Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

• {{rfd}}
• {{rfd-sense}}
• {{rfd-redundant}}
• {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Page deletion guidelines

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

Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

• 786
  nasal vowel
  fuck it up
  oral vowel
  adult material
  smackers
  not-to-scale
  mathematical function program
  elder
  occasional furniture
  instance dungeon
  take its toll
  Kube
  stealth wealth
  stem mutation
  morel
  abstinence
  py chiminey
  non-Arabic
  history book
  dynamics
  ex-minister
  be at
  ex-serviceman
  ex-servicewoman
  lavalier microphone
  in conclave
  square root of fuck all
  adoptive mother
  pro-Hamas
  anti-Hamas
  pro-Israel
  anti-American
  pro-American
  pro-Arab
  pro-British
  anti-British
  pro-Indonesian
  pro-Jew
  anti-Jew
  pro-Palestinian
  anti-Palestinian
  anti-Russian
  pro-Slavism
  anti-Slavism
  pro-US
  pro-Russian
  primiparous
  school-age
  fat lot of good
  blue light
  acquired characteristic
  from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free
  anti-Hindu
  accessory before the fact
  accessory after the fact
  good boy
  good girl
  unspoken rule
  unwritten rule
  Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
  subbranch
  Lulu
  -un-
  DKC2
  DKC3
  Nissia
  mean time
  zinc-bearing
  foregoing
  unrequited love
  El Camino Real
  marine toilet
  quarter-
  do want
  do not want
  because reasons
  twelve hundred
  December solstice
  tacit collusion
  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
  aluminium-27
  argon-36
  argon-38
  calcium-45
  argon-40
  beryllium-9
  U-235
  run
  queen bee
  neutron radiation
  tuna salad
  biological parent
  biological mother
  biological father
  anti-Israel
  number homophone
  two-move checkmate
  freak
  nasal consonant
  

December 2018

come out ahead

I think this is SOP: come out + ahead. It's just a common collocation. You can also end up ahead ([1]), which looks more or less synonymous; or come out first. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I think (in case this doesn’t get deleted) that the def conflates two distinct sense, both of them SOP. First, you can come out ahead of where you started – you made a profit; never mind how others did – maybe there even aren’t any. Second, you can come out ahead of everyone else – maybe you suffered a net loss, like everyone else, but still, you did better than the rest.  --Lambiam 17:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• A person can also come out on top. John Cross (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, thanks. come out + on top Per utramque cavernam 11:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete SOP - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: present in three idiom dictionaries[2]. Note that this is not strictly per WT:LEMMING since that only allows general dictionaries. I would not know how to obtain the meaning from come out and ahead. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Dan Polansky. I think there is a gloss here where it applies to a silver lining coming from what could be expected to be a bad situation. bd2412 T 03:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thames River

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

River Thames is a redirect to Thames. We could do likewise for Thames River. On Wikipedia, Thames and Thames River are redirects to River Thames.  --Lambiam 21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirect. The usage note can go to Thames. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know what it means to claim that it is “technically incorrect” – and who is the arbiter regarding correctness?  --Lambiam 08:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In the case of a geographic feature, those who live on, in, or beside it generally get to set the naming rules. No matter how many people read "Reading" off the map as reed-ing, if the inhabitants insist it's red-ing, red-ing it is. Local or national geographic boards also may have legal power to name things. If the English, particularly Londoners, agree "Thames River" is incorrect, I'd say it's reasonable to call it incorrect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's technically incorrect, just incorrect in language usage in Great Britain and Ireland. In New Zealand and Australia "River" follows the name, e.g. Clutha River. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It generally does in the US as well. But if the English insist that it's the "River Thames", most other English speakers are going to respect that as correct. (Likewise "Kolkata", "Côte d’Ivoire", and "Bejing", and only the first nation has any English-speaking tradition.) Maybe "technically correct" isn't the best way to write it, but I do think that most English speakers, if told that the English use the River Thames, would accept that as the correct name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I had a go at rewording it. DonnanZ (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As for diff, where can I verify the following: "(nonstandard, not the customary language usage in Great Britain and Ireland)"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be able to find evidence for it with a clever Google Ngrams search, or you could look for prescriptions in reference works. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Google Ngram did not show Thames River to be dispreferred by language users (River Thames, Thames River at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.); it probably was not clever enough. And as for the reference works, I would have thought it is the task of people entering that kind of information to tell us which reference work they used. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Local knowledge helps. I live near the River Thames, as well as a tributary, the River Crane. You can also refer to River Shannon and River Liffey, two Irish rivers. DonnanZ (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

River Thames, or R Thames, or River Thames or Isis in the Oxford area, is the name which appears on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps (published under Crown copyright). The same applies to other rivers; there are exceptions such as the Longford River, which is not a natural river. DonnanZ (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a Google Ngrams search that excludes hits that include the word "Connecticut"? Or exclude hits with American spellings like "center"? Many of the "Thames River" hits seem to be talking about the river in Connecticut. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Thames River:eng_us_2012,River Thames:eng_us_2012,Thames River:eng_gb_2012,River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. Per utramque cavernam 16:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I modified the above GNV: (Thames River:eng_gb_2012*10),River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., and I get frequency ratio of 10. That does not suggest "non-standard" to me; "much less common", sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Some facts: Thames River,River Thames,(Thames*0.07) at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. A river in Connecticut has this name. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Most rivers are entered without "River", but this can be a grey area, e.g. Red River, Orange River. Seas are usually entered in full, Black Sea, North Sea, Mediterranean Sea, but there is also Mediterranean. I think there is a case for retaining "River" in certain entries at least. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Grey River in NZ was derived from the surname, not the colour (see Grey), but may be worth an entry all the same. The same sort of thing applies to the Orange River. DonnanZ (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Meh. What to do with things like this that also exist without the "River" (or "Creek", etc) component is a grey area. I say redirect per Lambiam and FF, as is done for River Thames. I would do the same with Mississippi River. - -sche (discuss) 09:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect is probably the best option. -Mike (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, redirect, because Thames and Thames River are the same. Sashatrk (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirected - TheDaveRoss 15:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Japan Socialist Party

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

Keep. The nomination does not refer to any item of WT:CFI. This could be deleted via editor discretion, per WT:NSE. Rereading now Talk:Democratic Party, I now realize that the claims of SOP made in support of the deletion were wrong: both Democratic Party and Republican Party are democratic, but only one of them is called Democratic. Anyone remembers German Democratic Republic or Holy Roman Empire, about the latter of which Quine opined that it was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire? Is the Japan Socialist Party socialist? Who knows. As for WT:COMPANY, it does not have a consensus support, and it is questionable that political parties are companies--not in my universe. The same talk page shows that other political parties have not been deleted yet, e.g. Conservative Party and Labour Party. A 2015 keeping is at Talk:Transhumanist Party. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Party and Republican Party could have been kept via WT:LEMMING, per “Democratic Party”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and “Republican Party”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.; it is a pity I did not realize that in the deletion discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should have entries for specific political or corporate entities, books, buildings, people, etc. except in some very rare circumstances. That's stuff for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 06:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Single-word names of companies have pronunciation, and in non-English languages inflection, both classes of lexicographical information. A related question is whether we should have species names and whether that is a job for Wikispecies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Having lexicographical information is not (IMO) sufficient to argue for inclusion. That way we could include every Pokémon, every (single-named) character from literature ever, every product made by a company. To me (perhaps someone who doesn't belong to this modern pop-culture world) it's absurd even to contemplate. Equinox ◑ 07:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a point in what you say, and I'm not keen on covering every Pokémon either. That said, Tesco (redlink) is not part of any pop-culture world; it is part of everyday experience of shoppers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

CFI has no notability criteria, so Tesco is no different from (to give some hypothetical examples) Sam's Hardware, Al's Pizza, Joe's Diner, etc in various small towns. There's also no time limit, so a business that used to be on a corner that's now a subway station would be fair game. The main objection I have, however, is that it leaves an opening for people to use our dictionary to promote their own businesses- we won't know who they are if they didn't tell us. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

They would need to meet WT:ATTEST for their Joe's Diner, and there would not be much to state for promotion in a dictionary definition. By contrast, Wikipedia is a real venue for business promotion; indeed, companies are not excluded from Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If their local paper is archived, attestation isn't much of an obstacle. As for motivation: anyone who does much first-line patrolling sees people trying to sneak in references to their businesses all the time (not to mention spambots). Wikipedia can handle promotional edits because it has notability and referencing requirements- we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that you know better than I do what you are talking about as for people trying to promote their business. We might create notability guidelines for companies. Current CFI basically forbids companies, even though there is no consensus for that (cca 50:50). where there is a will. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think this is the sort of thing someone should expect to find in a dictionary as opposed to an encyclopedia. Tesco is at least a single short opaque word, but this is (not a single word and) transparently the name of a political party. - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Iceland is also a UK supermarket chain that specialises in frozen food, but it doesn't get a mention. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying Tesco merits inclusion, only that Japan Socialist Party has even less merit than Tesco. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Iceland supermarket deserves a mention either … DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have only just discovered the {{no entry}} template, which is used for Walmart. Could it be used for Japan Socialist Party? DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep, as Dan notes editor discretion is allowed, this seems unusual as there was a fierce factional dispute about what English translation to use (this is the former name). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete as encyclopedic; I don't see how the name dispute brings lexicographical significance. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I have created Socialist Party, to which this is now SOP - Japan Socialist Party. bd2412 T 21:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

January 2019

funeral store

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

Delete. Obvious SOP. KevinUp (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Something I have never heard of. Is it an American thing? I would say keep it. In Britain an undertaker has an office where one can arrange a funeral, show a death certificate, and choose a coffin from a catalogue. It ain't no "store". DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This puts a funeral store right in the middle of 1927 Swansea.  --Lambiam 20:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant there, it appears to be a mortuary. Is that the only British link to be found? DonnanZ (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a store for storage, not for selling things. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Some more: [3]; [4]; [5]; [6].  --Lambiam 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A couple of those are for "mortuary and funeral equipment", which doesn't fit the definition of the entry. The other two may be isolated copycats. DonnanZ (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In the good ol' U-S-of-A you might not get free health care, but you can absolutely accessorize your coffin. - TheDaveRoss 16:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete – a fūnus-related store. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, do we speak Latin all of a sudden? I think there is a good case for keeping this for the benefit of non-American users. DonnanZ (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. They don't sell funerals. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Pace User:Tooironic, they sell things for funerals just like a google books:"Christmas shop" sells Christmas-themed things (without selling the holiday itself somehow), a google books:"wedding store" sells things for weddings, a google books:"party rental" store rents tuxedos etc for parties, etc, etc... and it's not even a set phrase, "funeral shop" and "funeral shoppe" are also attested, as is "mortuary store" (about half the hits I see are for a store selling things, with the other half referring to storage spaces). (And pace Donnanz, I don't get the impression that it's common in American English and absent from other dialects; as Lambiam points out, they exist in the UK and other places; it just seems they're not very common anywhere — because it seems like funeral homes usually handle the sale of urns, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 09:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete per -sche. Per utramque cavernam 10:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to keep this but do not know which card to play. I sometimes like things explicitly disambiguated: having a def like "A store selling products and services for funerals, such as caskets or urns" is nice. In Czech, we don't seem to have *"pohřební obchod" so the entry also clarifies the term exists in the first place, SOP or not SOP. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't necessarily think that we need to keep this entry, but I do feel that our entry for store does not adequately convey that a "[foo] store" can mean a store that specializes in selling products in the [foo] category. bd2412 T 00:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  If anyone comes up with wording to convey this, note that the same general thing is true of "shop" (as in "Christmas shop") and probably some other words ("business"?) and could also be added there. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Advanced Encryption Standard

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

A long time ago I nominated Twofish? (or Bluefish? or some such "named crypto algorithm") on the same grounds, and it was kept: I felt it was something like a trademark, and not quite a dictionary term. I will say delete because I still feel that way and this one is pretty much an SoP phrase, even though there could theoretically be other "advanced encryption standards" that aren't AES. Equinox ◑ 05:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Governed by WT:NSE. What makes it different from Twofish is that it is a capitalized space-separated phrase consisting of words that are not proper nouns. It is not a sum of parts, yet open to editor discretion as per WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

prison gang

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

Could it also mean a prison work gang? (that's a term that should have an entry). DonnanZ (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems SOP to me, delete unless there is some more specific sense. Re work gang, I have not seen it used in that way, and we do have chain gang, beyond that specific term I have seen a few different formulations related to groups of prisoners working outside of the prison, work gang, work crew and work detail among them. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Oxford has an entry for work gang. DonnanZ (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think work crew and work detail occur with equal facility in non-prison contexts, with work detail appearing in military contexts. bd2412 T 02:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think a conscientious writer would use the term “prison gang” for a work gang of prisoners, for the simple reason it would surely be misunderstood by almost every reader, just like one wouldn’t use the term “kitchen table” for a table of weights and measures used in a kitchen.  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, that was the first meaning I thought of when I read the thread title. Of course, I understand the other meaning well enough too. Mihia (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a question that has come up before with arguably SoPpy terms: How should an ESL learner know which of the many senses of gang is the one to choose for understanding the term prison gang? I think sense 6, but that may not be obvious – and, moreover, that sense does not impart the persistence of prison gangs. Therefore I’m leaning towards Keep. (BTW, the somewhat figurative sense for a group of politicians – which I think could also be high-level executives or officials in a non-political organization – ought to be a sense on its own, rather than being lump together with criminal gangs, which tend to be more structured and have a longer lifespan.)  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If quality of definition were the criteria, I would say delete. As it is now, it looks like it is defining a Hollywood prison gang. An internet search for "what is a prison gang" would give better answers. -Mike (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Pppery (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

February 2019

aab

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

aacp

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

aac

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

OTOH, if these are written in lowercase, it would make them even less intelligible because they would look like words... if I read "the aab fired on the approaching jet", how am I to figure out that "jet" is a word and "aab" is only an acronym (and for what?) if there's no entry for "aab"? IMO keep if attested, although I wouldn't object to converting it to a soft redirect like {{altcaps|AAB}} or {{altcaps|AAB||anti-aircraft battery}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. My initial instinct was to send these to RfV to see if they ever are attested, but if they are, they are merely a miscapitalization of the acronym. I'm sure it would be just as easy to find sources where ELEPHANT or COMBUSTION is spelled in all-caps, but this doesn't make these different words. bd2412 T 04:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

astern of

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

Doesn’t the argument equally apply to ahead of? Also, don’t you mean adverb? In these uses, astern and east are not serving as attributes, so a more likely part-of-speech assignment is that they are adverbs.  --Lambiam 07:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Usage such as following shows that astern fits in the adjective word class:

• 1872, Hunt's Yachting Magazine‎^[7], volume 21, page 288:

  Every yachtsman knows that if the ballast of a ship be too afore or too astern.

• 1883, Lieutenant J. Menteith Brebner, RETURN WRECKS AND CASUALTIES IN INDIAN WATERS‎^[8], page 140:

  The chief engineer's evidence of the S.S. Lennox was the best given; but, as will be seen, he asserted that from the orders he received the Lennox's course was more astern than ahead.

• 1883, Alexander George Findlay, A Sailing Directory for the Ethiopic Or South Atlantic Ocean‎^[9]:

  but when near Cape Palmas the wind will perhaps be more astern

• 1966, Peter Padfield, The Titanic and the Californian‎^[10], page 233:

  The steamer was more than ahead of us, just on our quarter as we say, and the light was more astern.

It appears as a predicate (unlike an adverb) and is gradable (unlike a noun). Other usage shows that in can appear attributively (unlike an adverb) in phrases like astern power/thrust. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not disagree, but observe that all of that equally applies to ahead, which is now classified solely as an adverb:

• 1909, The American Review of Reviews‎^[11], volume 39, page 633:

  Whether in the case of industries other than railroads, the contraction is more ahead than behind, is the question now.

