolkien's Middle Earth books, and the Star Wars films as examples. Middle-Earth is part of a fictional universe, the Earth is not, and Old Shatterhand is not a person from a fictional universe, by a plain sum-of-parts reading of "fictional universe". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget that Harry Potter is set on Earth- he grew up in England, after all. The conceit is that it's all part of what we consider to be the real world, but that it's hidden from muggles like us by magic. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Along with the Marauder's Map and any sense of proportion. Equinox 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about Harry Potter; if the above is true, it would mean that WT:FICTION contradicts itself, or that for Harry Potter the world he lives in is considered to be "fictional universe"; after all, it is a universe full of magic, which this universe is not. By contrast, Harpagon is a fictional character that does not live in a fictional universe. I would say, if "names of fictional people and fictional places" is what is meant, put it to policy and be done with it. I think WT:FICTION is a rather unfortunate policy, and the broader its scope, the worse. For names of fictional characters not covered by WT:FICTION, we have WT:NSE, a time-tested policy that leaves things open-ended on the policy level. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you're over-analyzing it. "Fictional universe" can just mean "alternative to reality". It doesn't have to literally be another universe in the scientific or philosophical sense. After all, Star Wars doesn't take place in another universe, but in a "galaxy far, far away". And I see no reason why it should have to be a different planet. That seems arbitrary to me. The spirit of CFI is quite clear. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Policies should be clear and be written in reasonably literal language. Let editors change the phrasing of the policy from "names of persons or places from fictional universes" to "names of fictional persons or fictional places" if that is what is intended. To me, "fictional universe" is a universe that is fictional and therefore, one that does not really exist rather than one that possibly exists yet with fictional characters moving in it. I will oppose such a change since I find WT:FICTION problematic and extending it to Scheherazade is not a good idea, in my view. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Now I see that "names of persons or places from fictional universes" is broken anyway. Since even if the universe of Sherlock Holmes is a fictional universe as some suggest, then London is a place from fictional universe (the place is not required by the phrase to be fictional, only the universe) and is subject to WT:FICTION. This cannot be the intention. Therefore, literal reading of WT:FICTION seems impossible anyway, and one has to read into (or edit into) the policy things that the policy does not say. Discarding WT:FICTION and replacing it with editor discretion should probably be considered, like "Inclusion or exclusion of attested names of fictional persons and fictional places is subject to editor discretion"; then, editors could use any tentative policy they like in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If this fails and "Jigglypuff" passes then let's slit our wrists. Equinox 17:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree that this cannot reasonably fail and "Jigglypuff" pass. Tharthan (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Classic character from folklore whose name is often brought up and encountered in literature. No different than King Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, Pied Piper, Sleeping Beauty etc. Tharthan (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep, IMO. As to whether this should be or is subject to FICTION: ehh. De facto we treat very old "fiction" different from modern stuff, e.g. we have Aeneas and (and indeed Aeneid) and Abednego whereas we wouldn't have the character Tom Riddle or the book title Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I consider Merlin and Scheherazade to be in the same boat as Aeneas. (I agree with Chuck that based on the use, in the text of WT:FICTION, of Harry Potter as an example of a "fictional universe", it's clear that fiction set on earth is still a "fictional universe".) - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not clear that fiction set on Earth is in a "fictional universe" since that is contrary to the usual meaning of "fictional universe". What it means is that, probably, WT:FICTION is broken, which is not surprising given how difficult it is for humans to write policies that are not broken. When interpreting WT:FICTION, it is upon the interpreter to decide whether to abide by the specification part of the policy or whether to use the Harry Potter example to override a common meaning of the term "fictional universe". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I see no evidence for your belief about the usual meaning of "fictional universe", and I see plenty of evidence against it. As far as I have seen, "fictional universes" usually include universes of fiction set on Earth, like the MCU: google:"fictional universes" MCU finds plenty of references to the MCU as one of the most famous fictional universes, and it is set on Earth with battles being fought in New York City and characters referring to Starbucks and so on. Indeed, searching for examples via the phrases google books:"fictional universes like" and google books:"fictional universes such as" turns up many books naming universes of fiction set on Earth as fictional universes, and few books where the list happens not to name (but it is hard to conclude the author would definitively rule out) such universes:
  • 1986, Thomas G. Pavel, Fictional Worlds, page 101:
    With respect to scope, we can construct a scalar typology ranging between maximal fictional universes, such as the universe of the Divine Comedy, and minimal universes, such as the world of Malone Dies.
  • 2015, Torill Elvira Mortensen, Jonas Linderoth, Ashley ML Brown, The Dark Side of Game Play, page 88:
    This changed during the 1990s when Lego not only started producing toy products that were essentially imitations of specific, high-profile fictional universes such as the worlds of Star Wars, Disney, or Harry Potter movies []
  • 1998, Greg Cox, Battle On!: An Unauthorized, Irreverent Look at Xena, page 230:
    [] flashbacks to unrevealed chapters of Xena's past, hopeful projections of the Warrior Princess's future, crossover sagas blending the Xenaverse with other popular fictional universes such as those of Star Trek or Highlander, and []
  • 2017, Vanda Zajko, Helena Hoyle, A Handbook to the Reception of Classical Mythology:
    These are fictional universes like those of Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who, or the Marvel Universe, in which multiply authored, serial and/or interconnecting narratives [] play out []
  • 2019, Vanessa Frangville, Gwennaël Gaffric, China’s Youth Cultures and Collective Spaces (naming two universes not set on earth, and one set on a fictionalized earth):
    [] and often on fictional universes, like Warcraft, Game of Thrones, DC Comics Universe, etc.
  • 2018, Cynthia J. Miller, A. Bowdoin Van Riper, Terrifying Texts: Essays on Books of Good and Evil in Horror...:
    Likewise we pass the time with friends, in meaningless card games, or in fictional universes like Dostoevsky's []
- -sche (discuss) 20:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@User:-sche: As per above, some authors do appear to use the phrase "fictional universe" in the way that I find contrary to plain sum of parts reading of "fictional universe". Let me ask: do you believe that each fictional character lives in fictional universe? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete the proper noun and add a common noun. Why are we including proper noun senses for fictional characters? By all means include common nouns derived from their characteristics; I'm glad for the noun sense at Darth Vader, because I truly did not understand what "becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" at CFI/Fictional universes meant. But the page includes the proper noun with a pointless quote even though this is a dictionary. Benedict Arnold, although not fictional, is exactly what I think pages named for individuals should look like. The many examples for "the Scheherazade of" point to a common noun sense meaning "storyteller" which is all we should include on the page. We need to be more explicit about our treatment of proper nouns at WT:FICTION and individuals at WT:CFI#Names of specific entities.
Also, the last example at CFI/Fictional universe is terrible. "...who looked at us as if we had just announced that we were from the planet Vulcan." It doesn't refer to the characteristics of Vulcan or Vulcans in any way. She could have written "from the planet Zeepzorp" for the exact same effect. Ultimateria (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
As for "Why are we including proper noun senses for fictional characters?", I don't see why we should not; other dictionaries do it, and translations are bound to these proper-noun senses. These senses make for a better dictionary. The criterion of "attributive sense" is in CFI to provide some filter to make exclusionists happy; it does not generate a common noun sense. Various attributive or metaphorical uses are going to pick different characteristics of the fictional character so there is not even a common-noun sense to be defined. I know no dictonary that defines "Scheherazade" via a common-noun definition. The above seems like a creative invention not bound with any lexicographical tradition known to man, and not based on any sources.
We have all sorts of names of fictional entities, including mythological creatures, and define them as proper nouns.
We have "Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany between 1933 and 1945" as a definition rather than a common-noun definition "a very evil man" or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete the character sense; keep any idiomatic sense. I agree with Ultimateria. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how the above is based on policy, nor do I know of a dictionary that does what the above proposes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
That is my understanding of the sentence from WT:FICTION: "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense." Thus, say, Bazookaman may be defined out of context in an attributive sense as "a very strong man", but not as "an ABC comic character who wields a bazooka". But if I'm interpreting it wrongly, then I'm happy to be corrected. (@Ultimateria.) — SGconlaw (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The sentence says that "[...] they [names of persons or places from fictional universes] shall not be included unless [...]"; thus, the sentence regulates names and not sense/definition lines. In particular, the sentence does not say that the "attributive sense" is what is to be placed on the definition line. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that if "used out of context in an attributive sense" is emphasized in that sentence, the attributive sense must be one of the senses (otherwise an editor would not be able to tell if WT:FICTION has been satisfied). But I accept that the sentence may not exclude adding the character sense as well. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The sentence does not say where the evidence of meeting the requirement should be placed, whether in the entry, on the entry talk page or elsewhere. The sentence as worded does not indicate that an attributive sense should be created in the mainspace. Furthermore, one might argue that these quotations can be put under the literal sense since these are metaphorical uses of that literal sense, but that is not clear and is open to discussion. It is not clear to me why a Wiktionary regulation should propose to do in a Scheherazade entry definition what other dictionaries having Scheherazade entry do not do; of course it might, but then if it intends to deviate from common dictionary practice concerning these kinds of entries, it should be very clear and explicit about it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Strong keep. This meets WP:FICTION, as hundreds of writers have used the name (the adjective Scheherazadean was even given at the National Spelling Bee several years ago) without naming 1,001 Arabian Nights. Khemehekis (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that there are adjectives, etc., based on a fictional character or real person is by itself justification for also including the character or person. For example, the fact that Leonardeschi and Lessepsian exist as words does not, in my view, support the inclusion of Leonardo da Vinci and Ferdinand de Lesseps in the Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

June 2020Edit

SpleefEdit

spleefEdit

"A category of minigames in Minecraft." Does not belong in the dictionary. —Suzukaze-c 03:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete the proper noun sense (which was before incorrectly labelled as a noun) for sure, as it is solely in reference to one video game and is only used in reference to that universe. Abstain for the verb sense, assuming that "to Spleef" is even attested at all. We have for example YouTube, Wikipedia, and Facebook as verbs. And I just added the verb sense to the Minecraft entry itself. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe some day it will become a generic name for a type of game, like capture the flag. Today it ain't. Equinox 19:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. --Uisleach (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete the proper noun. ALL of the cites given reference Minecraft. And people (from a brief glance of the Internet) are only using the proper noun (which I had never heard of before coming to RfD) this way. Khemehekis (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump maniaEdit

Created in 2017 by a sock of an editor known for creating protologisms, and whose English is pretty poor. As a native speaker, I don't parse this the same way as Trumpmania, and I also give it a different stress pattern. This does not appear to be the same lexical item, and is thereform sum-of-parts. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom--I agree fully with the different parsing and the importance of the different stress pattern.--Uisleach (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

cardboard boxEdit

SOP. And cardboardbox being an extremely rare and labelled nonstandard alternative form should not be a sufficient excuse for this to be an entry. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Being the maverick that I am, I would keep this as a translation hub, and delete cardboardbox. I'm wondering if it can be regarded as a synonym of carton. Ironically the audio is for the American pronunciation of "cardboard", not for cardboard box. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Not a bad candidate for a translation hub. It is one word in Chinese, Danish, Finnish, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Do note that Danish is an example of a Germanic language which tends to standardly consider what are in English noun phrases as being individual words, so languages like Danish shouldn't generally be taken into account here. I can't speak for Chinese or Finnish (I'd be interested to hear opinions from Wiktionarians knowledgable in those languages), but if we considered having translation hubs for every Danish/Norwegian/Swedish/German/Dutch/etc. compound word, that implies there should be millions of useless SOP English entries. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's also one word in Hungarian, Malay, Persian, Greek and Tibetan, among others. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the term conveys slightly more than the sum of its parts for example in relation to the thickness of the box. If I found a box made of thick cardboard that had hinges I probably wouldn't call it a cardboard box whereas a wooden box could have hinges. John Cross (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete non-spaced, leaning delete on the two-word variant unless it proves its merit as a translation hub. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: the one-word translations are mostly obvious compounds in languages that routinely use compounds where English uses spaced phrases, apart from the Malay translation, which is questionable (not present in the Malay entry itself) and should be RFVed... - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: @Donnanz, TheDaveRoss You voted to delete cardboardbox. I think there are enough citations to keep it now. J3133 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
26 quotes - how crazy is that? DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
So easy to find garbage quotes for garbage entries. We do a disservice to users by pretending it is a word and not a typo/misconstruction. - TheDaveRoss 15:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

get stonedEdit

SoP? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The present definition, "get intoxicated ..." is weak, since it repeats the word "get". Noting that we also have get drunk, with two senses "To intoxicate oneself with alcohol" and "To make drunk", while "Don't get drunk tonight" is also given as a usex for the sense "become" at get, and the sense "To cause to become" at get would cover the second at drunk. The only faint potential argument against pure SoP that I can see for get stoned and get drunk is that, in one sense, one does these things deliberately to oneself. Compare e.g. get sick. However, there are many uses of "get" with this connotation even in the "intoxicated" realm, e.g. get smashed, get mullered, get hammered, not to mention e.g. "I'm going to sit by the fire to get warm", so I would say delete all of this type, except if "translation hub" applies, which it may well do at get drunk, and also, if necessary, enhance something at get. Mihia (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    get (to be. Used to form the passive of verbs.) + past participle of stone (intoxicate). I'm not even sure that there is a way to show that stoned is an adjective, though stoned at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that there are plenty of lemmings that are willing to go alone with the gag and say it is. DCDuring (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Isn't the fact that you can "get very stoned" evidence that it is an adjective in this expression? Mihia (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Equinox 07:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion at Talk:get drunk, which was kept. For translations, we can use get drunk. One could use a CFI override and say that since there is a rare single-word synonym bedrink, we will keep get stoned (much more common than bedrink) even if sum of parts. get stoned, get drunk, bedrink at Google Ngram Viewer. The classic lemmings have neither get drunk nor get stoned: get stoned at OneLook Dictionary Search, get drunk at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
get drunk and get stoned have different meanings (the first almost always refers to alcohol, the second usually doesn't). But get high makes a good translation hub. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Good point; get stoned differs in meaning. And you are right that get high should do as a translation hub. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI, I have changed the relevant definition at get from "To become" to "To become; to cause oneself to become", with examples "I'm getting hungry; how about you?" and "I'm going out to get drunk." This is because I feel there is a slight difference in the use of the verb in those two examples. Mihia (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    That edit seems unfortunate: in a definition, the form "A; B" means A and B are synonyms. And "cause oneself to become" seems to mean something slightly different from "become", and therefore, it would seem incorrect to indicate it to be a synonym on the same definition line. Alternatively, I am wrong and "A; B" means that A and B are near-synonyms and that sometimes slight variations of senses are grouped on a single definition line. Since that is nowhere specified, AFAIK, good luck to all of us. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Originally I was going to make a separate definition, but then I thought this might seem to be making too much of a meal of it. However, I would not object if it were split into two separate definitions, if people prefer that. Mihia (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I've more often seen things like this grouped with "or" (see "to become or cause"), so I've switched to that rather than a semicolon, although "become" by itself seems to cover "going out to get drunk" fine. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't you think that become (in the sense relevant here) usually describes something that is brought about by external factors, rather than something that one deliberately chooses to do? Mihia (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Compare get high, get drunk, get buzzed, get wasted. I think these are all SOP. It's probably worth keeping get high and get drunk as translation hubs, no need to keep/create any others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. I agree with Mx. Granger. PUC – 10:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Granger. --Uisleach (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

heap withEdit

SoP --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Cf. stack with, fill with, load with. To me, all these seem like standard collocations not idiomatic enough for dictionary inclusion. Mihia (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

even asEdit

Nominated by Backinstadiums as SOP. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

even reads "(archaic) Exactly, just, fully", but we rightly skip just as. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
But even as is not quite the same as just as. You cannot substitute it in common idiomatic uses as in Even as we speak, ... . Also, in just as, just is not archaic. The similar-looking use of even in even though, which has a rather different meaning, makes this even more confusing for learners of English.  --Lambiam 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep; definitely passes the lemming test.  --Lambiam 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I think this could be tricky to disentangle. The present examples for that "archaic" definition of even ("Exactly, just, fully") are all archaic uses, including the one that uses "even as", i.e. "I fulfilled my instructions even as I had promised". Yet there are modern uses of "even as" too, such as "Even as I spoke, the heavens opened". Does "even" have a clearly different meaning in all modern uses of "even as", compared to the archaic uses, and if not then what is the differentiator between modern and archaic? One could also perhaps look at the sense of "as". In "Even as I spoke, the heavens opened", "as" refers to time, while in "I fulfilled my instructions even as I had promised" it refers to manner. At minimum, I think that even as, if it is to be kept, is missing an archaic sense. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI, I have amended the existing definition of even as, previously reading "occurring at the same time as something", which is not substitutable and apparently not even the correct PoS, and also added an archaic definition. Plus, I have changed the PoS from adverb to conjunction. Leaning keep for the entry as a whole. Mihia (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Jehovah's-WitnessEdit

This looks more like an attributive form than a true adjective. – Einstein2 (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete another hyphenated attributive form. Mihia (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per vote. PUC – 08:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per vote. Fay Freak (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

beaver eaterEdit

Sum of parts; we cover oral sex at eat (whereas with cock gobbler I suppose one could at least argue that gobble doesn't cover it). This is one of PaM's entries; he obsessively created loads of stuff about Islam and lesbians. "Especially a lesbian" in this definition also seems irrelevant to the term, just perhaps a general truth about sexual habits (or may well be wrong altogether). In Google Books I found a reference to "guys eating beaver", strengthening the idea that this is SoP. Equinox 22:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Armin Meiwes and Bernd Brandes were literal cock gobblers, as was a disgruntled Indonesian gardener. There are, of course, also literal beaver eaters.  --Lambiam 09:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously entered by a sad individual. DonnanZ (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If this is confirmed as sufficiently a set phrase -- I scarcely wish to check -- then I would support keeping it. I think that hints buried at eat and beaver, that must be put together in the right combination, may not allow people to confidently understand what is meant when they encounter this expression, if that is what it is. Mihia (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I have heard or seen the phrase with the specific connotation that the eater is a lesbian, but not recently. Google books finds The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English with the hyphenated form beaver-eater and a gender-neutral definition. An older work describes 'beaver eater' as a term for a wolverine, which eats Castor. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Added wolverine definition, so only delete the slang sense if the RFD says delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Google scholar(!) finds a use that sounds like a word in New Insights into Gendered Discursive Practices[63] quoting a Facebook interaction between two teenage girls. Girl 1 writes on Facebook: "You don't know me". Girl 2 replies: "I know you're a beaver eater". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep The sexual meaning is probably dominant these days among the possible senses. Non-durable pages also refer to it as slang for French Canadians; that's worth following up. Some commentaries on the novel Lolita mentions the term beaver eater appearing. Others say it wasn't a double entendre when Nabokob wrote it 65 years ago. If it's a borderline case for inclusion I can look for a durable quotation about this interpretation. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