• 1920, J. W. M. Sothern, The Marine Steam Turbine‎^[12], D. Van Nostrand, page 496:

  In this arrangement only two ahead turbines and two astern turbines are fitted, or four in all, the astern turbines being contained in the same casings as the ahead.

And this use of astern looks more adverbial to me:

• 1911, James Connolly, The Magic of the Sea‎^[13], B. Herder, page 511:

  Then on looking astern we saw that the severed parts of the Speedwell were filling with water, the midship ends settling and the men scrambling up on the bow and stern that were cocking up in the air.

 --Lambiam 10:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

When pondering questions of definition and usage, I like to go back to see what others have done previously. My modern (1980s) A.H. collegiate, the 1918 Webster's Collegiate, and the 1910 Webster's New Intl. only refer to ahead as an adverb. The 1914 Century Dictionary defines it as "prep. phr. as adv. or adj." while the 1919 Concise Oxford says it is an adverb and predicate adjective.

In your quote from 1920, ahead is being used attributively, and perhaps in being a nautical sense of the word it is a reflection of how it was historically used. (Compare "two ahead turbines and two astern turbines" vs. "two forward turbines and two backward turbines".) I assume that Wiktionary would include any such historical usage.

Returning to "astern of", I can see how it would be comparable to "ahead of". -Mike (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

sext-

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

I don't think it is either, just an adaptation from Latin in the given words. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)'

• Keep and fix — (Firstly, it's not a suffix at all, but a prefix.  I digress.)  Sext- is the Latin ordinal prefix for 'sixth.'  The page should be fixed to reflect this.  That said, with the exception of sextus, every word on the page is an English word.  Sextus should be removed from the English section of the page and added to the Latin section (that is, once you go and fix the page to reflect that sext- is also Latin).  allixpeeke (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I still think this "prefix" can be deleted. Latin sextus, which is included, but shouldn't be, is the root; sextuplet comes from sextuple apparently. DonnanZ (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Allixpeeke If it is an English prefix, which English words has it been prefixed to, then? —Rua (mew) 16:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, sextillion is a number in the English language, combining the prefix sext- and the suffix -illion, and sextate is an English word, combining the prefix sext- and the suffix -ate.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Sextillion was apparently first coined in French with a Latin root. And the given etymology for sextate says it comes from Latin sextus. The sext- prefix has just been added by Allixpeeke, diff. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Question 1 — Does being-first-coined-in-French make a word not English?  Does having-a-Latin-root make a word not English?  If the answer to those two questions is yes, that would seem to imply that the word decade should be removed from this category.  I genuinely do not understand what makes sextillion's relationship to sext- different than decade's relationship to deca-.  Please explain, so that I may eschew making errors in my future edits.

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

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

If a word is coined in French and then borrowed in its entirety into English, it cannot be used to support the idea of an English prefix on that word. (If you prepare and cook a dish from French meat and French cheese in France, and then import the whole thing to England to eat it, you can't then meaningfully say it was prepared and cooked in England...) Equinox ◑ 13:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The stem of Latin animus is anim-, found back in words like animal, animate, animism and animosity. That is no reason to declare it a prefix. Precisely the same holds for sext-: it is the stem of Latin sextus found back in some words, but it is not a prefix. Ergo, delete.  --Lambiam 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete per proponent and Lambiam. Per utramque cavernam 17:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep Based on my subjective assessment as a native English speaker with a GRE Reading score in the 96th percentile, sext- is a prefix that is used in words that are used in English. I would recommend keeping this page. I consider sext- a prefix in the language that I use. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) (modified)

Do you also consider anim- a prefix?  --Lambiam 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Boasting about your reading score means nothing. You must prove that words were formed in English with this prefix. You don't see scientists saying "I'm cool, therefore the superhadron exists". Equinox ◑ 00:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, except for Feynman, but he can't weigh in here. - TheDaveRoss 13:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We'll still have to count it as a "keep". Sigh. Chignon – Пучок 22:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Harking back to sextuplet, we have sextuple as derived from sextus, although Oxford says it comes from Medieval Latin sextuplus. But there seems to be confusion amongst some users over words that begin with something which isn't a true prefix. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I imagine professional lexicographers have an extremely high reading score. Me? I'm just an amateur. DonnanZ (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Would people be willing to keep this if it were not labelled a prefix or presented as ever having been productive in English, but were instead labelled e.g. a "morpheme" or "element" or something and presented solely as a kind of aid to understanding words that contain it? Would an approach like that, which someone proposed in a discussion of another word which I can't find at the moment, be of use/interest for other cases, like [never-productive] English instances of various Latin "prefix variants" like Talk:sug-? ... Eh. Delete the prefix per nom. We can revisit if we decide it'd be useful to present "elements" like that. - -sche (discuss) 10:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

lord over

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

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

BTW: Someone should work over [[over]]. DCDuring (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

“lord”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. has "to play the lord" as one of the definitions, which would seem to be the right sense to make this NISoP. DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

MWOnline has "to act like a lord especially: to put on airs — usually used with it

I haven't found a definition like "brag". But the best shot at that would be the OED. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this intended to apply to all senses? If so, keep sense three. Claiming something as evidence of superiority is different from any sense of asserting rulership. bd2412 T 20:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This was challenged when there was only the first definition. The other two were added when it went to RFV, looking for more idiomatic senses. If we keep the more idiomatic senses, we should probably also keep the first definition, although we should probably mark it as non-idiomatic. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If this RfD is only directed to one sense (or to the first two senses), then it should be marked RfD-sense in the entry. I have no opinion either way on the other senses. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The third def seems idiomatic to me. 173.72.213.190 01:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

big dumper

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

It says it's a synonym of dump truck, which I imagine is a large road vehicle rather than a smaller vehicle for moving stuff around building sites. A possible delete, but I honestly don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 02:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I wondered if it might be a set phrase like big rig, but the first few GBooks cites just suggest a normal Adj+N combination: "The big dumper, the largest built in Britain..."; "Here's a nimble, big dumper: the Model LMSWM..." Equinox ◑ 11:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

rote

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

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

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

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

It seems to me that fundamentally there is only one meaning, and that the current first sense is a special case of the second "mechanical routine" sense. I wouldn't remove the information about committing to memory completely, though, as it is probably the most common use, but I would be inclined to present it as an "especially" sub-case of the general sense. Mihia (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, we may also want to look at whether the purported adjective sense of "rote" is a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Most dictionaries give the word in this sense only as a noun, but M-W sees it also as an adjective. A phrase like “her knowledge was not rote” strikes me as weird but is found e.g. here.  --Lambiam 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The OED has it as an adjective:- "Occurring in a mechanical and repetitious manner; routine." with a few examples given. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

horse steroid

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

The point seems to be that it may be used on any large quadruped, and therefore the term is not simply self-evident SOP? Mihia (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Most uses in news sources appear to refer to the use on athletic bipeds.  --Lambiam 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, appears to be used metaphorically to suggest very strong or high dose steroids that are dangerous but used by body builders, etc., rather than necessarily steroids specifically designed for equines. I searched for "on horse steroids" in Google Books and it seems common enough. (I don't know if humans can actually take horse steroids.) So, should be 2 defs, an SOP one, and a metaphorical one. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Boldenone undecylenate, sold under the trade name Equipoise (after the famous race horse Equipoise, a Thoroughbred), is meant to be used in veterinary medicine on large quadrupeds (whence the choice of trade name) and is accordingly known as a “horse steroid”[14][15][16]; it is even identified as the primary horse steroid, transferring the moniker to other veterinarian-grade steroids. There are many documented cases of doping with Equipoise in sports by athletes: see List of doping cases in sport by substance#Boldenone undecylenate on Wikipedia. It is also the one identified the most in a Google News Search for “horse steroid”, for which almost all results are about athletes getting caught.  --Lambiam 06:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Compare French remède de cheval, Spanish de caballo, Italian febbre da cavallo. Per utramque cavernam 09:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And also Dutch paardenmiddel. These terms are much older than horse steroid.[17][18] I also found a use from 1715 of the Latin term equinum remedium, which turns out to consist of the use of the dung of a stallion as a remedy against pleurisy. I wonder if perhaps this literal use (not as a remedy for horses but one based on a natural product thereof, to be applied on humans) lies at the root of the metaphorical use.  --Lambiam 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As a veterinarian I can say that the contemporary expression "horse steroids" has absolutely nothing to do with classic expressions. Some equine drugs do work on humans, some actually being preferred by athletes over the human brands, because they are more powerful (some times, it's just a matter of concentration of the active agent, but, other times, the agent itself is different and may be more effective, and more unsafe, on humans). That created an urban legend that all medicines for horses (and for other large animals) are more powerful than those approved for human use. Specifically on steroids, the more different the agent is from the naturally occurring hormones, the more likely it is to have an enhanced effect on the subject. For example, testosterone has a big effect on women, as they usually have very little of it circulating in their bodies, and although natural estrogen has no effect on men, because they have both circulating (testosterone is produced from estrogen conversion in the man's body), synthetic estrogen-like agents are usually very effective on men (which is the cause of many users to get "beefy", but less "manly"). Besides, those carelessly using such drugs are, usually, not the kind one could imagine reading old books without pictures on them. --Cyberknight

can be able

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

• Delete. Indeed, a news search found uses by a speaker from Papua New Guinea, by a Somalia-born Canadese minister and by the Korean president of Samsung Electronics, but nothing related to India. GBS yields some uses by Indian authors but many more from others, including native English speakers, going back to at least the 16th century (the trial of John Philpot, quoted as saying, “So that if you can be able to prove that ...”). So that I can be able to support the request.  --Lambiam 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• weak Keep. I found some uses that are neither Indian nor African. I've labelled it as non-standard. It now looks very SoPpy to me...any other thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. SoP, for sure. Otherwise we would be able to open pages for any and all modal doublets, triplets etc. If this entry is allowed we might have to, mightn't we? -- However, the logical answer here is that the collocation of can with be able is in no way any different from the collocations of will, could (!), would, may, might, mightn't, wouldn't, couldn't (!), can't (!), and won't with be able. All these doublets indicate degrees of possibility to have the ability. The issue with "can be able" and "can't be able" and "could be able" is that they are less usually encountered due to them being a juxtaposition of two modal verbs where one is the infinite equivalent of the other. We find a similar situation with must have to. None of these doublets merit a special entry for any reason that I can fathom. ALGRIF talk 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The 2011 citation ("How can I be able to feel such sensation as pain?") is not well defined as a mere nonstandard variant of can. It has subtly different implications. Equinox ◑ 13:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If you rephrase it as "How is it that I'm able" or even "How is it that I can", it becomes apparent that it's structurally different, with the inversion due to the question just coincidentally mimicking the expected word order. In the same way, "How can I not?" isn't an example of "can not". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted, though I moved the cites to the citations page just in case. - TheDaveRoss 12:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

nary a

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

It is strange that nary is classified as an adjective, while each of its listed senses is an adverb.  --Lambiam 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

With many a, the strange thing is that the structure is followed by a singular noun (as the article ensures), whereas many is usually followed by a plural, so the creator of the entry presumably sees these are the same or similar. But, I don't think these are comparable structures, despite their superficial similarity, as nary is not always followed by plural. Can't see any reason to necessarily classify "nary a" as a determiner, either. -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to nary, I think (or delete, but a redirect is cheap/affordable here). Other dictionaries seem to handle it via mention in their entries on "nary", rather than as a separate entry (like some do have for "many a"), and as noted, "nary" can be used with other words; "nary a" also doesn't seem to pass the WT:JIFFY test. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. "Nary" seems generally to be used as a constituent of the expression "nary a(n)". It would be a shame to lose direct access to the expression. I just looked it up, myself, to confirm my understanding of it before using it in a composition.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirected to nary - TheDaveRoss 12:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

race traitor

gender traitor

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

The only non-SOP part that I can see is contextual, that is that they are primarily used by bigots of one stripe or another. This is fairly well implied by the definition, since treason implies opposing sides, but that part isn't clearly SOP. I do think that bigots use these terms, so maybe we want to keep and label/usage note them instead? I am ambivalent. - TheDaveRoss 22:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning keep as to "race traitor" and delete as to "gender traitor". The phrase, "race traitor" appears to have some interesting etymological history. The earliest use I can find is of the similar phrase, "racial traitor", in these cites: Oscar Grow, The Antagonism of Races: Or the Functions of Human Institutions in the Struggle for Existence (1912), p. 49: "Alexander proved to be a racial traitor; he endeavored by immigration to Hellanize his new territorial acquisitions and to that end encouraged his soldiers to take nonHellanic wives; he favored the intermingling of the divergent races of his empire and devoted his energies to the eradication of all racial distinctions"; Charles Willis Thompson, The New Voter: Things He and She Ought to Know about Politics and Citizenship (1918), p. 329: "A man was a racial traitor if he voted the Republican ticket; that was the feeling". The first use I find of "race traitor" is hyphenated: Frederic William Wile, The Assault: Germany Before the Outbreak and England in War-time (1916), p. 187: "Beneath the British Ambassador's car-windows, I was told, some one had chalked a John Bull drooping ignominiously from the gallows, with “Race-Traitor” for an epitaph!" It seems like "race traitor" may have originated as an abbreviated form of "racial traitor". This Ngram paints a surprising picture of their relative development. bd2412 T 01:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you're being a traitor to your own race (and not some other where you perhaps have a stake or are trusted) might not be obvious. Equinox ◑ 07:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that just part of treason? I wouldn't call Klaus Fuchs a traitor to the US, but maybe a traitor to the UK whose citizenship he took. And race isn't malleable in the same way that citizenship is. Traitor implies a level of connection to a group that, when that group is defined (pseudo-)biologically, can't be achieved except by birth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The set of things that earn the sobriquet with respect to race seems much broader than those for political treason. bd2412 T 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about that... on one hand, yes, racists are quick to call a lot of things "treason" to the race, or to call someone a "traitor to their race" or a "race traitor" or any of a number of other such phrases. OTOH, political hacks call people traitors a lot, too. Googling "Obama a traitor (because|for)", some things I see that Obama was called a traitor for include meeting Cuban leaders, letting BP help clean up their oil spill, signing executive orders (both specific ones and the general practice of them), decrying a speech Ahmadinejad gave, ordering an atypical mustard on his food, passing a healthcare law, and accepting the Presidency. In general people who use terms as insults often use them broadly. (Btw, I also don't see how the phrase possibly being preceded by a longer phrase like "racial traitor" would have any bearing on its idiomaticity or entry-worthiness. I mean, "trans rights" is a shortening of "transgender rights" / "transsexual rights" but I don't think it's any more or less idiomatic because of that.) - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose "race traitor" just feels like the origin of "foo traitor" appellations, and I am trying to figure out where that feeling comes from. It does appear to precede "class traitor", which is the next one to develop. bd2412 T 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Remark. Until recently, class traitor was far more common than race traitor. Wikipedia has both Class traitor and Race traitor.  --Lambiam 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Well, I've deleted gender traitor; that leaves the other one to be decided. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I can wait

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

Delete. @PseudoSkull —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Chignon – Пучок 13:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. Not lexical. Not dictionary material. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 02:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What does it mean? The definition suggests it is a negation of can't wait, in the sense of "I am eagerly looking forward to". Does it mean "Unlike you, I am not eagerly looking forward to and would be happy to skip (the event, etc.)"? If that's what it means, I would not know you can use the phrase like this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A: "I can't wait for the film to come out!" B (who dislikes these films): "I can wait." B is in no hurry to see the film and has no interest in it. Equinox ◑ 18:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. In Czech, character A would say "Nemůžu se dočkat až ten film poběží v kinech" or the like. Character B would not be able to say "Já se můžu dočkat". From my standpoint, the entry is worth keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

More in the way of argument: the usual phrase is the negative one, can't wait. The use of the positive I can wait is at least somewhat surprising, I would argue, which lends the phrase its sarcastic tone. I can wait is labeled informal, while can't wait not so. Therefore, I can wait is peculiar at least a little. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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

• Comment: I would think that the literal meaning would be useful as a translation hub, but there are no translations in the entry. bd2412 T 21:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know how to translate this to Czech: when one person says nemůžu se dočkat, it is not idiomatic Czech to reply *já se můžu dočkat and mean by it "I could not care less". That reinforces my impression that this is a worthwhile entry to keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Failed, though if there are idiomatic translations perhaps it could be restored as a translation hub at some point. - TheDaveRoss 15:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

armchair linguist

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

Isn't armchair general the basis for that figurative use of armchair? If yes I think that one should be kept. The others can go. Delete. Chignon – Пучок 13:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Good question, this n-grams search has armchair critic arising earlier, but that doesn't prove the case. Here is a cite from 1888 for armchair critic, the earliest I see for armchair general is in the WWI era. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SoP. Equinox ◑ 13:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete as SOP (or just redirect them to armchair, if you like), unless we're sure one of them if the source of this use of "armchair", in which case JIFFY would suggest keeping that one. - -sche (discuss) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. First, there is a value in having armchair linguist and opposing it to field linguist. Or is the antonym of armchair general a field general as well? Second, armchair linguist is a thing, whereas armchair farmer is not. Therefore, I think we should list it somehow. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There are many professions which armchair does not often modify, although farmer isn't one of them. There are many professions which armchair does modify, just as one would probably not use hypersexual to modify cupboard that does not mean that hypersexual person is idiomatic. I wouldn't think that field linguist should be included either, since field already contains the relevant sense (noun 4.2.2), and one can be a field scientist of many stripes. - TheDaveRoss 15:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. However, armchair linguist isn't a linguist who is "remote from actual involvement" with linguistics, or a "linguist retired from previously active involvement", which sense 1 would suggest. Neither does the word designate a linguist who is "unqualified or uninformed but yet giving advice", as suggested by sense two. Armchair linguist is, very specifically, a lightly derogatory term for an adherent of the generative approach within linguistics. Does that follow from the sum of parts? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is much more specific than the standard usage of armchair, then it might merit inclusion. The current cite does point to your narrower meaning, if you can track down two more which are equally narrow I would be happy to change my vote on that one. - TheDaveRoss 02:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know; armchair linguist sounds like armchair general; they may have a serious position, but they're sitting at a desk and they're making decisions based on paperwork instead of going out into the field and learning first hand. I question whether "armchair linguist" refers to "an adherent of the generative approach" as opposed to, well, an armchair linguist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. There is a sense that generative/Chomskyan linguists as a group, fixated as they are on the ideal speaker irrespective of what goes on in the real world linguistically, are (derogatorially) "armchair" linguists, as opposed to other linguists (e.g. phoneticians, sociolinguists) that are not. Not sure that this is covered in the "armchair" entry. -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Should it be in RFDO? DonnanZ (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"Special:WhatLinksHere" is just a way of linking to the entries considered for deletion, not something to be deleted itself. Besides, it's a feature of the system, so it couldn't be deleted, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In that case, perhaps they should be individual RFDs. DonnanZ (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There are 30 such entries. Deleting some and leaving some others does not make much sense. Either we delete all, or we keep all.  --Lambiam 18:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO this seems comparable to Talk:eatin' for two (2011) and Talk:eatin' like a bird (2018), which were both deleted. Redirect or delete, IMO: personally I don't see the harm in leaving redirects, though consistency would have us delete them altogether. - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirected - TheDaveRoss 13:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

limber

2 senses:

2. (obsolete) A two-wheeled, horse-drawn vehicle used to pull an artillery piece into battle.

3. (military) The detachable fore part of a gun carriage, consisting of two wheels, an axle, and a shaft to which the horses are attached. On top is an ammunition box upon which the cannoneers sit.

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

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

Merged - TheDaveRoss 13:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

floopy

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

Delete. The [o] key is next to the [p] on keyboards, so this typo is very likely the result of sloopy typing (and proofreading).  --Lambiam 05:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe do a search for quotations for floopy to see if it has a proper meaning rather than just being a misspelling? It seems plausible that it might be a slang term. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would expect this to exist as a silly, intentional derivative of floppy like floofy (which I see we have some surprisingly detailed /elaborate definitions for) from fluffy, even though other uses are a misspelling/typo. For example, these two seem intentional, but OTOH one uses it as a dog's(?) name and the other as a nonsense word.

• 2010, Clive Cussler, The Adventures of Hotsy Totsy, Philomel

  “Floopy!” Lacey burst out. “That can only be Floopyl” It was true--Floopy had a very distinctive woof, low and almost musical. “Here, Floopy!” Casey shouted. “Up here!” “Hurry, Floopy!” cried Lacey. Floopy's tail began wagging wildly ...

• 2005, Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide: Five Complete Novels and One Story, Gramercy

  Strangely enough, the dictionary omits the word "floopily," which simply means "in the manner of something which is floopy." The mattress globbered again. "I sense a deep dejectedness in your diodes," [...]

Well, if we RFD-delete the misspelling sense, that doesn't prejudice adding a different sense if one does exist with better citations than those two... - -sche (discuss) 06:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. The Adams word cited above is a nonce. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as a relatively common misspelling, given the frequency ratio is about 3000 per (floopy*3000),floppy at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. Compare to (concievable*3000), conceivable at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. Policy: WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete, not a misspelling. Also delete all misspellings. - TheDaveRoss 14:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is not a misspelling, then there is no WT:CFI-based rationale for deleting the entry, and the above is a CFI override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss, Dan Polansky, Equinox: Please see my draft: Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos. Comments and improvements are welcome. Chignon – Пучок 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• The sole current example appears to be a typo, scanno or printing error. The only misspellings we should include are ones that people commonly use believing to be correct. I believe that "floopy" fails this on both counts -- it is neither common nor believed to be a correct spelling of "floppy" -- so TheDaveRoss is right: it is not a "misspelling" in the relevant sense. I couldn't say for sure that no one uses "floopy" deliberately as a word, or a deliberate variation, but we need examples of this, not just typos. Failing that, delete. Mihia (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  I now think the word is occasionally used as a portmanteau of floppy and droopy. Some examples where this is clearly not a typo: [19], [20], [21]. Here it’s used in the sense of having butterflies in one’s stomach. Here it is used in another sense, "pleasantly numb" – probably a nonce use.  --Lambiam 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Failed - TheDaveRoss 15:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

auxiliary power unit

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

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What, then, is your definition of power unit? That would help us see whether this really is a sum of parts. Compare to “power unit”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, on further reading, I was wrong. This is a unit which provides auxiliary power, more specifically power to auxiliary systems; it probably isn't SOP. My mistake. The power unit I was referring to is another term for a generator. @Lingo Bingo Dingo do you mind if I strike this as a keep? - TheDaveRoss 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss Feel free to close it, though I think this might still be SOP (can't power unit be used more generally for any device that provides electrical power to something?). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The definition is too restrictive. As Wikipedia says, "An auxiliary power unit (APU) is a device on a vehicle that provides energy for functions other than propulsion. They are commonly found on large aircraft and naval ships as well as some large land vehicles." -Mike (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Kept - TheDaveRoss 15:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

wait a minute

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

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

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2019

explanable

Discussion moved from WT:TR.

The creator must've thought it was a valid/intentional derivation of Latin explanabilis, like explanation from Latin explanatio, but I think it only exists as a misspelling. It's rare: COCA has 134 uses of "explainable" vs none of this; BNC has 12 of "explainable", none of this; Ngrams has "explainable" ~200x more common. Pulling all Google Books hits with QQ and counting only ones where the snippet used "explanable", discounting 29 duplicate copies, only ~244 books use "explanable"; many if not most or all only use it once, making it impossible to be sure if it's a one-off misspelling or one the author would use consistently, but 14 (5.7%) also use "explainable", suggesting that in those books, it is a typo.
The only dictionaries I see it in are two old German-English translation dictionaries, one old Persian-English one, and an old copy of Samuel Johnson's English dictionary, but in all four the alphabetization of "explain, explanable, explainer, explanation" suggests it was meant to have an "i" (which other copies of Johnon's do have; indeed, the same copy of Johnson which has an entry for "explanable" uses "explainable" later in a definition), and the German dictionaries also have "inexplainable". No books I saw give it as a derivative of (or even mention it near) "explanabilis", whereas at least one copy of Webster's does connect "explainable" to "explanabilis". So, I think it's a rare misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. Delete.  --Lambiam 19:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've converted it into a misspelling. There are lots of hits on Google Ngram viewer - so, now, keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete, rare misspelling. Chignon – Пучок 11:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete per above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@- -sche: Could you clarify whether concieve is a common or rare misspelling, and why, in reference to whatever calibration you used above? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a relatively rare misspelling: less than 1/500th as common as the "ei" spelling in Google Books' Ngrams, and found only once in both COCA and the BNC, where the usual spelling is found 2275 times in COCA and 449 in the BNC. OTOH, in its defence, it seems more likely to be an intentional spelling: people often can't remember how -ieve/-eive words are spelled, and excluding books which are lists of misspellings next to their correct spellings, google books:"concieve" "conceive" turns up few books using both, meaning works that use "concieve" use it consistently. (Whereas, "explanable" is sometimes clearly the result of unintentional omission of the "i", based on e.g. where it occurs in the alphabetical lists mentioned above; OTOH, the etymon and related words you mention below mean it may be intentional in other cases.) (FWIW there also seem to be more books using "concieve" than using "explanable", so someone is more likely to "run across" the former.) - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@- -sche: Could it be that you have not performed a calibration of ratio thresholds that you are using? Or is there a calibration that you have performed and that I can have a look at? What was the testing set that you used for calibration? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep as a common misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings: explainable, explicable, (explanable * 1000) at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. shows a frequency ratio that suggests this is common for a misspelling; compare concieve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

There is now Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos that it going to pass soon and that excludes typos. Then, we could try to figure out whether explanable is a typo. It is at least plausible to be a non-typo given explanatory and explanation, that is, something that can appear in writing no less than in a typed text. In fact, the spelling explanable has some intuitive force; why explainable but explanatory? These are the considerations that suggest it could be non-typo. We would not need to have these very uncertain deliberations if the vote were not adopted, but now we have to do with the policies that we have or will soon have, leaving the world of British empiricism in favor of the continental speculationism. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is likely that "explanable" for "explainable" is often not a typo. I guess to substantiate this we would need examples where "explanable" was used multiple times. (I am not necessarily supporting keeping it even it is a non-typo misspelling, depending on how widespread it is thought to be.) Mihia (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

jpg

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

• Should it be Translingual then? It is used on Commons images, e.g. on this one at cutting I took. DonnanZ (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not a word in a human language. Every file type has one (vbs = Visual Basic script, xls = Excel spreadsheet, etc.): they are computer codes. Equinox ◑ 19:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Things which are not human language words have been known to become human language words; various numbers (phone numbers, police codes), equations, formulas, dates, product names, etc. have all had members enter English, no reason to suppose that filetypes cannot do the same. If you search for "any old jpg" you can see people using it to refer to an image of the type, no idea if it has been adopted to a CFI compliant degree, but I can't rule it out by virtue of its origin. - TheDaveRoss 20:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If kept, should we rename it (them) to include the dot? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If there are sources using the term without the dot, I would consider that an alternative spelling. bd2412 T 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

There are sources without the dot:

• "Note that even if the quality value of 1000 is used for saving jpg file ..."[22]
• "But you can also use your own jpg file."[23]
• "The first block reads a jpg file format image called webcampix."[24]
• "Murphy had also drawn a map of the camp, which he sent as a jpg file."
• "The RGB can be used not only for visualization but it may also be saved as a new image in a jpg file ..."

However, "JPG file" seems much more common than "jpg file". Thus, jpg could be changed to alternative capitalization of JPG. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep It seems to be used often attributively in the collocation jpg file (also JPG file), but also otherwise as a noun, as in "a flattened, smaller image (like a jpg)" and "She sent me a jpg", "how to resize a jpg". I note also that .jpg is used similarly. DCDuring (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• I have redefined it as a noun, defined as "A file of JPEG file format; i.e., a digital picture." without removing the RfD tag. DCDuring (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't see why file extensions shouldn't be kept any less than any other abbreviation. Regardless of whether or not it's a word, it still has a meaning Purplebackpack89 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Our definition of dictionary reads thus: "A reference work with a list of words from one or more languages" (emphasis mine). You can't sweep the question of whether or not it's a word under the carpet like that; this is central to the debate we're having here. Its having a meaning is not enough. Canonicalization (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but that's not what the CFI (the rules for this page) say. They say, "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable...Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms". I believe this is one such abbreviation, acronym or initialism. Purplebackpack89 21:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as it's certainly used as a noun: "a jpg", a sort of alternative form of JPEG. (Sort of because it seems to be derived through the filename extension, not directly as a shortening of JPEG.) But I don't at the moment support English entries for all filename extensions, and I'm not even sure if every extension that is be put in the construction "a(n) <extension> file" should have an English entry (partly because I consider that a compound, but that's a separate debate). — Eru·tuon 21:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Do the keepers think that we should keep any "attestable" filename extension? (I assume this would mean any that is published in a book. I am a programmer and have invented three-letter file extensions for my own applications since the 1990s.) Idiots. Equinox ◑ 05:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Kept - TheDaveRoss 19:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

bamboo suit

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

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 15:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

band sectional

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

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

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 13:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

burst out laughing

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

• Delete, SOP. There is also “burst out crying” ([25], [26], [27]), “burst out guffawing” ([28], [29], [30]), “burst out shrieking” ([31], [32], [33]), and many more.  --Lambiam 13:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely SOP, but I think it could be a useful translation hub. Abstain for now. (by the way, I created the French translation éclater de rire some time ago, but I remember not being convinced of what I was doing at the time. It sounds quite SOP too) Chignon – Пучок 10:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep set phrase. Mihia (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per the non-binding WT:LEMMING: in M-W[34]. I am wondering about the best Czech translation; one dictionary has propuknout v smích, but the phrase seems only borderline attested in use; chances are this could also meet WT:THUB, but not certain. As for which combinations of "burst out" we would keep, probably burst out laughing and possibly burst out crying; burst out laughing, burst out crying, burst out guffawing, burst out shrieking at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Barmacide feast

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

@TheDaveRoss Quite a few uses of Barmacide, so I would call it an alternate spelling. -Mike (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Converted into an alternative form. Feel free to convert into a misspelling. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• It might be deleted as a rare misspelling since Barmecide feast, Barmacide feast at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. does not find the disputed term, and therefore, no frequency ratio can be determined for it using GNV. On the other hand, the frequency ratio determined from google books:"Barmacide feast" and google books:"Barmecide feast" suggests it might be a common misspelling, common for misspellings, that is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirected - TheDaveRoss 13:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

borogrove

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

It is, nevertheless, a common ([35][36]) misspelling (presumably influenced by mangrove).  --Lambiam 23:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought it had an r in it too until now, to be honest. :) —Rua (mew) 16:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Me too. Mihia (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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

• Keep: looks like an alternative form per borogrove, borogove at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. (WT:CFI#Spellings). Let us recall we do not keep nonce words as nonces since we require 3 independent uses per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