-loadEdit

I doubt that this is a genuine suffix. And Category:English words suffixed with -load has a small population. DonnanZ (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The paucity of entries in that category is explained by most potential entries being analyzed using {{compound}} rather than {{suffix}}, such as arkload, armload, assload, autoload, bagload, barrowload, bellyload, binload, boatload, bootload, boxload, busload, buttload, coachload, containerload, crateload, horseload, jetload, lorryload, muleload, planeload, raftload, sackload, shipload, sledload, tankerload, tonload, trailerload, trainload, tramload, trunkload, and vanload. Perhaps an argument can be made that -load is not a genuine suffix, but I think the size of the current population is not a strong one.  --Lambiam 12:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Derived terms for load are a bit of a mess at present, there are two sections for nouns, including Category:English words derived from: load (noun) which is somewhat non-standard (like this "suffix"). Some terms appear both as suffixes and normal derived terms. being listed twice. Not all terms are single-word compounds either, like axle load and unit load. We need some consistency. DonnanZ (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I have put the two noun sections under one heading, but there's still some work to do. DonnanZ (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
In axle load, the meaning is “load on the axle”; this is a standard compound noun, used in such contexts as “the axle load should not exceed 10,000 kgf”. In the cases where the first component is a container, the meaning is ”the amount that fits in such a container”, and the typical use is “a <container>load of ...”. In this use, -load is a synonym of -ful.  --Lambiam 15:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comparison of load compounds with those using the genuine suffix -ful fails to take into account that -ful can't be used on its own, unlike load; for example vanful - "a vanful of merchandise" can only be split as "a van full of merchandise". Whereas a word like carload is a load in a car, whether it is a motorcar or a railroad car. But there are other terms like shitload, which I know you edited, doesn't mean "a load of shit", but must still derive from shit +‎ load. DonnanZ (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Not all words ending on -load can be analyzed the same way, but there is a clear commonality among those in which the first component is a container. This appears to be somewhat productive. For example, although Wiktionary does not have an entry for barrelload, this term can, non-surprisingly, be attested: [64], [65], [66]. The meaning of such compounds is also predictable; if you know the meaning of urn, you know what is meant here by the term urnload. Productivity plus a fixed meaning are IMO enough to establish suffix status.  --Lambiam 11:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The only dictionary evidence I have found to support your theory is in Cambridge, which is not overwhelming support for a suffix, and hardly enough. No suffix is recognised by Oxford. In fact Oxford prefers to create two words: ‘Approximately 120 bags and 10 trailer loads of rubbish were collected and removed by Waterford Co Council.’, ‘The biotechnology company has, through a number of well-timed share placements, bucket loads of money.’ and more. So Cambridge's support for a suffix should probably be ignored. DonnanZ (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The Oxford usage examples appear at load, they also have bucketload and many more compounds of load, but no entry for trailerload. DonnanZ (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete: I see no evidence that this is a suffix rather than a compound element load, I see no books referring to a or the google books:"suffix -load" or to the use of google books:"load as a suffix". Whereas, the ability to split the compounds ("a car load", etc) suggests they are indeed compounds with load, not uses of a suffix. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

-wayEdit

"Used in the game of Pig Latin. "please be quiet or I'll cry" becomes "ease-play e-bay iet-quay or-way I'll-way y-cray""

This is not a great entry. Firstly it doesn't explain how, why or where the suffix is used (it should explain that it attaches to certain vowels, or whatever). Secondly, this isn't an actual suffix, really, is it? It's just a sound or noise. It has no meaning and no connection to the grammar/part of speech of the thing it attaches to. Equinox 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Strangely enough, there is a suffix, but not for this. DonnanZ (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

be preparedEdit

This is the second nomination, for the motto, and the first nomination for the euphemistic sense. Both senses should be deleted IMO.

MottoEdit

The entry was apparently kept as a translation hub. I don't see how this is a good entry for that. This isn't a phrase that has lexical significance; it's just a motto. There are lots of other mottos in existence, even some that are quite well known, that probably don't literally match the equivalents in other languages. The same can be said for slogans. We don't want an entry for I'm lovin' it (McDonald's slogan in the US) for example, because I guarantee you advertisements for McDonald's in other places use a slogan that technically translates to something different. The motto wouldn't be any more lexically significant in any other language, just for being the Scout motto, than it is in English.

Popularity or historical significance is not equivalent to whether or not something is meant for a dictionary. This is why we don't have entries for Christopher Columbus, Nintendo Entertainment System, Windows XP, or similar. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

EuphemismEdit

Definition given: "(euphemistic) To be prepared for a sexual encounter by carrying or possessing condoms or other means for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease."

It literally has the term itself in its own definition, which already isn't a good sign. Beyond just that quick observation, there are tons of euphemistic shortenings of sexual phrases that are this generic. One example is "let it out" in reference to ejaculation, but we don't see that sense at let out (since you might as well say "let out the cum"). You could just as easily say "let it out" and refer to something completely different, like "let the puke out of your mouth" or "let the dog (which the speaker omits the gender of previously with 'it') out of the house."

As for "be prepared" itself, you might be prepared for a sexual encounter also by boosting your confidence, exercising beforehand, making sure you were actually excited at the time, etc. There are a million things someone might do to prepare themselves for the act of sex, or literally for anything else, while I don't see this particular thing defined to be lexically significant over any of them. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Does it require "be" anyway? What about "he seemed prepared" etc.? Equinox 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Or “he came prepared” (no pun intended).  --Lambiam 18:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

seven hundred and fifty, seven hundred fiftyEdit

No similar numbers and violates the numbers policy. J3133 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. They're spelt with spaces. Khemehekis (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

superrewardedEdit

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to only once case of this word ever being used, in a letter in 1621. That should mean delete, right? --Huckerby980 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Send to RFV. Attestation is an RFV matter, not a RFD one. Old Man Consequences (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

runEdit

(intransitive, soccer) To carry a football down the field.

Originally I listed this at RFV, reading "carry" as potentially meaning "carry in the hand", but looking again it seems increasingly unlikely to me that this could be the intended meaning, and more likely that "carry a football" is supposed to mean run while kicking a football but keeping it close to oneself. On this basis I have moved it here. I don't see that running with a football warrants a separate definition, any more than running with any other item or implement as part of any sport or activity. Or am I missing something, and there actually is a distinct soccer sense somewhere here? Mihia (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The sense was added in this January, 2004 edit, a usage example was added in October, 2004 ("touchdown" is only used in American football), a "football" template was added in in October, 2005 and then the "football" template was converted to "soccer"/"transitive" converted to "intransitive" along with the removal of the usage example in October, 2006. From this I would conclude that the "soccer" label is an error, and that this is an American Football sense. It would also seem to be transitive- with the ball as the direct object- so it should be "carry (a football)". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all that research ... gosh, what a complicated cock-up. And alarming that it has been in place since 2006! Mihia (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It needs a context label (American football).  --Lambiam 09:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed label and added transitive and intransitive uses. OK to remove RFD? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That's down to Mihia, if he's satisfied. DonnanZ (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I just added a "transitive or intransitive" label and put the object in brackets (which is an ambiguous choice here, but I personally prefer the brackets). The only thing I would ask is whether both these senses are truly distinct from general senses of "run" that are (or should be) covered elsewhere. For example, the quotation "Then, on their second possession, Isaiah Ford ran for 11 yards" to me seems little different from, say, "he grabbed the baton and ran for twenty yards before tripping over his shoelaces". I.e., he is running, in any normal sense, and happens to be carrying something that we deduce from context. However, I know essentially nothing about American football, and if those who do are happy that it is a distinct sense, then fine. We could also look at the transitive example, "The Patriots ran the ball just 27 times despite averaging 5 yards per carry". Again, generalisations of this, such as "He will run the baton for the last 400 meters of the 4 x 400m relay" can be found. Again, if American football aficionados are happy that there is a sufficiently distinct football sense, then no problem. Mihia (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Running (American football sense) does not require running (track and field sense). Plays are divided into run, pass, and kick. There is a play called a quarterback sneak that is scored as a run play but is little more than a dive forward into the ground. Runs in short yardage situations often come down to feats of strength between the opposing lines while the ball carrier looks for an opening. (Short yardage situation is football jargon, the team on offense needs to go less than three yards or so.) You can also run negative yards. Distance is measured along the length of the field from where the ball starts to where the ball ends. By rule, the initial movement of the ball must be backwards. It is common for the ball carrier to be tackled several yards beind the starting point, i.e. to run for a loss. When the quarterback runs for a loss it is scored as a sack. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not proposing any distinct track and field sense. I just used "baton" examples, because that is what came to my mind, as possible evidence that a more general sense of "run" could cover running with footballs, batons, and potentially any other item or implement. The question is whether the sense of the verb "run" in American football is distinct enough from some such proposed general sense to have its own definition, while, let's say, to give another sporting example, "run" meaning to run between the wickets in cricket, is not. Can I take it that the remainder of your reply answers this in the affirmative? Mihia (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I think run in football is distinct from the other senses, distinct from a sense that would include a relay race, and is a term of art. A longer definition might be "To carry or attempt to carry (a football) down the field, as distinct from passing or kicking the ball." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The sport involves a lot of rapid movement on foot by all the players throughout the game, but it's only considered running in this sense when a player has the ball. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, I see, thanks. That's fine then, as far as I am concerned (as the person who raised the RFD, I mean). Mihia (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

topic banEdit

I know I created the entry, but I don't necessarily agree with every edit I've made in the past (I hate to admit, I probably need to do the painful project at some point of going through all my pre-2018-ish entries and challenging/editing ones that might be sub-par). Looking at this entry now, it looks to me to be not much more than "a ban from a topic", the only difference is that it's extended to mean a ban from making edits related to a certain topic on that certain website, Wikipedia, so this is just essentially filling in blanks. My position now is that it can be easily deduced from how it looks, and by knowing that it has to do with that particular website you could probably guess the meaning even easier.