George Foreman grill

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

That brand is sold here too. Any generic use? (Not that I'm aware of.) Equinox ◑ 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The lean mean grilling machine! “George Foreman” is a registered trademark. Uses are not required to be generic, but must be be independent of, and not identify, the manufacturer or other interested parties. So “Steinway” is fine, but not if the quotation refers to Steinway & Sons rather than just the piano. The use here counts as a proper attestation. I guess this one as well, although it uses a different capitalization. And we can finish with number three.  --Lambiam 23:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

As I understand the policy if you could attest George Foreman as a standalone noun, that would be comparable to Steinway, but Steinway grand piano does not have an entry, and George Foreman grill should not either. -Mike (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not particularly hard: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43].  --Lambiam 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleted, though I would suspect that if someone wanted to recreate this as a genericized term for similar electric grills it would be citable. - TheDaveRoss 13:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Frankenstein

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

I would delete (but mention it of course, e.g. in the etymology). We are inconsistent: e.g. Dracula does not have a sense line for the novel but Cinderella does have one for the fairy tale. Equinox ◑ 10:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am okay with deleting the sense provided we keep the sense "The creator of Frankenstein's monster in Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus." I checked “Frankenstein”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., and especially M-W[44]. Governed by WT:NSE. However, the nomination does not provide any applicable rationale, from my standpoint; we do have multiple single-word names of literary works. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, that is all fair enough. Should we also mention that the monster itself is a rather common error? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Definitely. I would say it's the main sense, and the one used in allusions like google books:"Frankenstein food", etc. (I see the sense has been added.) - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

We do have some (usually single-word) titles of works, like the Iliad, the Havamal, the Bible, etc, but in my experience we (de facto) exclude modern works. Would we include, say, Divergent? Delete sense, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Is two hundred years ago (197, to be pedantic) really modern? If it is deleted, as Equinox says, it's just going to move around the page, into the etymology.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted sense, if someone would like to create an etymology that remains to be done. - TheDaveRoss 13:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2019

troop train

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

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

I hesitated to see this as entirely SOP (something felt odd about the use of troop), but I notice that e.g. "troop column", "troop( )ship", "troop transport" exist, so it does indeed seem entirely SOP. Delete. - -sche (discuss) 10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• An extremely poor decision, IMO. I would like to salvage the image used with that entry, I hope I can find it again. DonnanZ (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

none the

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

Hard redirect to the adverb section in the. Chignon – Пучок 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SoP, yes, but only to serious students of language. There is nothing about the as an adverb that is familiar to normal folks, though native speakers can use it adverbially in a variety of collocations. If we would like to ensure that Wiktionary will lose normal folks as users, we should probably delete this. If the would like to have normal folks as users, we should keep it and probably add some of the other common collocations, like all the, much the, any the, more the, little the, somewhat the, never the, ever the. I don't think our current Adverb PoS section is worded clearly enough to be comprehensible to a normal user. I am very skeptical that we can write good glosses or non-gloss definitions for such function words. Usage notes in all of these could direct those normal users with an admixture of abnormal curiosity to the#Adverb, where they could get a grammar lesson, at least if that section is improved. DCDuring (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, other uses of this sense of "the" include "(so|not) much the (wiser, better, etc)", "a bit the (wiser, etc)" etc. Do we want them all? I admit they could be opaque to someone trying to parse them with no prior knowledge, but I think redirects to the relevant sense of the and usexes there could cover them well. It's curious that other dictionaries at OneLook have entries for this but not any of the other "X the" phrases I checked. I don't know on what other basis we could justify having an entry for this one but only redirects for the others, or on what basis we could justify having entries for all the others ([[little the]], [[bit the]], etc) besides caprice. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that "none the" is doubly difficult in that it involves unusual or specialised uses of both words. In something like "much the wiser", adverbial "much" is recognisable from general use, including use in "much wiser" itself, whereas "none" in "none the wiser" is not so obvious. Mihia (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw : Since none the has been nominated for deletion, other entries such as must needs should also follow suit, with a hard redirect to the adverb needs. Now you would argue that must needs is so popular in literature that it should have an independent entry. I also agree therewith, and the same reasoning goes for none the as well. —Lbdñk^{(⏳)·(🙊🙉🙈)} 19:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC).

"Must needs" was kept on a different rationale, one focused on its archaic sound, and intentional usage to invoke this sense. bd2412 T 21:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what that means. I agree with Lbdñk; the rationale is exactly the same to me. Canonicalization (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect per Chignon. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

refiddle with

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

keep. We have both fiddle with and fiddle, so why not both refiddle with and refiddle? Kiwima (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to refiddle, and redirect fiddle with to fiddle. Canonicalization (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

lingot

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

@Surjection: This seems like a matter for RFV, no? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I did check and it would pass RFV if passed through there, and I believe this is an RFD matter anyway. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to delete this along the lines of WT:FICTION, like made-up currencies from specific video games (but unlike, say, zorkmid, which occurs in many different games). But I can see how it doesn't strictly apply here. It also feels a bit brand-like. A lot of sites have or had their own currencies; many of the sites and currencies are defunct (remember Banana Bux?) Equinox ◑ 19:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep since it is already a word in many other cases, it's interesting to have it and I feel like it will stick aroundNdołkah (talk)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 15:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

shoop

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

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

I'm not familiar with this usage myself, but assuming it's essentially similar to exclaiming "Fake!", for example, then delete. Mihia (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is like crying "fake!". I note we have an interjection at out, for example. Equinox ◑ 19:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete, period!  --Lambiam 23:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

do a, pull a

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

Mh, isn't this a problem with all the members of that category?

Another option could be to move them to Appendix:Snowclones/do a X, Appendix:Snowclones/pull a X.

Otherwise, I guess I would support a redirect. Canonicalization (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

abstract away

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

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

-cycle

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

Cycle is the root anyway, so I would say delete. What staggers me is that it has survived since 2005. DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Julia ☺ ☆ 17:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably delete the entry as it stands now, defined as "circle"(!). Someone might be able to find enough citations to recreate it with a bicycle/tricycle/motorcycle-related sense, see e.g. google books:"jetcycle", google books:"ponycycle", google books:"horsecycle", google books:"ride my catcycle". ("Forming compounds for conveyances which are like bicycles or motorcycles combined with or intended for the other element of the compound."?) That kind of use seems like -gate ("Emailgate", etc) to me, i.e. it seems like a suffix. (Do we have tests to distinguish suffixes like that from compounds, as with cycle?) - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Those compounds, jetcycle and catcycle (even Batcycle) could as well be blends of X + motorcycle Leasnam (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

a great deal

We have an entry at great deal.

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

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

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

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

as good as dead

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

Two questions:

• Does as good as have good as as an alternative form (in the sense of "almost, practically", I mean)? I see some occurrences for "is good as dead" ([45], [46], [47]), "are good as dead", etc., but I suspect it's not common.
• Should as good as gold and as good as new be construed as SOP too? The former sounds more lexicalised than the latter. Canonicalization (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  The page as good as gold is a hard redirect to good as gold, which I think is wrong; the meaning of the adjective good as gold is totally different from that of the adverb as good as gold. The latter is a non-transparent idiom, clearly not a SOP. Both as good as new and as good as dead, on the other hand, are (IMO) SOP and deletable. My guess is that in phrases such as “are good as dead” the collocation “good as dead” is a variant of “as good as dead” arising from sloppiness; if it becomes widespread, we should record it, just like I could care less. Does it perhaps belong to a particular idiolect, like phrases such as he done what he could?  --Lambiam 22:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would consider it "sloppy", though maybe colloquial, but yes "they are good as dead" is just an instance of the broader phenomenon of "as" being deleted from comparisons. One can also say cliches (etc) google books:"are old as dirt", "are ugly as sin", etc. I agree that "(as) good as dead" could be considered SOP. Certainly, it is but one of a large number of similar phrases, which are google books:"as numerous as trees in a forest" / google books:"are as many as the grains of sand on the seashore" / as not-exactly-literal-but-still-SOPpy as the average such construction. - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You may not find it sloppy, but in fact I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!  --Lambiam 23:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, to make my position explicit, delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

in transition

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

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

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

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

• Anyone else want to comment? Regarding its "set"-ness, one can say someone is "transitioning" just as well as one can say they're "in transition" (and in the gender sense, "transitioning" sounds more natural to me). Perhaps we should keep the first sense but delete the subsenses as being SOP-ily redundant to it. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Kaul festival

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

Keep. This seems more like Ghost Festival or Mid-Autumn Festival. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep, but Kaul Festival could be the more common form. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Kept - TheDaveRoss 16:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

hangover soup

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

• Is this just a Korean custom, or is this phrase used across different cultures to refer to soup eaten to cure a hangover? If it is the former, then it should be deleted as SOP; if it is the latter, then it would be idiomatic since you can't tell from the name that the soup must be Korean. bd2412 T 01:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Googling the term I find many non-Korean recipes for something advertized as “hangover soup”.  --Lambiam 18:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This is sounding more SOP, then. bd2412 T 20:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 17:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep: it's not implausible to imagine this being something that gives you a hangover. BTW I think hangover juice also exists. (Maybe the Korean part of definition is wrong though.) Equinox ◑ 19:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yankee go home

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

Delete, I'm astonished that it has been around for so long. You can pretty much replace the word "Yankee" with any racial slur and get the gist of it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS?  --Lambiam 13:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: not idiomatic, despite the assertion in the entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I‘m not so sure it is a simple sum of parts. The ethnic senses of the noun “Yankee” as we define the term denote in all cases an individual, but in the political sense of this slogan it refers to American imperialism.  --Lambiam 11:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Can that be established from citations? I have a feeling that much of the time it’s just used to mean “American citizens and companies, go back to your own country”, which would be SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Iranians certainly used the slogan in that sense when the US orchestrated a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government and reinstalled a ruthless autocrat in its place.[48] To argue this is a SOP would at the very least require adding a new sense “American citizens and companies” at Yankee.  --Lambiam 13:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm suspecting they didn't; the Shah would have cracked down hard on that. "A native or inhabitant of the United States" seems to cover the phrase, with companies generally being an extension thereof; if I can find examples of "Japanese go home" signs at openings of Toyota dealerships or factories, will you insist on adding companies to the noun meaning of Japanese? I object to "citizens"; it's not a word of precision, and if it's getting slung against an American the fine details of citizenship would be irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Widespread long-term use. Idiomatic in the sense that it refers to anti-American sentiment, usually against US foreign policy and its military.--Dmol (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. It may have some interesting use for Wikipedia, but it's linguistically uninteresting. One could add to Yankee the mass definition; it seems surprising that it's not plural (though note the only citation is using it correctly as singular). But other than that, "Krauts go home", "Arabs go home", etc. etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  “Yankee go home” is clearly the original, the others are clones.  --Lambiam 15:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  Clearly? Why? In searching for it, I find "Szwaby do domu" (Krauts go home) was written on Polish walls (Language, Discourse and Identity in Central Europe, page 66); is that a clone, or just because this is the normal way to convey this message?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep not just because it's used often in anti-Americanist discourse and protests, but also because Yankee in that phrase is used as a slur. -Mardus (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yank is often a slur; is Yankee not? Equinox ◑ 12:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the singular/plural distinction is not very interesting here, it could simply be addressing the addressees individually or a poor command of English. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

triple rinse

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

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

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

test entry

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

Delete, and delete testaccount with it. This is a great example of how Usenet is a good source to find out how people are using words, and an awful source to find attribution for CFI compliance. You can find "attribution" of myriad pairs of words with spaces missing between them because people don't spend much time editing posts, and because people post code. Things like "firstname", "lastname", "nullvalue", etc. are easily citable using Usenet, but utter garbage if you are trying to create a dictionary of the English language. - TheDaveRoss 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you meant to write testentry.  --Lambiam 09:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, delete - clearly SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I thought it was Wonderfool who created this entry, and all of his/her entries should be deleted. --I learned some phrases (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess this was created as a test entry to see how long it would take before it was deleted.  --Lambiam 09:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

-sche is Wonderfool! - TheDaveRoss 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I created testentry to test a certain template function that only worked in mainspace at that time, and was going to delete it (as my "definition" said, haha), but Liliana turned it into a real entry, so I created this more common (spaced) spelling per COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete per Dave Ross. Also delete testentry. What he said, all manner of garbage variable-name-style "words" such as "firstname", "lastname" etc. can no doubt be attested in prose use. It doesn't mean we need to trouble ourselves with them. With no offence intended to the creator, this has to be one of my favourite ever definitions:

test entry

1. A test entry.

Well I never ... Mihia (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Abstain. The definition is not a definition. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Describing the purpose of a test entry would be more helpful perhaps. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

all better

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

Delete: "When I saw you last week you had a cold- I hope you're you're better". "She turned me into a newt! ... I got better..." Chuck Entz (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Not even really a set phrase, just two words that can occur together with their normal meanings. Mihia (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

believe

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

The definition may not be written well enough. This sense should be like "I expect, suppose, think, understand, am of the opinion of," etc. Whereas the first sense of believe is like "I have a belief" (using the first sense of belief). -Mike (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I still don't get the difference. Equinox ◑ 15:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the usex at sense 4. I think the old one was possibly too close to sense 1. Leasnam (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

height-fear

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

The 2013 cite: From this point of view we shall more readily understand many cases of height-dizziness and height-fear. is hyphenated. I've added a few more. I wasn't able to find any hits on Google Books for clown-fear, which might approximate a similar construction. clown fear however is a thing. Leasnam (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the standard form is fear of heights, but no entry alas. DonnanZ (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe because that can be fear of + <anything>, but height fear seems to be a psychology term. Leasnam (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this resolved? Tharthan (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep. The term is attested with the hyphen. Leasnam (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

punch

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

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

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

elo boost

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

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

Seems like this was a promotional entry, I removed a lot of the promotional content and cleaned it up a bit. - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Kept - TheDaveRoss 16:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

June 2019

take a spin

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

Delete, per above. Leasnam (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Wiktionary is the only OneLook reference with this. DCDuring (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as AmE, I would say go for a spin. DonnanZ (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

any more

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

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

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

I would say that the "to a greater extent" sense, as used in the example sentence, is adverbial. How do you see the "in a greater amount (than)" sense being used? What would be an example? Mihia (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, like "I don't want my coffee any hotter than x degrees". Equinox ◑ 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the problem with that one sentence?....if people use it keep it. If it is proscribed precise it.

It is sensical to mean "I don't like Braque even a few more than I like Picasso." Is the problem with Picasoo?-

"I don't like Braque even a few more than I like Picasso."

That's what it stands for.

"I don't like Picasso any more than I like Braque(or picasso if you want)."

You can put it as an example.