On the note of verification, I recall searching Usenet for the term and finding three separate posts that used the term "topic ban" in reference to Wikipedia, but never added these cites. And I don't think it matters. The fact that I was only able to find three also can tell you how this particular example of a "topic ban" is not too notable compared to any other either. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Evidently created because of being a wiki term, which is not a good sign. Seems SoP to me, really; you could argue that it's not the topic being banned, but the user writing about the topic, but so what? Still rather obvious in context. Equinox 20:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Not a set phrase: nothing to prevent any sense of topic (including the adjective) from any sense of ban#Noun. DCDuring (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. --Uisleach (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

pet projectEdit

It is pet adjective sense 1: "favourite; cherished". Equinox 20:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree, delete, common collocation but essentially no different from pet idea, pet scheme, pet theory etc. Mihia (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Shouldn't pet peeve and pet hate be deleted as well? PUC – 12:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite so sure that a pet peeve/hate is a "favourite; cherished" peeve/hate. Equinox 19:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
pet may need another sense, or need to expand that existing sense, to handle negative terms (independent of whether those are kept or deleted), because I can also find e.g. "Major Butler has a pet grievance and a pet aversion, which he forces on the reader in every chapter, and which becomes at last very wearisome." "His pet annoyance was the buying of radios on credit by those who could not afford them." - -sche (discuss) 19:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If you do add it (which I think is a good idea), I will definitely take it as an argument to nominate pet peeve and pet hate for deletion (though WT:JIFFY might apply to one of them?). PUC – 21:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

go deepEdit

"To be a remarkable characteristic of a person or thing. Our students' sense of pride in the school goes very deep." That is not at all my understanding of what go deep means. If the school is a fine, noble institution then there is nothing remarkable about the students being proud of it. The "depth" refers to how much they like it: it's something like saying their pride is genuine and ingrained — not shallow or superficial — i.e. just what deep normally means. (Note run deep may also need attention since it just links to this entry.) Equinox 21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete; the def is wrong and it's just go + deep, per nom. Negative characteristics can also "go deep", like "racism at the school goes deep", google books:"racism goes deep", etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment. Which of our senses of go covers this? What other phrases of the form "go + adj." use "go" in the same way? Mihia (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
go unnoticed, go unreported? I can't think of any examples that aren't of the form go un- + past participle. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Is that really the same sense? To me, "go" in "go unnoticed/unreported" means something like "pass" (approximately), while in "go deep" it is more like "penetrate" (approximately). Mihia (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it is, or is something akin to, the "extend" sense (which has a quote "I don't know that this knowledge goes very deep for them", among others). On Google Books, I also see e.g. "goes down to the bone" ("beauty is skin-deep, but ugly goes down to the bone", "if you hate him, that kind of hatred goes down to the bone", "a sadness that [...] goes down to the bone", "your slick[ness] goes down to the bone", "this story goes deep, goes down to the bone"). I'm trying to think of other synonyms... - -sche (discuss) 16:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This makes me think of go back a long way. PUC – 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese virusEdit

The definition has been neutered to the extent that it is NiSoP. ("Any of various viruses originating, identified, or causing outbreaks in China") DCDuring (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. This phrase has been used to refer to a variety of viruses since 1895. The current (2020) political controversy about the phrase does not make it dictionary material. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
An older definition "COVID-19", removed out of process, was not SoP. I'm sure that we could get quite a few citations for this in this hot-word sense, with the definite determiner the. Whether it will live more than one year is an empirical question. DCDuring (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that 2020 uses of "the Chinese virus" to refer to COVID-19 are SOP, just as much as older uses referring to other viruses. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Accordingly, I have added an RFD tag to the other sense too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@DCDuring You've accused me of removing the COVID-19 sense out of process. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, which was not intended—as I indicated in my edit summary, I was trying to broaden the definition to more completely capture how the phrase is used. It seems to me that use of the Chinese virus to describe "COVID-19" is just an instance of the broader "virus originating in China" sense. Is there any reason to think it isn't? (You or I may approve or disapprove of the use of this phrase, but that doesn't make it idiomatic.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The generalization to the point of SoPitude led to my RfD which you support. It looks like a two-step deletion of an entry you don't like, that would have been under color of a legitimate process. But the COVID-19 sense is distinct, though obviously derived from the SoP term. If we can't handle politically controversial material we should get out of the business of providing definitions for novel terms in living languages. DCDuring (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that usage describing COVID-19 represents a distinct sense rather than the general sense? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I have observed that I and people I talk to tend to say "[the] coronavirus" instead of the several other names. We all know which of the many coronaviruses is meant. "Chinese virus" works the same way in my opinion. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the coronavirus RFD discussion (now at Talk:coronavirus), there are uses of coronavirus that cannot be explained by the general sense, so the specific sense is needed. Do uses exist for Chinese virus that cannot be explained by the general sense? I don't think I've seen any. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sense 2 says "(politics) COVID-19". What is that trying to say? That this word is specifically used, in a technical sense, among politicians generally, to refer to COVID-19? Yeah? I thought it was just Trump. Equinox 04:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It certainly isn't just Trump. Users includes his minions and allies. DCDuring (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Users include conservatives. Does anybody really know what the man on the street says? (Or would say if he were allowed on the street?) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete for now. Far more generic than Wuhan virus, which I would keep if it is still used next year. If kept, rewrite the definition of the COVID-19 sense and delete the Wikipedia link related to Donald Trump. Perhaps change the definition to Synonym of Wuhan virus because it has exactly the same meaning and essentially the same connotations. And while we're on the subject, what do people think about the recent addition of "derogatory" to Wuhan virus? Most people dislike the virus and any name could be derogatory. I think the usage note explains sufficiently the fact that use of the term may suggest a political affiliation (for better or worse) and I would delete the new label. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
What CFI rationale for deletion? Reasons for deletion do not include "inaccuracy", controversy, or use by unpopular political figures or their followers.
Usually {{synonym of}} directs a user to the most common term for the referent, which, in this case, is COVID-19.
Perhaps we should include a derogatory label on Spanish flu, French disease, Ebolavirus, Rocky Mountain fever, etc., too. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the PERSON on the street says COVID, half as many syllables as COVID-19, not readily mistaken for any other topic such person might discuss. DCDuring (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete as sum of parts. If kept because its meaning has narrowed, then what it's a synonym of depends on what you think the template means. Stripped of connotations, it does mean COVID-19 or SARS 2. (I drop -CoV- in speech.) In a discussion in the Beer Parlour (last of May, 2020) editors thought a synonym meant you could freely substitute one word for the other. Some people use choice of word as a means of signaling their tribal affiliation. You could almost swap Chinese virus and Wuhan virus, but you couldn't swap Chinese virus and COVID-19 because in certain circles one is offensive and the other is not. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Other reasons you can't swap Chinese virus and COVID-19: the phrase Chinese virus is also used to refer to other viruses/viral diseases, and COVID-19 is a proper noun (doesn't take a/the). As I said above, use of the Chinese virus to describe COVID-19 appears to be an instance of the SOP sense (roughly "any virus originating or identified in China"). If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary, that would be great. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I rewrote the COVID-19 sense and made it not so much about Trump, although the quotation I picked does have a headline about Trump. I also added a transitional form from an AP News story before "Chinese virus" disappeared from mainstream reporting outside of quotations. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete the "any virus from China" definition as SoP, keep the COVID-19 definition (not SoP because people use the phrase to mean specifically COVID-19 and are excluding, say, the 2003 SARS outbreak even though that was also a Chinese virus). Khemehekis (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This phrase has been used for SARS, actually: "the dreaded new Chinese virus has gone desi with a vengeance", "SARS, too, had a dual genetic identity: it was a Chinese virus". Would you say we should add another sense for that usage? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Regretably, keep the covid sense. RWNJs like Kaley Macanney have given this word life. Purplebackpack89 12:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete both senses, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete both senses. The second sense isn't properly attested. One of those quotes is actually a headline (which don't follow normal English rules) and the other two both use "the Chinese virus" which is arguably just a purely SOP adjective-noun formation. -Mike (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete the "any virus from China" definition as SoP, keep the COVID-19 definition - this is a politically charged sense that continues to be given life by Trump's dogged use of it, which, I imagine will continue for some time yet as the election year hots up. I think it should have a "deprecated" label and a clear usage note attached to explain the significance, as well as specific non-SOP sense, of the term. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

dinojuiceEdit

This was deleted as creative protologism, which I think is weird, since the term has been around for many years, and is found all over social media [67][68][69] (ie. stuff like twitter). I realize it's hard to source to durable sources though. But with the rise of electric vehicles, gasoline and diesel as dinojuice (and variation) has shown up not uncommonly. So IMO, it should exist on Wiktionary. -- 65.94.43.14 18:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can coin a word, even me. Twitter is not regarded as a reliable source, but if the term appears in durable sources (books, newspapers and magazines), and quotes can be found from those, this deletion can be reconsidered. DonnanZ (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I recreated the entry as an alternative form of dino juice with three quotes. – Einstein2 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedily closed. This discussion never belonged here, but I was the original deleter, and I am now satisfied. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

-mageddonEdit

-mageddon seems like it is just a common portmaneuau component, rather than bona fide noun forming suffix. All listed attestations are poorly/sparsely used, which definitely suggests those terms are more of ad-hoc conversational utilities than independent linguistic lemmas. Achierius (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The only word using it is a portmanteau of Armageddon, and it is not a suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Abstain Delete. Words built on this should be indicated as {{blend|en|XYZ|Armageddon}}.SGconlaw (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Changing my vote as I think I don't know enough about the matter. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, and keep -geddon instead. Abstain per discussion regarding -gedden". bd2412 T 04:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Distinct from -geddon. This one is mainly attached to one-syllable nouns to preserve the syllabicity of Armageddon, whereas -geddon is attached to multi-syllable nouns. It's also productive, like -geddon. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WordyAndNerdy. Climageddon is another example of use; and yes, I know that it can plainly be analyzed as clima-geddon, but these are portmanteaus, where syllables are shared between morphemes. Soap 15:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • But the fact that these are portmanteaus is precisely the original reason given for deletion. There's no question that there's something productive here- the dispute is over what that "something" is. A template or a strategy for forming portmanteaus is not a suffix. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, google:"suffix mageddon" finds some speakers who think of (or write about) -mageddon as a suffix, including MacMillan Dictionary, which mentions bird- and debt-mageddon as examples, among others; this Guardian piece suggests some other examples. In fact, I see more support (on the web, in the form of people saying they view something as a suffix) for -mageddon as a suffix than for -geddon. It is also possible to view all of them as blends rather than occurrences of a suffix, though. Meh. - -sche (discuss) 18:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of these have only minor variations on the phonological pattern of armageddon: ˌ[vowel]+[(optional) liquid] + m + [reduced vowel] + ˈgeddon. If there really is a true suffix, it's still pretty rare. The problem is that "portmanteau pattern" isn't a recognizable morphological category, so people use the closest one that sort of fits to describe this. It's basically a sort of snowclone that operates within rather than between words. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