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

are you threatening me

Not a useful phrasebook entry; no translations. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain any reasons? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Actually, maybe the phrase could be used for the sake of one's personal safety. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: User:Metaknowledge's two reasons: Not a useful phrasebook entry; no translations. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a useful phrasebook entry - delete SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Published phrasebooks do not find this inclusion worthy: google books:intitle:phrasebook "are you threatening me". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete – how can one use it for one’s personal safety? If one is threatened, or possibly not threatened, one does not become safer by asking that. Fay Freak (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I added a translation because I went through the phrasebook entries indiscriminately, and me adding the translation isn't any kind of endorsement by me to keep the entry. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that we are presenting this as a neutral "phrase" whereas in reality saying this would often escalate a potential conflict. Equinox ◑ 19:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I can imagine a situation where raising the stakes from a low-level, but potentially deteriorating conflict by asking this question can actually cool down the aggressor, as it makes clear that the interlocutor isn't afraid of confrontation, but is ready to skip directly to the open conflict part! Ketiga123 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

And you think that translates cleanly into every language? How do we distinguish the two meanings (raising and lowering aggression)? That's going to be one mother of a usage note. Equinox ◑ 06:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete, there do not seem to be any hits for this in phrase books and it doesn't seem very useful. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• I suspect that this phrase is derived from a catchphrase of the character of "Cornholio" from the 90s TV series, Beavis and Butt-Head. See, for example, this video, beginning at 1:14. Ah, the classics. bd2412 T 02:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 16:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

frumious

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

• How is it any different than foo? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that foo and bar as variables merit inclusion, I know that frumious as a variable name does not. i is extremely common as the variable being incremented in for-loops, but that does not make it an English word. Variable names aren't words in a language, they are arbitrary. They do not convey any meaning, you could replace them with literally anything else and not change what is being said. - TheDaveRoss 18:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• The second quote is not even a use. If this is not deleted, I would RFV it. Canonicalization (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a use. It is a directive to use the word. How more use can it be? If your definition of a mention is lavish you can also call the first a use because it refers to what someone wants without appropriating it. And the third one is a test. Is a test containing a word list a use? Now I have given you a riddle to ruminate. Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "It is a directive to use the word. How more use can it be?". A lot more. One could substitute "aqxgydfji" for "frumious" and not change the "meaning" at all- it's just an arbitrary string of characters that was chosen to make the example easy to remember. You could do the same with any expression that can be divided into recognizable pieces, e.g., "Klaatu" and "barada nikto". re: "Is a test containing a word list a use?". No. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • One can do that anywhere. Not everything spammers send has a meaning. If the directive is to use a word with a meaning, then it is used. If the directive is to use a word with no meaning, then it isn’t used. For example if someone writes to his secretary to compose a letter for him and mention a certain thing, then we have a use at that point already. Then when the letter is composed it might not be an independent use. Though here I tend to assume that this “sense” “frumious” has no meaning. Which has nothing to do with whether the second quote is a mention or use. Fay Freak (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To me this still has the normal Carrollian meaning (and indeed is often used in his phrase "frumious bandersnatch"). Suppose that the phrase "hot pancakes" was often used in computer programming: should we then have a separate sense at "hot", saying used as a programming placeholder? No. It's still pancakes that are very warm: the whole phrase just happens to be quoted in this context. (BTW I've never heard of this "frumious" in my programming career.) Equinox ◑ 18:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It could be moved down to the usage notes if desired, but there is no additional sense of this word beyond the first one. And the first one is very difficult to attest outside of references to Carroll. -Mike (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. It is not hard to find examples where the name “Bilbo” (or in full “Bilbo Baggins”) is used as an example string (like in 1,$s/Bilbo/Frodo/g and $_ = "Bilbo Baggins's birthday is September 22";) or as an example variable or user name. This is probably equally true for many other names from works of fiction that have attracted a somewhat nerdish cult following, like “Voldemort” or “Neo”. Such uses are not lexical; they have no inherent semantics.  --Lambiam 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Weak delete. It seems to strain the “no specific persons rule”, and also it’s true that there are many nonce words in programming manuals not intended to be found in a dictionary nor suitable for a dictionary. On the other hand I wot not how to deal with names like John Doe, Eva Mustermann (w:Talk:John Doe#List is extremely unencyclopedic for more). Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 17:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

evil spirit

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

Where is the previous RFD discussion? Canonicalization (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I would delete: you can find people invoking "O kind spirits!" and suchlike too. Equinox ◑ 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be inclined to delete as well. You can find malevolent spirit, lustful spirit, wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit and so on Leasnam (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, do not know how to go about finding prev discussion (it came up as an alert when I first created the page, but now I cannot find it.). Also, respectfully, I do not think evil spirit' is the same as kind spirit, 'malevolent spirit, lustful spirit, wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit, which is precisely why I created it. Amongst Christians I know there is a belief that there is such as thing as an "evil spirit" - a specific type of entity that does work for Satan and is known by this name - as opposed to any old spirit that is simply wicked or prideful or whatever. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The current definition does not describe a specific Christian spirit: it just says any evil spirit basically. I think you need to change the entry before you use that argument (but please let this discussion finish first). Equinox ◑ 03:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To take your points individually: (a) it is a "thing"; [well, so is a "brown leaf" but that's the specific type of sum-of-parts entry we list as what we want to avoid]; (b) very common expression; [so is "brown leaf"]; (c) some lemmings exist; [okay, please cite them]; (d) not straight SOP, since it is not a spirit that is evil (i.e. it is not analogous to evil person), but rather one that causes evil or is an embodiment of evil. [I think this is a misunderstanding: you can live in "evil times", and the times themselves are not evil, but just full of it. Words aren't always 100% direct.] Equinox ◑ 03:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually what I meant by saying _it is a "thing"_ (and putting the word thing in inverted commas) was to invoke that new meaning of this expression. Like when someone says, "Is medical grade tea a thing?" (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/144171/the-idiom-be-a-thing) Yes, a brown leaf is a thing, but it is not a "thing". Anyhow, I fear I am muddying the waters here, so shall desist. In any case, I think among Christians the term "evil spirit" is directly synonymous with "demon", as opposed to other adj+noun (SoP) combos such as wicked spirit, demonic spirit, hateful spirit, prideful spirit which are not directly synonymous with "demon".

As for lemmings, I found these two: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evil-spirit , https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/evil%20spirit - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Recreating a deleted entry like that is dishonest. Delete for the time being, and introduce a proper request for undeletion. Canonicalization (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The entry never failed a RFD--or so the records suggest--so I do not see anything dishonest. The 2014 deletion of evil spirit entry was a speedy deletion; in the present 2019 RFD, the author of the entry wanted to ensure that, if the entry is going to be deleted again, it will be via a process rather than with zero discussion. Collins has the term, so this is one WT:LEMMING, and it makes the entry at least worth discussing and examining rather than speedy deleting it. I see nothing dishonest or shady on Sonofcawdrey's part. There is no basis for deleting the entry on process grounds alone; the entry can only be deleted on substance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I wrote that on the assumption that it was RFDed. If that's not the case, I apologise. Canonicalization (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

oceanic abyss

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

Here the term is used in the sense of abyssal zone, but here the term refers to the Challenger Deep, so there is used in the sense as currently defined. I haven’t examined what uses can be found in permanently recorded media, but I suspect either sense can be attested, in which case the ambiguity implies this is, apparently, not a simple SOP.  --Lambiam 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam Do you realize that your first link is to a Minecraft mod? I don't think that qualifies for attesting. -Mike (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I implied in my second sentence that these uses are not suitable for attestation and that further examination is needed to settle the issue. The second link – in spite of it not qualifying for attesting – generates some doubt regarding the assertion in the rationale that the definition is inaccurate.  --Lambiam 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The countable, non-specialist use of oceanic abyss as in your second link seems to be a mildly different SOP, with a more general use of abyss. How does ambiguity between SOP usages merit keeping an entry? Brown leaf can sometimes also refer to a page from an old book, but that isn't a reason to keep it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I’m not contesting the request. Twice SOP, so let’s delete it twice then.  --Lambiam 20:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

come on home

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

I’m not sure how to parse this collocation. Is it come + on home? If it is a sum of parts, can the parts be used independently, like in return on home?  --Lambiam 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's "come + on home". I'd say it's "come on + home". "return on home" does not seem idiomatic. Sense 9 of come on presently reads:

(intransitive, informal, Southern, US, always used with a preposition: in, by, round, over, up, down) To visit.

Don't just stand there on the doorstep, come on in!

Next time you're in the area, come on by.

Don't leave without coming on round to see the baby.

You said to come on over whenever I get the chance, and here I am!

Come on up to my place on the third floor.

Come on down to see me if you're in my neck of the woods.

Even though many of the examples given do have a "visit" sense, to me the definition "To visit" seems dubious. Perhaps fixing this could allow us to incorporate "come on home"? I would say that these supposed prepositions are more adverbial. Also, the label "Southern US" seems weird to me. Aren't these expressions universal English? Mihia (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, home is not a preposition – but the “prepositions” in the examples for sense 9 are actually adverbs.  --Lambiam 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I had a go at fixing the relevant sense of come on, but it is quite hard to define or identify exactly what the word "on" is doing, so if anyone sees a way to improve it, please go ahead. Anyway, the intention is that the new definition should accommodate "come on home", which I have now added as an example. On this basis that this is achieved, I vote delete as SoP for come on home. Mihia (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The def "elaboration of come" seems right to me; as for " emphasising motion or progress, or conveying a nuance of familiarity or encouragement" - I really think it is just "encouragement" (based on the common Come on! encouragement). At any rate, that effectively deals with "come one home" as SoP. Perhaps a hard redirect would be best. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd delete: the numerous constructions listed by Mihia above are clearly the same basic thing. Equinox ◑ 17:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

way out

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

Currently it reads:

1. An exit.
2. (figurative) A solution; an escape.

   This is a real mess. I need a way out.

3. A distance far from shore, home, or other familiar place.

   We're quite a way out now.

I vote to delete sense 3, which seems misconceived. There is no such thing as "a way out" in that sense. I am leaning keep for the figurative sense 2, which I think would also justify our including the literal sense. Mihia (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep senses 1 and 2 Purplebackpack89 14:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Del sense 3 - not a lexical item, and not a noun. If senses 1 and 2 are nouns, then we should be able to find plurals "way outs" or "ways out" and hyphenated spellings to support their existence, without which evidence, I think they just SoP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sonofcawdrey I'm not sure that's the case. There are plenty of nouns that are only used in the singular, plenty more that are almost always used in the singular. Purplebackpack89 14:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You obviously haven't done a Google search for "ways out". My main problem with the first two senses is that there are lots of prepositional phrases that can be substituted for "out", depending on the context: "he was looking for a way [over the pass|through the rest of the maze|outside|free of the responsibility|to the exit|past the guards|around the obstacle in the only road leaving the valley|etc.]. It seems like out is just a prepositional phase with an unspecified object, and there are a number of others that could be used for parallel constructions: around, down, east, in, north, over, past, south, through, under, up, west, etc.

As for the third sense, as noted, the example sentence is really "We're quite a way out now.". It's just a phrase that happens to end in "way" that's modifying "out". You could substitute "a good distance" for "quite a way". Chuck Entz (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think we are agreed that sense 3 is due to a misunderstanding or misgrouping of words, so I have deleted it. Mihia (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Btw, I assume that this RFD is only for the noun sense, so I have moved the notice accordingly. I mean, there is no problem with the Adj. sense, right? Mihia (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• keep 1 and 2. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

deputy mayor

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

I do question the statement "often empowered to assume the position of president on his death or absence". DonnanZ (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it word president you object to? It is a poor choice as in each case the headword would be a better choice. There is a sense of president that would fit, but in these contexts it seems to be poor diction, which would seem to be a serious matter in a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it again, if "mayor" was substituted for "president" it would actually make sense. DonnanZ (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"president" must just be a copy-paste error, mustn't it? Probably from vice president. Anyway, I changed it to "mayor". Mihia (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

get ahead of

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

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

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

It's not clear to me what kind of object our definition is supposed to take. The definition seems miswritten, I would say. Sense #5 at https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/get+ahead+of seems somewhat related:

5. To take preemptive action before something is revealed or becomes well-known.

We need to get ahead of this scandal before it breaks to the public.

Mihia (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The Fairlex definition doesn't seem bad, but I don't think get ahead is the right headword for either their def 1 or def 5. If we think we should have an entry, then I'd like it as get ahead of because I believe ahead of is a compound preposition and the definitions of get ahead (with ahead an adverb, the combination intransitive) seem semantically not very closely related to get ahead of (with ahead of a preposition, the combination transitive). DCDuring (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

ex-Christian

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

There is also ex-Jew, ex-Muslim, ex-gay, ex-wife; need I go on? DonnanZ (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed deletion? Also, is it impolite to ask an ex-pirate for their ex-piration date?  --Lambiam 09:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point Donnanz! They should be deleted too, IMO ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

How about "ex-statistician", "ex-organ grinder", "ex-mugwump"... ? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete all. At least the Muslim and Jew versions were created by a troll. - TheDaveRoss 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think anything "ex-whatever religion" can go; and possibly ex-gay; I have no plans to be gay just to find out what it's like to be ex-gay; but I would keep ex-wife and ex-husband - these have lemmings and are translation targets. Just imagine the question "How many ex-wives do you have?" DonnanZ (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that ex-wife was in there, that should stay. Lemming alone would allow it, but I agree that it is a worthy translation target as well. - TheDaveRoss 20:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Same: I'd keep ex-wife and ex-husband and delete the rest. Canonicalization (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We should keep those ex-es in which the prefix does not have the meaning of “former”: ex-aequo and ex-æquo; ex-ante; ex-communication and ex-communications; ex-directory; ex-lax fish; ex-libris; ex-pat and ex-pats; ex-post; ex-stock and ex-stocks; and ex-voto and ex-votos.

I’d also keep the adjectival sense of ex-gay.  --Lambiam 08:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I would of course keep ex-wife/ex-husband and the terms mentioned by Lambiam where the prefix has another meaning. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with Lambiam’s views. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• It gets worse: there is another entry, ex-ex-gay, which should be considered alongside ex-gay - I have reservations about both. DonnanZ (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: in previous discussions like Talk:ex-stepfather (kept), Talk:ex-pilot (kept), Talk:ex-Scientologist (kept), some editors have argued hyphenated words are single words and thus un-SOP.
I abstain on most ex- entries, though I obviously agree that ones where "ex-" has another meaning should be kept, and I also think ex-wife, ex-husband and ex-gay (maybe even ex-ex-gay) have enough possible merits (translation targets, idiomatically specific definitions, etc) that they should probably be kept pending their own individual discussions-on-the-merits. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to regard hyphenated "ex-", "pro-", "anti-" etc. as SoP. Equinox ◑ 18:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I was forgetting the single-word view, which is an argument I tend to follow. DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that that view would lead to the inclusion-worthiness of ex-Ace, ex-Aggie, ex-Anteater, ex-Antelope, ex-Argonaut, ex-Athena, ex-Aztec, ..., many with several definitions (20 kinds of ex-Lions, 24 ex-Bulldogs, 27 ex-Tigers and 33 ex-Eagles). And that is just college sports teams. There are ex-CEO’s, ex-CFO’s, ex-CTO’s, ..., ex-mayors, ex-councillors, ex-eldermen, ..., ex-artists, ex-bakers, ex-chefs, ...; the list is virtually endless.  --Lambiam 08:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And the list of -ness nouns is virtually endless. So what? That is not an inclusion or exclusion criterion per WT:CFI. I for one find it interesting that ex- is so productive in English, and am happy to find the evidence in the dictionary, in the proper category; ex- is not so hugely productive in Czech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I prefer to keep this as long as attested. The nomination does not refer to WT:CFI; it says "you can add ex- to literally anything", which is demonstrably wrong and its analogue "you can add -ness to virtually any adjective" has no force as for term exclusion, e.g. of wrongheadedness. The term is not a compound but rather a prefixed word. In Czech, the similar forms are exmanželka, exprezident, exšéf, etc., where there is no hyphen, so these are going to be kept anyway, and will contribute to WT:THUB argument for some entries, like for ex-wife; I have not found *exkřesťan in Google books, so no contribution from Czech to ex-Christian. I do admit that the use of the hyphen suggests sum of parts, but I feel this argument is less compelling for prefixed entries, and ex- is a prefix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all "ex-X" entries where the definition is nothing more than "a former X" or "formerly X" (excepting "translation hubs"). Mihia (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as SOP; ex-Christian. Pppery (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, in English, you can add ex- to anything- the question is, has the English language done so yet? I would vote in the affirmative in this case. Adding ex- to anything is one of the ways English generates new words. I would call it neologism maybe? [49] [50] [51] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Stridently pro-hyphen I am in the pro-hyphen camp. I believe that written English used to have a lot more hyphens in it. Yeah, you can make words up on the spot with the "ex-" prefix, but if enough people make up the same word and it gets into popular usage, then a legitimate word can be born. Once established, the anti-hyphen people will start working on the removal of the hyphen- you can see some 'exchristian' examples out there. I, for one, still have an abiding faith in the majesty of the glorious hyphen. At first glance, you would probably consider 'sun-hat' as SOP, right? 。。。 But there is a form of this word without the hyphen- sunhat. Sun-hat used to have a hyphen in some contexts- see my edit on the sunhat page. So did to-morrow. Hyphens can be parts of words, yesterday, today and to-morrow. The word ex-Christian exists and is used in popular media outside of linguistically experimental or jocular contexts. That's my two-cents for ya. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'll put it to you this way- deletion of this entry doesn't mean that the word doesn't exist in English, it just means Wiktionary won't be documenting it. If you have to delete it just because of anti-hyphen sentiment, that's up to you. But it's still a word, regardless of our dictates from on high. English doesn't have a politburo that decides what shall and what shall not be a word. I am pretty sure that this is a word exists. It's not something I came up with yesterday like "ex-ghost" or "ex-marble" or something silly like that. Deleting this entry would mean Wiktionary could never quite be on the cutting edge of what English is. I can't stop you, but I have seen 'ex-Christian' enough that it has passed my test to reach the threshold for being a word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• If the policies of this website are against my position, then they are dead wrong in terms of the way English should be understood. But I don't think SOP is really against me- just a gang of well-meaning people with radical anti-hyphen bias.--Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Geographyinitiative: What if the term in question was "former Christian", would that merit inclusion? Why is a hyphen magical when a space is not? ex- means former, so ex-parrot is an identical term to former parrot, both mean that the parrot has ceased to be (a parrot). You would include the ex- version because it has a hyphen, but not the former version because it does not?