-geddonEdit

-geddon#english seems like it is just a common portmaneuau component, rather than bona fide noun forming suffix. All listed attestations are poorly/sparsely used, which definitely suggests this term is more of an ad-hoc conversational utility than an independent linguistic lemma. Achierius (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. All words using it are portmanteaus of Armageddon, and can be listed as derived terms there. This ain't a suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
How does it differ from -gate? Is that a suffix? Or are all words using it portmanteaus of Watergate? —Mahāgaja · talk 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The difference with -gate is dictionary recognition, perhaps because it is better known than -geddon, which I can't find in Oxford. If it can be found in other reputable dictionaries, keeping it can be considered. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I do query Etymology 2 of -gate though (in place names), which probably come straight from gate. A tollgate or gate in a town wall are sources I have come across. DonnanZ (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Probably in some placenames in Scotland and Northern England it's from gate² street, lane. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
That certainly applies to some streets up north, but there can also be terrible corruptions - Bathgate, according to a book I have, comes from Cumbric badd + ceto- ("boat wood"), recorded as Batket c1160, definitely not from bath + gate! DonnanZ (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
"boar wood" actually, I misread it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The main difference is that -gate is used by people who don't seem to be referring to Watergate. You still have combinations like "carmageddon" that show awareness of the word "Armageddon". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Abstain Delete. Words built on this should be indicated as {{blend|en|XYZ|Armageddon}}.SGconlaw (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Abstain Delete. It's not productive enough to be considered a suffix like -gate. There is also carmageddon used to refer to the consequences of closing a major highway, possibly limited to Southern California. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep. There's a point at which a word is used enough to construct portmanteaus that it creates a productive suffix. This is not as popular as -gate, but it's crossed that threshold. Coronageddon appears robustly attestable. Then there's a thousand nonce words like potatogeddon, which while not independently attestable by our standards, still exist. Not every iteration of -ception is independently attestable, but the fact it exists as a productive suffix is. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WaN. @Sgconlaw, Vox Sciurorum, I encourage you to look at the evidence of productivity of this suffix. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Struck through delete to abstain instead. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I also think I don't know enough on the subject. Abstaining. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. There is also a band called Hairmageddon, and an annual haunted house in Tampa, Florida, called Scream-A-Geddon. The term has become imbued with meaning as a suffix. bd2412 T 04:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, per the Daily Mail and others, "spermageddon". bd2412 T 04:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      @BD2412: Your example "Hairmageddon" supports -mageddon (and not -geddon), so why did you vote to delete that one? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      Because -ma- exists as an infix, so Hairmageddon would be hair -ma- -geddon. bd2412 T 05:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      The -ma- infix is etymologically distinct from the -mageddon suffix, though. -ma- is a nonsense syllable arbitrarily inserted into words for humourous effect (edumacation, saxomaphone), whereas -mageddon is formed by shaving off the first syllable of Armageddon so that it preserves syllabicity when attached to a one-syllable noun. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      I still think that the actual productive portion of the term is just "-geddon", and the rest is just adjustment to get to that portion. bd2412 T 17:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      FWIW, comparing google:"suffix mageddon" to google:"suffix geddon", I find more people (including the editors at MacMillan Dictionary) talking about -mageddon as a suffix than -geddon (although there are a few of the latter, including a bar journal article, whose examples look more like blends, however). Meh. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      Words You Should Know 2013 has an entry for -geddon, and also lists a few more examples.[70] The book also considers -pocalypse a suffix. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      I have created -pocalypse, with citations to "gunpocalypse", "cookiepocalypse", and, of course, "Trumpocalypse" (though the last one could also be interpreted as an "-ocalypse"). bd2412 T 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      On second thought, I have removed "Trumpocalypse" in favor of an earlier citation for "foodpocalypse". bd2412 T 21:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WordyAndNerdy and per my rationale above for -mageddon ... anything using -mageddon also uses -geddon. Soap 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: and 'geddon and geddon are possible words. Purplebackpack89 17:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Abstain: Not clear to what extent we should document blend/portmanteau formation patterns as suffixes. Multiple dictionaries do have -gate for Watergate-based blends, but we can note that Category:English words suffixed with -gate has 151 items. For Armageddon, the implied quasi-suffixes would include -mageddon and -geddon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

able forEdit

Moved from RFV with the following discussion:

Doesn't turn up on google books that I can find. And if it does exist, is it really best classified as a phrase? 76.100.241.89

I'd be fine with this being moved to RfD, if that seems more appropriate. 76.100.241.89
I don't really understand the definition. Do the numerous 19th century results on Google Books not fit? DTLHS (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so, but I don't really get the definition either. 76.100.241.89
From the edit history/entry creator, I would guess this may have been added because some other dictionary has it. I added a citation to the citations page, "I'll not be able for get up [...] I'll be goin' for die for sure", but that seems to just be using "for" in place of "to", not using "able for" idiomatically. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Searching Google Books for "able for the work" throws up some apparently relevant hits, but to me "able for" seems like a collocation, or even merely a juxtaposition, not a phrase. I'm not sure there is any more reason to list this than e.g. fit for or ready for. Mihia (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I think this trying to explain something about a certain construction in a certain dialect; it says Irish. Okay, able generally means "fit to do something", i.e. qualified and not hindered by any obstruction or disability, so you would think SoP. But there is the matter of the construction. Why do we say "I would love to swim" and not "I would love swimming", or "I adore to swim"? So: "able to swim" (normal) but "able for swimming" (dialectal) maybe? If only the Irish use this form (I have no idea) then it's interesting to document. I am not sure about this kind of weird Adjective+Preposition entry title... I have expressed my opinions about the need for a WikiGrammar before. Equinox 22:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
cited. The thing is, to use @Equinox's example, it is not "able for swimming", but rather, "able for swim". I am not at all sure that this is an idiomatic phrase, it looks more to me like an idiosyncratic syntax for certain dialects. For example, I can also find "happy for go to school" Kiwima (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, this is tricky. In the 1896 cite I provided and the 1898 cite, what has been cited is clearly a general use of "for" to mean or replace "to", not (or not just) "able for" as an idiomatic string ≈"able to", because e.g. the 1898 cite also says a certain place was "firs rate place for shoot a woodcocks, I tell you", and "I say [it] wass no use for spen money", etc. So, I would move those citations (at least the parts where they use for as to not just with "able") to [[for]].
The 1899 cite is quoting a letter which is too short for/to contain any other instances of "for", so it's hard to judge one way or the other. The 2006 Gaijin Yokozuna cite is interesting, it does contain "able for" in representations of dialectal(?) speech that otherwise don't seem to use "for" for "to", but which also contain other nonstandard word usages that make it hard to be sure if "able for" or just "for" is the idiomatically-used word.
Wright's English Dialect Dictionary, in the entry "able", does assert that this is a real collocation with "able" in Irish English, with a cite from Paddiana (1848), "he'd never be able for the attornies". And Richard Allsopp and ‎Jeannette Allsopp's 2003 Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage, in the process of mentioning Carribbean Englishes' use of "able with" (as in "he was not able with that kind of work"), mentions not only the Irish use recorded in the EDD, but also asserts "present rural Uls[ter] E[nglish use like] 'she was well able for him' ", again as a collocation with "able". I am tentatively inclined to think this is better handled as a sense of [[for]] and perhaps a usage note at [[able]] regarding collocation, rather than an entry [[able for]]. What say our grammarians, and Irish-English speakers? - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
IMO we overuse the concept of 'phrasal verb' to justify entries for collocations. This seems like such a case. This seems like dialectal use of for, possibly inherited from some version of Gaelic. The same applies to able for him, which might be a survival of the obsolete definition in the entry for able ("Suitable; competent"). DCDuring (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree in this case. I propose we move this to RFD, where the types of folks who are interested in these issues are more likely to see it. Kiwima (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, IMO: two of the cites are unambiguously just attestations of an unusual use of "for", not an idiomatic use of "able for" as a lexical unit. The rest are debatable, but my inclination is to handle this via a sense at "for" (attested also in other collocations, as I mentioned above) and a usage note at "able" mentioning the various collocations ("able for" in Irish English, "able with" in several Carribbean Englishes, etc). - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Belongs to grammars and not into a dictionary, unless as a usage note of a part of it or into a grammatical appendix. Fay Freak (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fomalhaut dust ringEdit

Fomalhaut dust ring is a sum of parts. The literature does not consistently use that name for the ring of dust around Fomalhaut. It may be a ring, or a debris disk, or a dust ring, or a disk, depending on the author. Worth a Wikipedia page but not a dictionary entry. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no entry for dust ring. Do we need one, or is this worth keeping to cover that? DonnanZ (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't say dust ring is much more than a ring made of dust. Wikipedia uses debris disk for the same phenomenon. Scientific papers go either way. An extra definition for dust might be more useful. But definitely a definition for dust ring as a concept in astronomy would be preferable to a definition of one specific dust ring. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The point is where dust rings commonly occur. Is it usually limited to heavenly bodies? DonnanZ (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Dust ring in this sense is a purely extraterrestrial phenomenon. The physics is different on earth. In space, the angular momentum of the dust keeps it in orbit and self-interaction tends to collapse a cloud into a disk or torus. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Added new sense of dust in astronomy. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

8:46Edit

A factoid is not a lexical item. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I say move the first sense to the etymology and send the second to RFV. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, even the second sense. Just because that amount of time has become a cultural phenomenon does not make it lexical. This can also be written as eight minutes forty-six seconds, 8m, 46s, or 8 minutes 46 seconds, not to mention the possible uses of and in between the minutes and the seconds. So not only is it a factoid, but also SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The purported definitions are not really lexical definitions, but rather encyclopedic information about the amount of time in question. This is like adding an entry for 98.6 with the definition "human body temperature in Fahrenheit". —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    We have entries for 9/11 and 7/7, though, so there's a precedent for specific dates/times functioning as words. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    @WordyAndNerdy 9/11 can be used to refer to the attack itself, not just to the date. Are there citations saying things like "Many American cities have seen protests over 8:46" or "Congress is working on legislation to stop police violence in the wake of 8:46"? I haven't encountered usage like that, but if it exists, that would be a reason to keep this entry with a rewritten definition. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    I now see that you made the same point below. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons stated. If it sticks around for a year and gains some meaning, reconsider then. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without explanation, I would not have understood the meaning of (e.g.) “an 8:46 vignette” as used here. The symbolic significance goes far beyond the literal meaning of a time interval of 526 seconds (see e.g. this), so I don’t buy the SOP argument. Yes, it is a “hot word” – and also marked as such — but one that users may want to search for.  --Lambiam 11:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
It's symbolic like the subtitle of the Bruce Springsteen song American Skin (41 Shots), but I wouldn't put 41 shots in the dictionary. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Functionally that's no different from me making an entry for 3:16 (which refers to the Biblical verse John 3:16 commonly referenced by Christians, at least here in the US), because citations say things like "Johnny has a 3:16 coffee mug." Sure, it's hard to guess out of context, but it's a Biblical verse. Having an entry for this wouldn't work also because I'm sure there are lots of verses in the Bible which are also verse 3:16. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per Lambian mostly. And because I don't like how the OP defined "lexical". I also believe some of the deletion arguments above are weak. "This can also be written as..." has no bearing at all on whether or not this should be kept or deleted. And why are we so sure that this will die in a year? I've been seeing 8:46 EVERYWHERE for the past couple of weeks. Purplebackpack89 12:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep sense 2 as a hotword to be revisited in a year; if people are still talking about "8:46" without directly referencing George Floyd, then it can be kept. (As for "41 shots", I wouldn't put it in the dictionary on the basis of being the subtitle of a Springsteen song either, but I would if people use the phrase "41 shots" separately from the song and without directly referencing Amadou Diallo.) Move sense 1 to the Etymology as Andrew Sheedy says. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The definition given for sense 2 was "An amount of time taken as a pause, prayer, reflection or meditation in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement." How is that a lexical item in and of itself? It might be if 8:46 referred to any amount of time taken to reflect, but from what I'm gathering this is just the specific amount of time used to reflect. As in, when people say 8:46, they mean literally 8 minutes and 46 seconds were used to reflect, so the term is self-defining. I'll admit that it might not make sense with no context in some usages, just as much as "3:16" might not make sense to someone without the context of Biblical verses. But it could be deduced through its sum of parts, i.e. by going to the entries for 8, :, and 46. Sense 2 is functionally no different than me defining two minutes as "The amount of time on average someone spends brushing their teeth." (I don't know what the actual average time for that is, PIDOOMA for an example.) PseudoSkull (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Proponents of this word, please add some citations illustrating typical use of the second definition (the one that isn't just etymology). Durable citations if feasible, but we can worry about durability in a year if the word is kept. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete per PseudoSkull (as an aside, I have also seen this abbreviated 8m46s). To me, this seems like having an entry for 6 million or 6 million Jews defined as "the number who died in the Holocaust", on the basis of things like the Jimmy Carr joke "they say there's safety in numbers. yeah? tell that to 6 million Jews." Or, from a book, "Today, not only are we honoring the memory of the 6 million, but we are also reaffirming our unwaivering commitment to never let the world forget what the results of ignorance, prejudice, and apathy can be." (I am sceptical that we have an entry for "six million lies", too.) As an aside, sense 1 is not only etymological rather than a definition, it is also, apparently, wrong (the actual length of time Chauvin put his knee on the neck has been variously calculated as 7:46 ot 8:15). - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
AP News headline from last week: "Prosecutors: Officer had knee on Floyd for 7:46, not 8:46"[71]. This suggests the term may not last. Perhaps 7:46 will take its place. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lambiam and others. 8:46 is independently meaningful and, like John 3:16, people in the intended audience know what it means without explanation. As for creating an entry for the unadorned 3:16 .... maybe, but I dont think these two are directly comparable because the Bible verse is John 3:16, not just 3:16. Soap 15:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    Whoops it's early ... I didnt notice the blue link for John 3:16 above was to Wikipedia. I would be on board with creating an entry here for John 3:16 but I don't want to distract from the subject matter at hand here. Soap 15:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    Just emphasizing that I still support keeping this even now that I've learned that it should have been 7:46. We report what we hear. Soap 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The first sense, as it is currently defined, seems like an encyclopedic fact, not a lexical unit. But if it can be attested to specifically mean "the murder of George Floyd" (as in "the repercussions of 8:46 have rippled around the world"), then I'd say it's a non-standard proper noun indicating an event, and that's as includable as 9/11 or 7/7. The second sense certainly seems like a provisional keep as a hot word if it can be cited. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Certainly delete sense 1, which is not a definition, more like some piece of Jeopardy! trivia. I don't know whether sense 2 exists or not. Equinox 19:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose if sense 2 is read literally, it would reflect usage like "This morning, let's take an 8:46 of five minutes." Strictly speaking it's an RFV issue to determine whether that usage exists or not, but I would be very surprised if it does, and I doubt that was the intention when the entry was created. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't read sense 2 that way. Both senses unambiguously define facts, not words. If it's a number used as a word we should be seeing uses as words. "We 86ed Hans after he named his kid Adolf and started saying '88' instead of 'Hello.'" "I've been tearing around in my fucking nightgown / 24/7 Sylvia Plath." (Lana Del Rey, "Hope Is a Dangerous Thing"). If this passes RFD in its current form I'm going to RFV it. I know it's a hot word, but even hot words have to exist. And given that it's based on an admitted mistake (8:46 for 7:46) I don't see it lasting a year. @Purplebackpack89, you created this. Can you add the examples? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

six million liesEdit

Is this an idiomatic, lexical item? I'm sceptical; it seems like just saying that 6 million Jewish deaths were lies, and the same collocation is found in reference to other sets of six million things someone considers fake/made-up, like:

  • 1935, Common Sense
    “Six Million Peasants Die as Soviet Hoards Grain”—six million lies in single sentence. It matters nothing to Mr. Hearst. Nor does it matter to him that his correspondent, Thomas Walker, “who for several years has toured the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ...

besides there also being obviously SOP uses like

  • 1905, John Ogden Murray, The Immortal Six Hundred: A Story of Cruelty to Confederate Prisoners of War, page 169:
    I do positively believe I had to tell my comrades six million lies about how I fell down in one of the cisterns that some one left open.

Meanwhile, many of the uses which are related to Holocaust denial are about about a specific song:

  • Jack Levin, Gordana Rabrenovic, Why We Hate, Prometheus Books (→ISBN), page 120:
    And “Six Million Lies” by No Remorse contains the following Holocaust-denying lyrics: Did six million Jews really die, or was it just a Zionist lie? []

(The form google books:"6 million lies" is also found, at least on a specific cloth left in a specific city.) But I'm not sure; it's arguable. What say you? - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you think this is an occasionalism? Otherwise I see no problem. The use as graffiti may point to it being a stock phrase. Fay Freak (talk)
I just don't see a reason to consider this lexically idiomatic. The evidence of use in references to other things, including other instances of six million deaths that the speaker likewise considers lies, shows it's not limited to the Holocaust. Even if it were, would that be evidence that it was a lexical term? When someone scrawls "Auschwitz lie" or "Zyklon B hoax" on a tombstone or otherwise uses that phrase, they almost invariably mean that they think the idea that Auschwitz was a death camp was a lie, and not e.g. that they think the idea that the town was destroyed by the Mongols in the 1200s was a lie, (or, respectively, they think the idea that people were gassed with Zyklon B was a lie, rather than something else,) but I don't think we need an entry for Auschwitz lie or Zyklon B hoax, do we? But I'm not sure; maybe you or someone else wants to make an argument for idiomaticity... that's one reason I've brought it up here, I want to know what everyone else thinks... - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@-sche: Ok then, it is just as though one wrote “Auschwitz lie”, “Holo[caust] hoax” etc. Delete. Which however leads us to the question whether we should have an entry six million, conceptualized as a particular mythological number amongst some speakers. Fay Freak (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I can see how it has more of a claim to idiomaticity. In #8:46 I mentioned a Jimmy Carr joke (for example) that relies on the reader hearing "six million Jews" and thinking of those murdered. And Granger found other collocations below. I wonder how many other casualty numbers are used in such ways... I see a few uses of "fifty-eight thousand (families|sons)", referring to the number of US deaths in Vietnam, but it seems much rarer / further from idiomaticity than "6 million". - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
My feeling is that six million is not an idiomatic phrase, but rather a well-known piece of numerical information. Like 365, 1492, or 93 million miles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete as not idiomatic unless somebody contributes quotations showing otherwise. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem idiomatic to me. Lots of phrases with "six million" can be found alluding to the Holocaust: "six million stories", "six million lives", "six million relatives", "six million hearts". —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. This is an allusion, not a lexically significant term. Do we need an entry for 365 because of all the books that reference the number of days in a year their titles? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

cactus fruitEdit

There are a great many cacti with edible fruits, and most of those fruits have been referred to as "cactus fruit". If you Google the phrase, you mostly see references to commercially grown types such as prickly pear and dragonfruit, not saguaro, as our definition claims.