  Hyphens can be used in many ways, and can form things which are clearly not atomic words (here is a reasonable-if-not-ideal example). Your position seems to be that spaces are the only form of word break which unambiguously delineate words, but that is clearly not the case. I don't think I have seen anyone advocate for removing all terms with hyphens in them, anyway. - TheDaveRoss 12:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I won't continue here with my autistic screeching, but I will give you a few links: Ex-gay movement Ex-ex-gay Ex-Muslims of North America Bertell Ollman These are words, don't ignore them (IMO). I am not a scholar on the issue, I'm just telling you my feelings. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

• Keep all. At the very least, we should be considering these on a case-by-case basis rather than wholesale. "Ex-Christian", "ex-gay" and the like have more subtle meanings beyond just "formerly ...". "Ex-gay", in particular, does not merely mean "formerly gay" because it's questionable whether that's possible. It's also part of the phrase ex-gay movement, which is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia entry. By the way, Chuck Entz, your examples are whataboutism. They are not relevant because they don't exist and we don't have entries for them. If we did, we'd recognise them as SoP and remove them. — Paul G (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Paul G Actually, they were relevant, as a counter to Donnanz' typical "we should keep it because I like it"/inverse w:WP:I DON'T LIKE IT argumentation. As for whether they exist: ex-statistician 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ex-organ-grinder 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ex-mugwump 1, 2, 3. I'm pretty sure these would all pass an rfv (and yes, I did check before I chose those examples). As for rfd: how exactly would we recognize those as SOP? What objective criteria are there that would apply to those that wouldn't apply to the nominated ones? A notability requirement would filter out trivial examples such as mine- but we don't have a notability requirement. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep all that are cited. Ƿidsiþ 08:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all not included by lemmings. DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Another factor that I just realized: ex- seems to act more like a clitic in many cases, modifying the whole phrase rather than the word it's attached to. There are examples like ex-Christian Scientist, ex-Christian Democrat and ex-Christian Brother (not to mention things like "ex-Baltimore mayor"). We don't include possessives in -'s and Latin forms in -cum or -que because of this characteristic. That doesn't automatically exclude this entry, but it needs to be considered. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  One can check e.g. ex-Christians, ex-Jews, ex-wives, ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, ex-ministers at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. to look only at cases that do not clearly show the clitic phenomenon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete ex-Christian, ex-Muslim, ex-Jew and ex-Scientologist; keep ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-boyfriend and ex-girlfriend (these have lemmings and are likely jiffies for ex). Also keep ex-gay, although without any lemmings this should not be analysed as simply meaning "former gay", the current definition agrees with that. Delete ex-ex-gay. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep and delete according to Lingo's list above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleted some and kept others. - TheDaveRoss 19:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

July 2019

Kappa

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

Delete the "symbol" bit. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep hi, i think that the Kappa symbol is by far the most widely attested part-of-speech of Kappa — much more than the noun, the proper noun, and the interjection combined — and it should not be deleted.

since its creation, Kappa has been hit with almost every mechanism possible on wiktionary — an RFC, four RFVs, a GP discussion, and now an RFD — and none have reached any conclusion. this Pieta example seems identical to the "white house" example that DCDuring brought up on june 27th, which i refuted in Special:Diff/53470517 to no response.

to rephrase myself — the Kappa symbol is used inline with text and refers to a clearly defined image like 😂, and this specific part of speech is attested more than enough times on Citations:Kappa along with a link to over one million archived attestations of the Kappa symbol being used in sentences. unlike any random image of the White House or an image of Pieta, Kappa is a specific symbol that conveys meaning (that is, to negate the meaning of a sentence or to indicate trolling) and is not simply a reference to Josh DeSeno — most people using Kappa probably do not know who Josh DeSeno is. images of the WH or Pieta are only references to the objects they depict, without conveying any contextual meaning like the Kappa symbol does. in fact, "Kappa" is most widely referred to as a symbol in the Wiktionary sense of the term (as in an emote, like the hundreds of emoji already listed on wiktionary as symbols), while "Pieta" is almost never referred to as such.

just because Wiktionary doesn't allow us to have non-Unicode images in titles doesn't mean that these terms don't belong on Wiktionary. i think twitch emotes should be treated Ancient Egyptian or sign languages on Wiktionary — terms like sḏꜣ appear in the title like the latin characters "SD3" in my encoding, but the word actually represented on that page is a picture of a cylinder seal. i don't see why we can't do the same for terms like Kappa, and i would be willing to edit pages like MediaWiki:UnsupportedTitles.js to achieve whatever the community decides is the optimal user presentation for terms like these.

my biggest fear is losing the most important sense of Kappa — that is, this picture. i am open to new ideas that offer an alternative, such as a new page to move this sense to, but so far no alternative has been offered to keep this sense on Wiktionary, despite a number of derivatives (the latin-text forms) being allowed to stay. if we can't find any alternatives but agree the symbol part-of-speech is by far well-enough attested, then why remove it? --Habst (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Kappa has been hit with many requests for cleanup, deletion, and verification because it is a highly problematic entry. So pull up your socks, make cogent arguments, and act like a Wiktionarian instead of a POV entry advocate.

The way we deal with words that are used as the name of symbols is the way we deal with hash and kappa. If the symbol does not have a Unicode representation, then we try to find an image of the symbol. If that is not possible, then we verbally characterize or describe the symbol and its function. Kappa seems obviously to be the name of a symbol, but maybe not.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't some PoS heading that was appropriate, but we have a limited number available. Is it a Proper noun, the name of a unique work, ie, a specific image of a certain person? (We don't usually allow titles of works.) Is it a (common) Noun? (What does it refer to?) It seems to have been (rarely) used as a Verb. It seems to function on Twitch in much the same way as a template like our {{done}}. (We don't include such computer (or oither device) commands.) When used elsewhere it seems intended to be a metonym, evoking among the cognescenti the sarcasm-/irony-/falsehood-signalling function of the image that it causes to be inserted on Twitch. It certainly isn't an interjection (sensu stricto). Though I personally think we overuse the PoS header Interjection, that header might be appropriate. Another possibility is that we could call it a Particle. Could it be an Adverb indicating sarcasm, irony, and falsehood, in the manner of a sentence adverb? It can't be a conjunction, determiner, preposition, or an adjective. DCDuring (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

DCDuring, yes, Kappa is one of many entries that is controversial, but not in my opinion problematic. similar to how the English phrasebook and its entries have been contested so many times over the years — just because it is contested, does not mean it should be deleted. and those arguing in favor of the phrasebook entries aren't POV entry advocates, but fellow good-faith wiktionarians trying to improve Wiktionary. the vast majority of my edits have been on improving the dictionary's coverage of Swahili and have nothing at all to do with Kappa.

the difference between the Kappa symbol and hash/kappa is that hash and kappa are only used as references to objects, and they do not convey any contextual meaning, per w:sense and reference. the Kappa symbol is much more like 😂 than it is hash or kappa, because it is a symbol that has semantic meaning and a function when used inline with text -- you can't say the same with hash or kappa, which are like saying "The White House" or "Pieta".

there may be other parts-of-speech appropriate for the word Kappa, but for the Kappa symbol, there is only one that is appropriate as i see it, the symbol part-of-speech like we use for emoji. as for the comparison with {{done}}, i agree it is worth considering because it looks similar at first, but again i explained why the two are different on june 29th here Special:Diff/53481216 to no response. {{done}} is a wiki-specific term that certainly does not pass any tests for attestation like the Kappa symbol does, and we would not create a Wiki entry for {{done}} because it would be rightly deleted. as i explained before, Kappa is not a command but a symbol — but even if it was a command, there are commands on wiktionary like cat#Etymology 3. in fact, based on web searches it appears Kappa is referred to as a symbol far more often than a command, and wiktionary as a descriptive dictionary should reflect that.

i think the reason we are having so much trouble finding an alternative part-of-speech header for the Kappa symbol is because it is a symbol and that is the most appropriate header to use. i'm not 100% attached to using the Kappa page name as the house of the symbol part-of-speech per see, but without some site back-end work it is the best place to put it, just like sḏꜣ is the best place to put the Egyptian hieroglyph because we can't have Wiktionary titles that are e.g. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/<picture of cylinder seal>. this discussion is really good but we do need to work these things out to find the best home for the Kappa symbol on Wiktionary. --Habst (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If I was completely new to Wiktionary, I would probably overturn all the known rules of parts of speech and do a ton of wiki-lawyering. Just to make sure they liked me. God, can we ban this joker already? Equinox ◑ 13:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I had a look at the citations. Seems in most cases that "kappa" is added to indicate sarcasm. The cites have some noun and verb uses, and some attributive noun uses. Can't really see that it is an interjection though, as that part of speech refers to spoken words (unless, of course, people actually say "kappa" out loud to indicate sarcasm, which the evidence offered does not support, so I doubt it). I don't know if Wiktionary excludes symbols or includes them. They aren't "words" in a language, strictly speaking, but they increasingly function like words on social media, and other places. Language is changing and so perhaps Wiktionary needs to keep up to date with that. Mostly the entry seems okay to me, but needs a bit of a clean up and probably just the noun sense is worth keep (and maybe the symbol one, if that is allowable according to Wiktionary's dictates). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

thank you for your input, sonofcawdrew and equinox. i agree with your assessment of Kappa, and especially your comments about wiktionary adapting to changing language. when i created the entry, i only added a symbol part-of-speech because i thought it was the most appropriate PoS, all of the others were added later. symbols are allowed on wiktionary and that's what i modeled the entry after -- for an example of an uncontested symbol entry see 😂 or you can look in the symbol categories. the word "Kappa" is indeed often spoken aloud by Twitch streamers (keep in mind many of these people stream themselves speaking and reading Twitch chat for 4+ hours per day so this is just a consequence of it being commonly used in twitch chat) or at gaming-related conventions and the like, but you're right that the spoken usage is less common than the written symbol usage. i'm not sure the best way to indicate spoken usage on Citations:Kappa -- i've found some CC-BY YouTube videos that use Kappa, so maybe i should try transferring them over to Commons to be cited?

i'm very appreciative of equinox's contributions here at wiktionary and all the times he has helped with my entries, but i'm confused about his response here. around the same time equinox's comment was posted here, i got a notification that i was "thanked" by equinox for an embarrassing edit i made over 7 years ago on the english wikipedia when i was still learning how to edit, even though to my knowledge we've never interacted on wikipedia before. if these two actions weren't so close together i would have laughed it off, but in combination with this comment calling me a joker it makes me feel like i am being targeted. i also don't see how i've ever done anything wrong or worthy of a ban -- even though some of the topics i edit are entertainment-related i'm not a "joker" and i'm here to edit in good faith, and that includes working with Equinox who for the most part i tend to agree with. --Habst (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, technically in linguistics “symbol” or letter aren’t parts of speech, right, we only include “letter”s and “symbol”s because historically there was lacking regulation and people just added all they could and nobody has yet moved them even though the letter entries eat up the RAM and as I remember at least therefore there is consensus they need to get out of the mainspace. We also had the header “abbreviation” but they now should be “noun”, “verb” and so on. Maybe your Kappa symbol is of the same category like the emojis, in fact I truly deem it just a proprietary variety of it, but the problem is that it is proprietary and not encoded in Unicode, so you took a substitute. You include “Kappa” as a symbol while you actually want to include the face of Josh DeSeno as a dictionary entry. I have to inform you that the exact thing that you actually want is not possible. Though “Kappa” is also a an interjection as spoken, this is a separate phenomenon. Fay Freak (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

hi Fay Freak, thanks for your response. i had heard abut the "abbreviation" PoS controversy and i agree that in the long run we should assign things like that to more appropriate categories like noun, verb, etc. while also denoting that they are abbreviations in their definitions. if we can denote the "symbol-ness" of Kappa in the definition, i think that would be the best thing to do for symbol entries like Kappa as well.

however, according to a petscan count of Category:Symbols by language, it looks like there are over 100,000 symbol pages on wiktionary right now, so evidently reaching that goal with symbols might be very hard and long. and i couldn't find any proscription of the Symbol PoS on any of its official templates or categories. so if we're going to go about converting symbols to other parts of speech, we should first of all officially note that templates like {{en-symbol}} are deprecated or proscribed and make notes of it both on and off the mainspace.

aside from this issue, if what you are saying is that it isn't technically possible with MediaWiki to create a page for the Kappa symbol itself due to the fact that it isn't in Unicode -- isn't that exactly what Appendix:Unsupported titles is supposed to be about? and surely it would be possible to edit MediaWiki:UnsupportedTitles.js so that the Kappa symbol displays as the page title, if that is the desired outcome? --Habst (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete the symbol. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

common parlance

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

Delete - this is a common collocation, but not a lexical item. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete, pure SoP, like "everyday speech". Equinox ◑ 06:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)]

Keep set phrase. Mihia (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

cream in one's jeans

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

Keep - It is idiomatic as you don't have to be wearing jeans to cream in your jeans. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this expression definitely used over a more generic version such as e.g. "cream in one's pants" when it is known that the person is not wearing jeans? Mihia (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep, seems like the cream needn't be deposited into jeans for one to cream in one's jeans. Which I suppose is explained by the assonance and by the fact that it sounds funnier than cream in one's pants. Also, one of the quotes provided has a woman creaming her jeans, which (unless the woman in question is pre-op trans) suggests that the cream here is not to be taken literally, further supporting the entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

cream specifically mentions that it is applied to both genders, so that's nothing specific to this definition. I lean a bit against keeping this, but not that strongly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP with the sense covered at cream. Other variants are also used (even if not as frequently). - TheDaveRoss 12:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the first def (to ejaculate while wearing one's trousers) is SOP, and the second def (to be thoroughly excited or delighted) is idiomatic. So, what I mean to vote is: keep idiomatic def, delete non-idiomatic one - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

React

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

Delete. Equinox ◑ 13:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Delete – Jberkel

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

FD&C Yellow No. 5

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: [52], [53], [54]. 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.[55] 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)

PSS

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: [56] [57] (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)

VLT

Initialism of Valletta (postal code of Malta)

I don't think we want postcodes. --Pious Eterino (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Is there anything at CFI to exclude postal abbreviations? We have the two-letter abbrevs for each U.S. state. Purplebackpack89 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Potential grey area. Some of the UK ones are abbreviations (RG = Reading, S = South London etc.) but others are codes that don't "stand for" anything as an abbreviation. Similar case with Internet domain codes. Equinox ◑ 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

taboo name

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

KDDI

"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)

sabermatics

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

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

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Cavalier-Smith

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

Delete both. - TheDaveRoss 12:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Double-barrelled names are SoP; the specific individual is not a "sense of the word" and if anywhere should be in a see-also or something, but really is Wikipedia material. Equinox ◑ 12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete both per nom: Thomas Cavalier-Smith, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill, Galileo Galilei, Karl Popper at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. suggests not the kind of notability that would lead to inclusion: Thomas Cavalier-Smith not found. (I am not saying each person found in GNV should be included, but when a person is not there, they are probably not notable enough.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

xanthocroic

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 the Google Books 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 the Google Books 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)

August 2019

public record

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

Delete or merge, it ain't an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Just like “what I have done will become history”, this is a use of the (uncountable) noun. BTW, I’m not sure that the noun is usually uncountable; Public Record laws typically define what is and what is not a public record, and describe how requests for a copy of a public record should be handled.  --Lambiam 10:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, wrong POS, even when used attributively this would still be a noun (phrase) — which aren't kept anyway. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

b*tches

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

both the singular and the plural are (very) well attested in durable media. there are only a small handful of words that we do this with and only a limited number of forms, so we should keep all durably attested forms and recreate deleted forms that were attested. plus there are many such forms already in Category:English terms spelled with *. --Habst (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Why the f*ck was the singular deleted? It should be restored.  --Lambiam 23:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Should we keep all variations of vulgar terms with intermediate letters replaced by various punctuation? I don't think we should. f---, f–, f*ck, f**k, fu*k, f***, and on and on. At most these should redirect to an actual word rather than a partially redacted one. It is a bit akin to keeping all attested variants of using non-letter characters to denote a swear e.g. $@#%!. Habst's assertion that there are a limited number and a few forms is not true, there are many such terms and many variations of them. - TheDaveRoss 12:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. They are not distinct words: it's a stylistic flourish that can be done with any rude or secret word. What next: including SP-D-RS because it was in an unfinished game of hangman? Equinox ◑ 12:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete as unfinished business. DonnanZ (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, if necessary the singular could be turned into a hard redirect. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep absent WT:CFI-based rationale; restore b*tch absent a RFD discussion (none at Talk:b*tch). A related 2008 deletion discussion is at Talk:f**k, which was nearly unanimously kept. The existing practice is seen in Category:English terms spelled with *.--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirect. This obviously doesn't warrant its own article, but I think it would be fine to just have it redirect to the entry for 'bitch'. TheTechnician27 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Voc.

1. Alternative spelling of voc. No need for capitalization --Pious Eterino (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A request for verification of this form seems more appropriate to me. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted, this will just automatically redirect anyway, so no great loss. - TheDaveRoss 19:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

wind

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

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

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

In addition, the immediately preceding transitive definition would seem to include the reflexive one under challenge. DCDuring (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If nothing else, the "reflexive" label needs to go- either that or change the usex to I've winded myself. 13:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete The usage example is clearly an adj. And the reflexive meaning is simply the transitive sense with oneself as object. You can hurt yourself, wound yourself, etc., we don't need separate reflexive defs. That said, the preceding def doesn't mention getting exhausted by running or other exertion, so I will add that. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

........

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

 Added it, been there and done that many moons ago. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

seed

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

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 14:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete -Mike (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

serial texter

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

• I was going to delete it out of hand, but got sidetracked. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

split into two definitions and keep if it's defined accurately, because the definition of "one who is antisocial" makes it not SOP. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The term barely seems to be used in durable media, and none of the usage I have encountered implies an anti-social person (as opposed to preferring one mode of communication to another). - TheDaveRoss 14:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Habst, if your keep is conditional ("keep if it's defined accurately") could you bold the whole condition, or at least bold "keep if"? Just to make sure nobody reads the bold stuff when closing the discussion and fails to note your proviso. Thanks! Equinox ◑ 06:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 10:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

one thousand origami cranes

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

It looks SoP to me. I would remark that it's defined as "a tradition" and not as the resulting cranes themselves, but that doesn't necessarily say much. It seems more like cultural than lexical information, hence something for Wikipedia...? Equinox ◑ 06:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely SOP. But where to put {{t|ja|千羽鶴|tr=senbazuru}} after deletion? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 09:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, there are zillions of foreign-language words entered which don't have English counterpart entries, because they fail the SoP argument. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's very tragic that we don't have entries for hungry dog and packed train. Do you seriously think that all the SoP people are absolute logic-less drooling morons? Equinox ◑ 12:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Tragic? I think we have to apply reason in those examples, which can be reversed - " The dog was hungry so I fed it", "The train was packed, my back was aching and I had to stand all the way." Any translations would probably consist of two words or more. But that doesn't answer this problem (and I can't read Japanese). DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. No need to transfer 千羽鶴 anywhere; it already appears as a derived term of 鶴. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the far more common phrasing is one thousand paper cranes anyway. Delete. - TheDaveRoss 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Abstain for me. Let's see what the creator @Timwi has to say... ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 22:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • My reasons for adding it was that Wikipedia's article is named “w:One thousand origami cranes” as opposed to “Senbazuru”, so I assumed it's an established term. But I don't care, if you want to trample on people's contributions, go ahead. — Timwi (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence can be found for use beyond the obvious, literal meaning. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

flux capacitor

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

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

Delete Jberkel 18:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews

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

It was deleted in 2009 having failed RFV, this should be an RFV not an RFD. I wouldn't be shocked if Wikibooks would be citable now. - TheDaveRoss 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, really, move to RFV. Equinox ◑ 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether the citations in Wikinews and Citations:Wikinews meet WT:BRAND. The quotation "... Wikinews, an online news site ..." fails WT:BRAND's "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent" since the type of the product is seen from the quotation. As an aside, Wikinews entry was created by Wonderfool and is here nominated for deletion by Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

piano key

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

Looks like a keep, it has at least one lemming, believe it or not. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't find any lemming in “piano key”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Not piano keys :)  --Lambiam 12:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete despite LEMMING in this case, sometimes SOP trumps LEMMING. Especially since we have a sense at key which is for piano key specifically. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. How are piano keys different from the keys for everything else in w:List of keyboard instruments? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think I have ever hear the "foo key" construction used with any of them other than a piano. bd2412 T 03:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  "Organ key" is one common example. Equinox ◑ 10:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete, the definition is silly anyway. Donnanz, I didn't see any lemmings on OneLook. Where did you find one? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Key" has two meanings relevant to pianos, one being the physical object pressed to make a sound, and the other being the actual register of that sound (e.g., in the key of A minor). However, the phrase seems to actually be used for only one of these meanings. There is also, of course, the piano key necktie, claimed to have been invented by Dr. Mugatu. bd2412 T 03:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Some pianos have lids that lock and seemingly the key used to unlock a piano is also called a 'piano key'. John Cross (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

sclenchyma

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

In principle, wouldn't it be better as an RfV? There are lots of malformed words that actually exist. Though I do expect this to fail RfV. DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find a few uses, so rfv would accomplish nothing. I find it hard to believe there would a term with definition and usage identical to sclerenchyma and only differing by the absence of two letters. This isn't casual conversation, where everyone has their own way of saying things- it's technical terminology, the kind of terminology everybody learns in introductory botany courses. I wouldn't even call this a misspelling: it's an obvious typo- the kind of mistake that's very easy to make, but hard to spot because of the repeated letter. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, very rare typo.  --Lambiam 08:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete as a rare misspelling: sclenchyma, sclerenchyma at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. does not find "sclenchyma". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

wet through

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

Keep, found one lemming, there may be others. It could be idiomatic anyway, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to find usage to test the issue, but this one is all over the map. There at least three ways to analyze this, and there are examples of usage that support all of them.

1. Wet through (adjective)

   There are examples of modifiers such as almost and quite before "wet through", and "more or less wet through" is suggestive as well.

2. Wet (adjective) + through

   There are examples of modifiers such as almost and quite between "wet" and "through"

3. Wet (verb) + through

   This is tricky because the most common form of the past and past participle is identical to the present and infinitive. There are, however a few examples of "wetted through" and "wetted quite through". There are also examples of "wet it through".

Then there's the issue of whether "wet through" is an absolute as if it were "through and through" or the end of a directional progression, as if it were "to the surface or "to the other side".

That said, I find the examples supporting "wet through" as a single adjective are inconclusive and less convincing than the others. It looks to me like the verb + through and adjective + through probably both exist, but I'm not sure about the single-adjective option. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I can certainly relate to the adjective after a recent event: "The heavens opened just as I got off the bus, and by the time I got home I was wet through." This is more emphatic than just wet, and as far as I'm aware there is no such word as superwet. I am not so sure about the verb though - to soak or saturate could be used instead. DonnanZ (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Narrator: "There was such a word as superwet". bd2412 T 04:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, in a different sense. I sometimes find I shouldn't mention a term, as some bright spark thinks it is SoP and RFDs it. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, if soaked through is not allowed, I don't see the difference. -Mike (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Has soaked through ever been an entry? I can't find a deletion record. DonnanZ (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep adjective as set phrase. Delete verb. Mihia (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep - set phrase. John Cross (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

clustersize

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

::I feel unhappy about these kinds of entries that seem to me more like authors either referencing a variable name or being unable to distinguish the writing of a variable name from proper English. Mihia (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
: Wiktionary would be a better dictionary without this entry. - TheDaveRoss 13:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

::: I agree, but I also feel that is more a matter for requests for deletion than for requests for verification.  I am calling this RFV-passed, but am moving this to requests for deletion. Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Moved to RFD by Kiwima on 31 August 2019. Citations are at Citations:clustersize. Frequency is at (clustersize*500), cluster size at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. What is the deletion rationale? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per my comment above. Variable name, not a proper word. Mihia (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  What makes you think so? Citations:clustersize suggest otherwise, e.g. a quotation from Journal of the Physical Society of Japan: "The clustersize increases by the addition of salt." --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Not everything ever committed to print is correct English. We need to apply editorial judgement too. There are any number of these variable-name-style compounds citable in running text: "edgelength", "linesize", "sampleweight", etc. etc. Mostly these are written by people who do not understand how to spell, and do not understand the difference between writing e.g. "edgelength" in computer code and "edge length" in normal English. We are not helping anyone by recognising or legitimising these people's spelling errors. Mihia (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if so, "Variable name" has been refuted, as far as I can tell. "Sometimes used as a variable name" was not refuted, but that can hardly be relevant.

As for whether this is a misspelling, it seems to be one given (clustersize*500),cluster size at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. However, this frequency ratio would suggest it is a common misspelling, and therefore keepable one (WT:CFI#Spellings). --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I am in favour of including "useful" and "important" spelling errors. I am not in favour of including a million™ entries along the lines of "clustersize: misspelling of cluster size". Mihia (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok; do you have some exampels of these "useful" spelling errors, for calibration? (The policy in WT:CFI does not speak of "useful" or "important", so that would be a CFI override.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean things like "alot" or "miniscule" or "i" for "I" or "it's" for "its". Mihia (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And how many of the uses in your comparison are variable names or named parameters? It's hard to trust frequency ratios in the absence of such information. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. When I was looking at this before, I think I searched for phrases such as "the clustersize is" which it seems could only be (IMO) errors, not legitimate uses of or references to variable names. This does not have sufficient frequency to show up on 'Ngrams', however. Mihia (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

A better comparison would be the plural, which is rarely used for variables and parameter names. I just did a Google Books search on "cluster sizes" and got 55,000 raw hits. The same search for "clustersizes" came up with 38 raw hits. Of those, a number were really "cluster sizes" when you looked at the page image, and there were a couple where the snippet was selectable text and contained things like "Wealsomeasured distributions oftwo clustersizes". Out of the 38 raw hits, I found 5 where one could look at the page image or snippet image and verify that there was no space. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) cluster sizes, clustersizes at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.: the solid form not found. google books:"cluster sizes", google books:"clustersizes" confirms your (Chuck's) observations that the solid forms are often variable names or scannos, although not always. google books:"clustersize" confirms there are many variable names counted in the results, which should probably be taken into account together with the frequency ratio of 500. I do not know how to deal with this, and I abstain for now. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

September 2019

bid size

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

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This must be one of the oldest entries, created in 2003. It is a question of what this term is used for, what about bids at an auction? DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have been an early reject at WP, transferred here. We've been a dumping ground from the beginning. DCDuring (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, unless this is shown to have some unique cache in the parlance of the relevant industry. bd2412 T 03:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am not sure deleting this entry will make the dictionary better. The term is in Investopedia[58], investinganswers.com[59], businessdictionary.com[60], thelawdictionary.org[61]. As for sum of parts, how would you know that the size is the number of shares rather than the total price paid for the shares, which is the price per share times number of shares? One source even tells us that "For bond trading, bid size is measured in dollars." If I were collecting an investing glossary, I would probably include the term. Unlikely to be protected by WT:COALMINE: bid size,bidsize at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep set phrase; cf. bid price. Mihia (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

only too well

"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 institution

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”, in 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[62], dictionary.cambridge.org[63]), 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)

aye man

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: [64]. We have an entry for why aye, but not for the more common spelling whey aye.  --Lambiam 23:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

All "euphemistic spellings" with asterisks or other character placeholders

[65].