This is an attempt to change the English, SOP definition to match the much more specific translation- sort of like creating an entry for "fruit tree" with the definition "a tree that produces pears" because you can't figure out where to add poirier as a translation. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete as sum of parts when properly defined. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. If you have multiple translations of that kind, @N.G. Smokingloon, you can invent an SOP entry dedicated to it, see WT:THUB. Otherwise leave it out. Fay Freak (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep my dictionary refers to the English equivalent of nanilzheegé as cactus fruit specifically, its my understanding that this is idiomatic as it does not refer to any cactus fruit such as a prickly pear but rather saguaro cactus fruit specifically. If not then yes how may I create or transform the entry for purely translation purposes?N.G. Smokingloon (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@N.G. Smokingloon: You should fix your understanding. Of course it just means a fruit of any cactus. No English speaker will understand you if you order a “cactus fruit” and mean a saguaro cactus, because simply this is not specific. When a specific term is translated in a certain way this does not necessarily mean that it has this meaning. It is often just out of convenience. The entry cactus fruit, this title, you cannot have for this translation. An entry saguaro fruit seems warranted to me after a search. @Chuck Entz. Fay Freak (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you so sure? What if in Arizona people speaking English do understand it to mean that? Much as in the way people understand hearts of palms to not mean a palm tree's myocardium but rather the culinary sense?Nevertheless I believe that saguaro fruit may suffice.N.G. Smokingloon (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
What if in Arizona people speaking English understand it to mean "duck, I'm coming out shooting!"? The home of the Arizona Cactus Ranch, that sells prickly pear fruit in many forms, is unlikely to conflate cactus fruit with saguaro fruit. The Arizona Daily Star, writing their "Quick reference guide for harvesting cacti in Tucson" mentions four types of cactus fruit, but only uses "cactus fruit" in "barrel cactus fruit", which is obviously "barrel cactus" + fruit. There's no reason to think that Arizona, of all places, would limit cactus fruit to being one type of cactus fruit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete at this time... but I would note that if there were, for example, one language with a specific term for "saguaro fruit" and one with a specific term for "barrel cactus fruit", and one with a specific term for "prickly pear fruit", but not enough to create all those terms as THUBs, I would consider having this entry as a THUB for those translations + {{qualifier}}s. (That a dictionary explains nanilzheegé as "cactus fruit" does not mean "cactus fruit", in the reverse direction, denotes [only] saguaro specifically, given the above evidence to the contrary.) - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

once an Eagle, always an EagleEdit

Definition given: "(Scouting) Once someone has attained the Eagle Scout rank, their possession of the rank should not be referred to in the past tense, regardless of age, and an Eagle Scout cannot ever be stripped of their rank." Really this is just a (rather specific) snowclone form of something that should ideally be at Appendix:Snowclones/once a(n) X, always a(n) X, if it should be on the dictionary at all (because even the snowclone itself seems to me to be SOP, but perhaps that can be a discussion after that entry is created).

For example purposes I'll use the usernames of Erutuon and Surjection; hopefully they don't mind. There's no particular reason for picking them. I just picked randomly off the top of my head...

If Erutuon, an active contributor to Wiktionary, had left Wiktionary starting today, Erutuon might one day by mere coincidence meet one of their former Wiktionary buddies, Surjection, IRL or on some other website, 21 years later in 2041. During the conversation with Surjection, Erutuon states "Ah, pfft, who are you kidding? I'm not a Wiktionarian anymore. I haven't been online there for over two decades!" Surjection might say "Hey, once a Wiktionarian, always a Wiktionarian." And this form is completely usable (although I doubt we could attest the "Wiktionarian" form, especially in durably archived sources). It means exactly the same thing, just in a different context; no matter how long Erutuon would be gone, they will always be considered a community member at Wiktionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: It looks like Appendix:Snowclones/once a X, always a X exists after all, which I didn't realize before. That's even more of a compelling reason to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Surely it's "an X" not "a X". Asking the real questions. Equinox 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeaaah, delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Uisleach (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I find the Snowclone appendix rather impractical. Better represent each snowclone in the mainspace in its highest-frequency instantiation and redirect some other high-frequency instantiations to it. What are some very common instantiations of "once a X, always a X"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I would support either moving snowclones (back) into mainspace, or at least creating soft redirects in mainspace from high-frequency instantiations to the relevant appendix, to make the content more findable/searchable. It could be confusing for readers who input something like "night is the new day" to wind up on a very different entry like "orange is the new black", where the definition would presumably focus on those colours, and not night or day (perhaps some other X is the new Y phrase is in fact most common, but my point is that users will be redirected from values of X and Y very different from the ones the lemma entry defines, if we're picking an actual phrase instead of using placeholders) so it might be better to redirect users either to the existing "X is the new Y" appendix, or to a mainspace entry that used placeholders like that ("X is the new Y"). - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

go longEdit

"To buy a financial product with the intention of holding it for sufficient time for it to increase in value and thus to be sold for a profit."

This is NISoP. go ("To come to (a certain condition or state)") + long ("(finance) Possessing or owning stocks, bonds, commodities or other financial instruments with the aim of benefiting of the expected rise in their value. ")

The other, football sense might be NISoP, too. DCDuring (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In case it is kept, I'm not sure that the present definition is ideal. It is easy to read "long" as equating to "sufficient time", i.e. "going long" entails holding shares for a "long" time fsvo "long". AFAIK, "long" does not mean this, but merely means that your holding is positive, as opposed to negative in the case of going short. Mihia (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the definition to address this point (and btw also removed the link to take the long view which seems to betray the same misconception that "going long" necessarily means that you intend hold the shares for a long time). Also added go short. Vote Keep for go long, partly on the basis that I think we should have go short for the "not have enough" sense, and this entails mentioning the finance sense, and then we should not have that without "go long" as well. Mihia (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mihia: Regarding take the long view, does the hypothetical antonym take the short view exist? If yes, does it - or maybe short view (see Lexico) - merit an entry? PUC – 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess it does exist, though my instinct is that take a short view would be more common, and in fact Ngrams bears this out. Putting these at long view and short view would mean we wouldn't need to worry about the article. In any case, "long view" can be used in the same sense without the verb "take". The only issue might be, as we had somewhere else, that "take" can have so many meanings, but in this case I think it is not hard to see what "take a/the long/short view" must mean if one knows "long/short view". By the way, I see you added "with of" to "go short", but in fact an explicit "of" is not mandatory. E.g. you can say "My parents were very poor, and we often went short". You might say that there is an implied "of", i.e. "went short of the sorts of things that you can imagine, such as food, clothes, etc.". Mihia (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

wax lyricalEdit

This was previously deleted in 2009 (Talk:wax lyrical), I was all set to create it when I found this out. It appears in at least three dictionaries - Merriam-Webster, Collins, Lexico - and I think there is a good case for restoration (and I had a quote lined up). DonnanZ (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • On one hand, User:DCDuring made a good point during the old discussion that this sense of "wax" can be used with all kinds of other words: "wax philosophical", "wax technical", "wax eloquent", not to mention the more common "wax poetic" (which, however, I see we do have an entry for), ... so it does seem SOP. OTOH, there is the lemming argument. Abstain for now (I'll probably !vote later). - -sche (discuss) 06:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It only took about a week to delete it, far too quick. I think we allow at least a month these days. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep (=Undelete) per non-binding WT:LEMMING: M-W[72], Lexico[73], Collins[74] and Farlex Dictionary of Idioms[75]. And considering the definition of "wax lyrical" in M-W and the definitions in lyrical, I don't see how this is a sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Morgan FreemanEdit

Not an adjective, and all quotes quite obviously refer to Morgan Freeman. Listen to Morgan Freeman's voice and make your own conclusions; there's nothing lexical here. PUC – 15:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or, from another angle: you can't know what is meant if you don't know who Morgan Freeman is and don't listen to his voice. To me that's proof that it hasn't entered the English lexicon. PUC – 15:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete as it stands. Not adjective, agreed. Could conceivably move it to a noun entry like M~ F~ voice if we really think that's so commonly used that people who never heard of the person would use the phrase. Equinox 15:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
As creator of the entry, I believe it should be kept. See also this discussion on Dan Polansky's talk page. All quotes about Darth Vader refer to Star Wars as well. If you don't know who Darth Vader is you can't understand that either. I came to this entry because I was trying to say something, trying to explain the kind of voice that was needed for a voice-over. I couldn't quite find the words I was looking for, until I thought "Morgan Freeman". Perfectly described the kind of deep voice I meant, it didn't mean "go hire Morgan Freeman", and I figured I wasn't the first to think of that. After some further consideration, I also believe this entry is useful for future generations who may not know Morgan Freeman. Imagine you are reading a text from the 1960s that says "and he said with an Alan Reed voice" (now when you look him up you may or may not find you have actually heard his voice, depending on how old you are) or "and she said with a Penny Singleton voice" (which I think won't mean much to most people nowadays), it would be useful to be able to look it up. (I don't know if these examples are attestable, but Morgan Freeman in this sense is) Morgan Freeman gets used in text that is otherwise completely unrelated to Freeman, it assumes the reader knows what it means, like it assumes the reader knows what "voice" means. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
"I also believe this entry is useful for future generations who may not know Morgan Freeman": we're not supposed to make predictions and to create an entry because of something that might happen in the future. PUC – 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to mention the Germans. I bet a fair number of Germans don't know what Morgan Freeman sounds like. Also, might? Is English Wiktionary different from Dutch Wiktionary and does it not aim to provide historical knowledge, only current terms? Or are you suggesting that Morgan Freeman is immortal? (well.. that's open for debate I guess, I mean, after all, he is God..) Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Another example: if we leave our America-centric viewpoints behind for a moment, imagine you are reading a German text and encountered something like "eine Friedel Morgenstern Stimme". (again, no idea if this particular example is attestable or not) I would surely like being able to look that up. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: I've changed the entry to attributive noun, as that is the correct PoS if I understood Dan Polansky correctly. Not many names are attestable for this kind of attributive noun, so this doesn't mean tons of names would be added. Alan Reed might be attestable (though I have doubts), Penny Singleton probably isn't. Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse should be easy to attest. James Earl Jones may also be attestable. But I can't even say for sure whether or not Elvis Presley would be attestable. So, limited. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Most names of well-known people could be used in this way. Take, for example, an "Albert Einstein intellect" or a "William Shakespeare style of writing." But that doesn't mean we should create those entries. Imetsia (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
For every subject/field there is only a very limited number of names that can be used in this manner while also being attestable in sources that are not otherwise related to the subject. Talking about a "Tiger Woods swing" in a golf magazine is more likely to refer more directly to the person, while "she grabbed the broom and knocked him down with a Tiger Woods swing" would be completely unrelated. And in such an instance, Tiger Woods is part of the language. His persona is irrelevant, his name has been reduced to the qualities of his swing. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If we should have this entry, then probably as a proper noun defined as "an American actor and film narrator noted for his clear, calm and deep voice" or the like, but then it fails WT:NSE's "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." Defining it as an adjective seems like a workaround around WT:NSE. Do we have any other such entry for a real person? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Dan. Examples are clearly in contravention of NSE. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have Arnold Schwarzenegger. This might appear to have a more clearly detached sense than Morgan Freeman, but I remark that by employing names as a different part of speech we cannot work around the restrictions for names of specific entities and at best it is only semantic genericity that permits us such entries. Conversion is easy. “Then he went fully G.W.F. Hegel.” – “He considered to stage a Timothy McVeigh.” – “When I told him about our using Windows, this freetard went completely Richard Stallman.” – “When will Trump pull a Caesar Augustus? He could at least pull an Oliver Cromwell.” (As you might read in Nrxn publications.) Etc., etc. This semantic genericity needed is hardly measurable however, a fact Dan Polansky does not like. There is no stringency here, Morgan Freeman seems about to be deleted while Arnold Schwarzenegger stays, for very opaque reasoning. Fay Freak (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    If it was up to me, I would delete Arnold too; I don't see anything lexical/genericised in there. PUC – 21:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    The above examples do not seem to be from actual use, e.g. google:"went completely Richard Stallman" finds nothing, and so does google:"He could at least pull an Oliver Cromwell". Whatever these examples were supposed to demonstrate, they are not actual uses found in the corpora. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Obviously, because I made them up to show a pattern. Similar things have been said. What has been demonstrated is that one can use any name of an individual characterized by having done or having been something to denote what he is characterized for, provided that the audience got the facts about the individual – often only people with a certain education or certain readings understand: as Dan Polansky not everyone understood every allusion I gave, people who do not know what free software is (shockingly many; basic education is rare) would not understand a text about “a Richard Stallman” as in the example, most however understand in context what “an Arnold Schwarzenegger” is because for this one just needs to know that there is a bodybuilder of that name. Whereas in contrast a sentence like “Let us pray that Trump Senior becomes Caesar Augustus, and Trump Junior becomes Emperor Constantine” stays dark to most people (what this real example implies is basically that Augustus and Constantine were persons who threw the holiness spiral particularly far back – yes, now it has become really obscure, but that’s the usual style in the Dark Enlightenment and you might see the point –, but somehow a vocabulary of such names is unsuited for a dictionary audience, regardless of its form of attestation; I mean not only because one should not enable entryism with such entries, but due to the project goal of not letting the dictionary intersect with encyclopediae, and this thought goes with every name of a specific entity). The mere replaceability of Arnold Schwarzenegger with a concept like muscleman, the fact that it is understood by many sharply, fooled people into believing the term passed an (imaginary) threshold by which its inclusion is more than a name of a specific entity that violates WT:NSE. Fay Freak (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Things made up can hardly demonstrate anything about actual term usage; they may at best remind us of some actual usage. As for the inclusion of Arnold Schwarzenegger, we have to remember that CFI has changed since the entry was created and since it passed its RFD in 2009. The hammer that can now be used to delete the entry was introduced in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals, where voters probably did not realize they will create a discongruence in that Darth Vader can be pulled in via a certain principle (existence of use in "attributive sense") while the same principle would no longer be afforded to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I would argue that the principle should be applied to both Darth Vader and Arnold Schwarzenegger or to none. I would further argue that Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be defined as "muscleman" but rather as "An Austrian-American bodybuilder and actor noted for highly muscular body" or the like, a definition that both identifies the individual and the characteristics that can be picked by metaphorical uses. To my mind, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals did not solve any burning problem and was basically unnecessary. We now have a problem in CFI that we should try to fix somehow. Interestingly, Lexico[76] does feature Arnold Schwarzenegger as an entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete as it stands; it's clearly not an adjective, it fails tests of adjectivalness, and some of the citations even pluralize it. Should there be a noun sense? Eh. CFI suggests not (as noted above) and I'm sceptical that it is, or that people would expect to find it as, dictionary content; probably a {{no entry}} soft redirect to Wikipedia is sufficient. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

play the victimEdit

SOP: see play sense 4. You can play the fool (which I guess is protected by WT:THUB), play the innocent, play the big man, etc. PUC – 18:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sense 4 of play is 'To act as the indicated role, especially in a performance.'. Based on that, I'd just like to notify that there is a difference between playing a victim in a theatrical performance (which becomes playing the victim when the victim is definite) and playing the victim as acting like a victim in order to gain real-world sympathy (and not sympathy as a fictional character). Less idiomatic (and thus more SOP) ways of saying play the victim would be act like a victim, act as a victim or something like that. (I wrote this comment up until the previous sentence before seeing the "you can play the fool" addition). Speaking of which, why does play the fool have an entry, why wouldn't play the victim be worthy of a translation hub as well? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
In Dutch you could een slachtofferrol (uit)spelen, in een slachtofferrol plaatsen, in een slachtofferrol vervallen, een slachtofferrol aannemen, als een slachtoffer opstellen, gedragen als slachtoffer... Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

rhythm and blues musicEdit

SOP, rhythm and blues + music? On a side note we do have rock music but not rock and roll music. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Provincial Achievement TestEdit

Dictionary material? If we include this we have precedent to include possibly hundreds of other standardized test names, starting with American College Test and Scholastic Assessment Test. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. For language proficiency tests and ungeneric names of school examinations. Of course not chemical or medical tests (Widal test, Snellen test or whatever; Cooper test I count as physical test, though with fitness tests and competitions the possible endlessness after arbitrary criteria set by humans becomes problematic). Fay Freak (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

National Hockey LeagueEdit

National Basketball AssociationEdit

National Football LeagueEdit

Major League BaseballEdit

All except the last one were added by @EhSayer. These are not dictionary material; names of organizations belong on Wikipedia. If we include these, we have precedents for literally tens of thousands more, popular or not. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names may be useful here. Personally, I've been linking to Wikipedia for the long definition of short form names, like CJNG links to the Wikipedia article for Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Governed by WT:NSE. Names of organizations include United Nations, and some other items in Category:en:Organizations including Federal Intelligence Service, Greenpeace, Hamas, Hezbollah, International Court of Justice, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, World Trade Organization, and more. One property easing the deletion of the nominated names is that they consist of multiple capitalized nouns or adjectives, unlike e.g. Greenpeace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Stanley CupEdit

Specific names of trophies given by one particular organization only I'd say don't belong on a dictionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

FA Cup would be under threat then, which refers to the competition, not the cup itself. DonnanZ (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Why not delete Champions League and Bundesliga too? I presume there should not be a difference in whether it is the name of a corporation (UEFA, not created apart from the acronym) or the “work-groups” it creates. A case could be made to delete Olympic Games, Olympic Winter Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games. The recurring ramblings of my local rambling clubs in the Westphalian province, albeit frequently mentioned in the local press, do not get entries either. This can go out of hand quickly if everybody covers his favourite sport. It is all not covered by WT:BRAND because of not representing commodities; the terms are rather under the CFI section “company names”. Fay Freak (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It has entered the lexicon, at least within the sports context. For example: "NBC Sports Chicago has been playing the Chicago White Sox 2005 World Series run and the Blackhawks' three Stanley Cup runs ..."[77]; "With 13 Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog-Eating Contest titles, he surpassed ... and Henri Richard’s 11 Stanley Cups."[78]; "Nobody would have thought you could equal the joy felt when the Blues finally won the Stanley Cup."[79] -Mike (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

beEdit

Delete sense 24: "to be alive". I don't see it as distinct from sense 1, "to exist", and in fact Shakespeare's quote "to be or not to be" is used for both of them. Sense 1 might be reworded or fleshed out, but I see no need for a split. PUC – 21:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedily deleted; it was added quite recently in response to a thread above (by, and I don't mean to focus unduly on the user rather than the content, a user who doesn't seem to fully grasp Wiktionary/dictionary inclusion criteria yet), and was both obviously redundant and substandard in using the word it was defining ("be") in the definition. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

serveEdit

Rfd-sense: To provide crack cocaine (to), usually by selling, dealing, or distributing.

(Moved from RfV.)

This doesn't look like it's at all specific to crack cocaine, and I don't see how it's a novel use. grendel|khan 22:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If you were being served cocaine in a restaurant it would be the same as being served food. But being "served" something to mean buying drugs does seem fairly novel to me. This should be at RFD though. DTLHS (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Oh, it's for deletion of senses as well! I've moved the discussion. (Maybe we also need a sense for "to provide an product or object", in a non-food sense? Is that valid? I've seen "serving hot takes", for example.) grendel|khan 16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ? To provide a product or service ? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    @SemperBlotto: Oh! I didn't think senses that had sub-senses worked like that. That seems to cover it, I think. grendel|khan 17:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
In drug culture, if someone asks "Do they serve at that house?" or "the lady over there serves" it means they sell or she sells crack cocaine. It's intalk among those who are affiliated with it--it's common to hear serve used as a euphemism in place of sell. Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Just to follow up a bit, one doesn't hear this usage with marijuana on the street, or heroin, or other drugs, it's specific only to crack cocaine. Leasnam (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

unicorn barfEdit

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unicorn_barf

It's neither a term anyone is "likely" to encounter, nor one that require's explanation. To call this term niche would overstate things by the evidence on display.

One might as well allow every minor rude term to ever occur repeatedly, like "pixie piss" as a demeaning term for cheap champagne / girly drinks, on the wiki.

86.7.223.84 14:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

We're a descriptive dictionary. We don't get to choose just the terms that we like (please refer to our Criteria for inclusion for details).
This is not a random combination of a word from Column A with a word from Column B: it probably stems from the magical unicorns in children's books and cartoons that are always depicted surrounded by rainbows and other pretty, magical colors. The humor comes from the contrast of pristine, childlike, ethereal prettiness with disgustingly filthy and all-to-real bodily functions.
At any rate, as long as it's in use and people know what they mean when they use it, we should have an entry for it. Normally I would refer you the Requests for verification, but I can see from the Citations:unicorn barf that it already seems to have enough usage to pass. As for "pixie piss", if you can show enough usage signifying meaning, in English, in durably archived sources, we can certainly have an entry for that, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems that not all of the citations on the citations page support the definition in the entry. The 2015 citation appears to be describing smell, not color. For the 2016 citation, not enough context is given to be sure of the meaning. But all of this is an issue for RFV, not RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, the 2017 citation may be unicorn + barf. The previous paragraph says "It looks like a unicorn threw up on her face", suggesting an extended comparison rather than an idiomatic phrase. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Added more cites and reworked the definition to better encompass them all. Also created unicorn vomit, which seems more common. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)