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

What are the “parts” of “f*der”? A speaker who is not well-versed in the street language of a language they are not that familiar with anyway may not know how to fill in the asterisks in some of these disemvoweled spellings. They may be wondering, what the h*ll is a w****r? A whorlflower? A woodpecker? A woolgrower? A wisecracker?  --Lambiam 23:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I've used Wiktionary to figure out what word an asterisked spelling was supposed to be, and I suspect I'm not the only one. They aren't SOP because asterisks do not carry any fixed meaning (i.e., they aren't a placeholder for a certain letter). And there aren't an infinite number of permutations, because the number of asterisks will never exceed the number of letters in a given piece of profanity (minus one, since the first letter is (almost?) never replaced). I see no harm in having them. They will only be attestable for a tiny fraction of a given language's lexicon, since relatively few words get this treatment. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Then you should just use a list of words that are commonly censored or are common and avoided. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your math is off, there are many more combinations since you can choose what set of letters you want to replace. For example there are at least 15 ways to bowlderize "fuck", just with asterisks. If we allow more characters the number grows. DTLHS (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And what’s with all those replacements to circumvent word filters? I mean nibber, niqqer etc. People use these and actually wanna use nigger etc. If you are not acquainted: For example Youtube filters words in the chats of livestreams. So people use such hacks. Maybe this is also found on Usenet for imitation, like imageboards created weeaboo (but not thus lexicalized). What would be the difference from some Unicode hack? Is it includable if fullwidth characters (U+FF21 seqq.) are used for replacement? Everything that spammers use? There is also spam sold as books. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, since we already have "[u]sed to censor sections of obscene or profane words" as one of the punctuation senses of the asterisk symbol. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all. I remove any that I find, but haven't made a serious attempt to find them all. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• I am seeing the asterisk as standing in for the 'missing' character - almost like using a specific font or format rather than a new word. There are fonts that render all letters in uppercase, I don't think that creates a new version of every word. John Cross (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• In my opinion it is helpful for people to have some way of looking up common asterisked words, but I feel unhappy at these being treated as full-fledged distinct words with full separate entries. I suggest that these asterisked lookups could be redirected to an entry on a special page that that lists common asterisked words and their unasterisked equivalents in a simple list format. Mihia (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - I prefer the idea of having a list as Mihia suggests above. See also my earlier comment above. John Cross (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, no objection to that. (Also, maybe we should get an improved search box that allows people to use single-character wildcards like "d??n".) — SGconlaw (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Some time ago, I created Appendix:English censored words with the idea you could look up any variation of a censored word by the first letter, last letter and possibly length. It didn't get huge appreciation. One way or the other, I think offering these censorships are more useful than a lot of standard entries, like cat or human being, where if you don't know what they mean, you should probably be using a dictionary in your language, or even cheetah, where w:cheetah is just more useful if you don't know what it means. People actually look up some of these words looking for their meanings, so one way or the other, we should help them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Abstain - seems we don't have a clear policy for these, but we should. I myself think that it would be useful for the users to include the especially common ones (the "w***e" example is a good one, and that was a very common way of printing the word whore in the 18th century); but I suggest that we set a higher benchmark for commonality than the usual 3 instances, setting at something like 100 instances ... of course the problem with this is who is going to do the prohibitive amount of work it would take to verify that there are 100 independent instances? Perhaps some of the available corpora could be used, such as the "Glowbe" corpus. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 22:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• I propose to cancel this RFD: out of scope of RFD. You can also read this as keep in RFD, although I may be open to conviction in a proper channel discussing the group of entries, ideally a vote that modifies CFI. Talk:f**k shows a 2008 keeper; pro-keeping editors included Ruakh, Atelaes, Bequw, Rodasmith, and Thryduulf. As for the rationale, these are not sum of parts in the sense of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity since the components have to be separate, as per CFI, and letters of spelling are not considered separate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In general delete. Possibly we could redirect any really common ones like f**k but I don't think they should ever have entries of their own. They are not IMO separate lexical items in the language, but rather a sort of affectation applied to items, like turning hello into heeeeellooooo to indicate it's being spoken slowly. Equinox ◑ 13:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As for heeeeellooooo, if attested it would be included as a redirect, per WT:CFI#Repetitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Each such terms deserves a RfV to find unambiguous uses.

  Also we might consider how users could be direct to a gadget that does regex searches in page titles to find the less common uses of this kind of euphemism. DCDuring (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Should I count your posts as abstain, keep or delete? You seem to be making pro-keeping arguments, with no bold vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not meant to be a vote, but mainly to challenge the given rationale for deletion, which I deemed (and deem) to be invalid. I am also against a blanket vote, so count this as Oppose (mass deletion), which is not quite the same as "Keep". A reasonable alternative, in unambiguous and sufficiently attested cases, would be to redirect them to the expanded terms.  --Lambiam 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

porcelanid

Rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. porcelanid not found in GNV: porcelanid, porcellanid at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

neobiotic

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)

[66] for the adjective. [67] for the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

-lingual

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Tea_room#-lingual.

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

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. trilingual can be analyzed as tri- + lingual or tri- + lingua + -al. Not in “-lingual”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

squash player

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

• I think we keep them if they have translations that are not SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

tennis player was discussed. Supposedly it's not SoP because it's someone who plays professionally (which is not true at all: "I'm a bad tennis player" doesn't mean I'm a pro, just that I play). Apparently people want to keep them so whatever. Equinox ◑ 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it relates to the sport, not the vegetable or a drink of squash. DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying I can't play with my squash? -Mike (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hula dancers play the gourd. You should learn to play the squash.  --Lambiam 11:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. It is useful to distinguish between sports where the participant is known as a Foo player, and those where the participant is known as a fooer (e.g., golfer and bowler, not golf player and bowling player). In some cases, this distinction has real implications - for example, a footballer plays association football (i.e. soccer), while a football player plays American football. bd2412 T 01:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  I doubt that the distinction is that sharp: [68], [69], [70].  --Lambiam 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Informal instances rare enough that they wouldn't count as a common misspelling are of minimal lexicological value. Find me a "bowling player", though. Then we'll be talking. bd2412 T 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• WT:THUB would protect it if we can find reliably attested supporting terms. Czech squashista would contribute to THUB but seems sub-attested (not 3 quotations, Citations:squashista). German Squashspieler would not contribute to THUB as currently drafted. Also of interest is squasher, squash player at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.; an unvoted-on analogue of COALMINE would have us include squash player as a much more common synonym of an attested single-word term. (As an aside, Talk:tennis player#RFD 2 often invoked "translation target" as the keeping rationale.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I spoke too soon: squasher does exist, but does not seem to mean squash player. Then, the argument by bd2412 is of note: this is the term actually used while another term could have been used (squasher). --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Czech squashista is now attested in Citations:squashista. Can we find one more language to support WT:THUB? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:THUB via Czech squashista and German Squasher; if someone could show Dutch squasher is attested, that would be a third item, but two are enough per current WT:THUB. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

stopgap

The adjective section: not an adjective. 31.173.85.103 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever is decided here should also apply to stop-gap. -Mike (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete the adjective, but keep the usex and put it in the noun section. Incidentally, stop-gap is less common than stopgap in the UK, so that statement is wrong. DonnanZ (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I've almost never seen it hyphenated; that would look quite dated to me. The statements might still be correct with some really sneaky interpretation, i.e. "stopgap is more common in the US" (...than stop-gap is), while "stop-gap is more common in the UK" (...than it is in the US). Perhaps best just to remove. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this 'Ngram' syntax correct? I'm really not sure. If it is, it shows "stopgap" now significantly more common than "stop-gap" in the US, and the two now roughly equal in the UK. Mihia (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep adjective. M-W indicates "stopgap" as "noun, often attributive"[71]; AHD has an adjective[72], Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition at collinsdictionary.com has an adjective[73]. “stopgap”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Searching for "is stopgap" finds the following predicative adjectival uses:

• "It is stopgap in the sense that it is intended to continue in force until the complete ..."
• "Their income is stopgap until a transition can be made ..."
• "The trouble with the mechanism is that it is stopgap and piecemeal."
• "Hand pallet and powered pallet trucks are needed for use in aircraft Skate conveyor can be used in the plane, but I feel that this is stopgap and that the way to ..."
• "Welfare or unearned income (at the lower end of the economy, not the higher end) is stopgap and stigmatized."
• "Everything else in the U.S. aid package is stopgap ..."

While attributive uses can be explained away as attributive uses of a noun, predicative uses not so.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In GoogleBooks you can also find a few examples like "more stopgap than imaginative", "more stopgap than sustainable", or "the most stop-gap [whatever]". -Mike (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mike: Good finds. So is that a keep from you? Or abstain? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I would keep. -Mike (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there are some borderline cases where nouns can be used ad hoc apparently as adjectives, yet may not merit a full adjective listing. For example, we could also cite "this solution is very workaround" or "the most bodge job" (BrE), but do we want adjective sections for "workaround" and "bodge"? I'm not sure. I suppose this RFD depends on which side of the line "stopgap" falls, in terms of frequency of properly established adjectival use. Maybe it's OK. Mihia (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

-gonal

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

• Could become productive on its own. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Is that meant as an argument for retention? Crystal ball meets many-worlds.  --Lambiam 11:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like delete to me, including diagonal is wrong for a start. DonnanZ (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Or else we should include suffixes like -ousness: Used to form nouns describing related adjectives ending in -ous. seriousness.  --Lambiam 11:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete or possibly redirect to -gon. Compare Talk:-lessness. Equinox ◑ 13:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to -gon sounds like an excellent solution. bd2412 T 03:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Even a redirect seems wrong unless there is evidence of productivity, which has not been forthcoming. DCDuring (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  If someone looks up this exact construction, it would be better to take them to the proper form than to leave them to the vagaries of the search engine (which, as it stands, would give them these results). bd2412 T 05:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Leasnam (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like what the drunk geometrist said late on a Saturday night, "I-so-gonal rearrange your obtuse face!"

But seriously isn't this just -gon + -al? Delete if so. -Mike (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

only to

"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:

Template:non gloss definition

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)

evening meal

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)

scope resolutor

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

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

October 2019

Church

"(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.” [74] 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)

miss the point

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

• Weak keep; just about enough of an idiomatic set phrase, I would say. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per Mihia; besides, it's found in other dictionaries. Canonicalization (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

read through

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

• Keep read through per the nonbinding WT:LEMMING: M-W[75]; see also “read through”, in 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 before

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[76], Macmillan[77]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. PUC – 15:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

fine-ass-looking

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)

• 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 (talk • contribs).

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)

Akihito

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

Delete. We also do not list Alistair under the L2 Finnish, in spite of attestations like “Kun Englannin työväenpuolue voitti vaalit 1997 Alistair Darlingista tuli Tony Blairin hallituksen toinen valtiovarainministeri.”  --Lambiam 11:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's English as much as Düsseldorf is English. Proof: It's USED in English. --Damn Polski (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Düsseldorf is an English toponym borrowed from German. If you look at the translation table, different languages have different spellings for the toponym. However, the same does not apply for Akihito because it is a romanization of Japanese あきひと. The romanized form does not qualify it as an English lemma. See discussion here.

English entries can be created for toponyms such as Kagawa or surnames such as Tamura that are backed up by statistical evidence. However, there are no plans to lemmatize all romanized forms of Japanese surnames and given names as English entries. Delete. KevinUp (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

On HMS

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)

light

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-looking

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)

• See also Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/October#Inclusion_of_hyphenated_compounds. Mihia (talk) 23:28, 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)

bad-looking

SOP. See also Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/June § bad-looking. Canonicalization (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

My only objection with deleting this entry is that the bad in bad-looking really only ever refers to one specific sense of bad apart from all of the others--the one being "unfavourable, not good" as it pertains to appearance. Thus bad-looking means "not good-looking/unattractive". It never means "appearing as though one would be mischievous or inclined to misbehave (i.e. "be bad")" as in "I don't want to adopt that child...that child is bad-looking" (= that child looks as though he/she would never listen to me, i.e. that child looks like they're always going to act like a bad kid). Nor does it ever mean "appearing evil" as in "yeah, that guy is a really bad-looking guy" (= that guy looks as though he would do you harm due to his hateful or evil nature); same with bad-looking food, it's not food that is evidently unhealthy to the eye, it's food that is simply unattractive and unappealing. So although bad-looking is technically SoP, one wouldn't know instinctively which sense of bad is meant, and thus would not know the meaning without the entry to expound on it. We need to keep it for that reason alone imo. Leasnam (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, keep, although I looked askance at it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

rooftop

Um, it's used attributively, and not an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete per Donnanz. Canonicalization (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

bars

Imprisonment; prison.

I know of no expression using bars in which these terms are substitutable. Taking the usage example: *"behind imprisonment"; *"behind prison". DCDuring (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As there is an entry for behind bars, which I would keep, it can be redirected or referred to that. I think sense 4 also needs to be looked at. DonnanZ (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I will RFD sense 4. Mihia (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Per the Tea Room discussion, this definition isn't quite right IMO, but I believe that there is a figurative usage beyond just the expression "behind bars". For example, in the expression "prison bars", which was at one point also given as an example of this sense, "bars" is usually more-or-less figurative. "bars" is also used figuratively to mean something that constrains one in e.g. "The bars that imprison you can be walked through by having faith in God's promises"[78] and similar uses. More ideally, we can find some examples similar to this where the full figurative burden falls on "bars", without helpers like "imprison". I think this kind of usage probably deserves an entry, either under "bars", or under "bar" labelled "plural", but not with the definition that we presently have. Mihia (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bars can naturally be used as a pars pro toto for an assemblage in which bars play a prominent role, so “prison bars” is not simply the plural of “prison bar”, but is formed by applying the attribute “prison” to the plural form “bars”. I think that in the idiom “behind bars” this is understood to be specifically short for “behind prison bars”, which longer form is also occasionally found. And then “behind (prison) bars” is used more figuratively for “being imprisoned”. (For similar figurative uses of a prepositional phrase, see on the rails and on wheels.) I do not think this justifies the sense “imprisonment; prison” here; that is too much of a jump. Likewise, the French idiom derrière les barreaux and the German idiom hinter Gittern have not given rise to assigning such a sense to barreaux and Gittern. Ergo, Delete.  --Lambiam 11:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per Lambiam, unless this can be used generally, outside of the set phrase mentioned (which is perhaps an RFV matter), like *"the judge sentenced him to eight years of bars". IN that case, I would reconsider, but not automatically switch to keep, since as Lambiam suggests, some pars pro toto use can be expected of most terms. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

private wiki

DTLHS (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 16:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

protected wiki

DTLHS (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see this as a really specialised sense of protected like in object-oriented programming. It's just that the nature of "protecting" a wiki tends to be limiting its editorship. Equinox ◑ 16:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. HeliosX (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

bars (2)

Sense 4:

Grating, grid (if crossed), grill (on a door or window)

Not a separate sense, just the usual plural of appropriate sense of "bar". The present usage example "prison bars" is typically an example of a more-or-less figurative use of "bars"; see #bars above. See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2019/October#bars. Mihia (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete, not a separate sense.  --Lambiam 09:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. Canonicalization (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

November 2019

dear sir

SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I do not think combining the meanings of the parts allows one to conclude that this is a dated formal salutation used in letters.  --Lambiam 10:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Move to the appendix called "How we used to write letters before Twitter". Equinox ◑ 10:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir Equinox, maybe Twitter should be scrapped. I'm inclined to keep this. And "Dear sir or madam" is/was used when you don't know who is going to read the letter. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You're an idiot. And Twitter should definitely be scrapped. Equinox ◑ 05:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. There are lots of common phrases which are not words, and thus not the domain of a dictionary. If we wanted to document all sentences and sentence fragments this might have a place here. - TheDaveRoss 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

? We have lots of entries that are common phrases which are not words (e.g. I told you so, and your little dog too, beware of the dog, bowler hat out, cooking with gas, could have fooled me, dot or feather, down with, fair is fair, goose is cooked, in love with, leave me alone, mother of all, not your father's, one thing led to another, rumor has it, that'll be the day, what's up with, who knew, you're telling me).  --Lambiam 18:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not a noun. It's a phrase --Vealhurl (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

For me, this is an obvious keep. John Cross (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Inclined to keep per Lambiam. Falls in the same category as other conventional formulas largely restricted to particular narrow usage contexts, like once upon a time, to whom it may concern, etc. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

wine bottle

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.[79] -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)

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)

beer bottle

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)

for fun

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[80], Lexico[81]. 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 for

"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 to

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 To

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 Paid

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

Ex Works

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

Free Carrier

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)

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)

singular they

Is this SOP? Many (any?) pronouns which are commonly used in both the singular and the plural can be distinguished this way, like also google books:"the singular you" and "the plural you"; in another vein one can speak of google books:"the formal you" and "the informal you". I can even find a hit for "Equality's use of the “singular 'we'” has long since become familiar to the reader" (2005, Robert Mayhew, Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem (→ISBN), page 109), although that seems to be more often referred to by phrases like "royal we"/"editorial we"/"authorial we", which I'm not RFDing because they seem more opaque. - -sche (discuss) 06:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep for me. Since "they" is traditionally plural, its use for singular referents is something that is commonly discussed in grammar/ling/education etc. If one doesn't know this lexical history, the term is pretty opaque. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep I still run into people who mistakenly think that singular usage is erroneous. Tharthan (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Would the two of you want to have singular you as well? (Citations at the Google Books link in my earlier comment.) Do you find singular you opaque? - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

On further investigation, it seems that the pronoun in such cases (whether you, they, we, or whatever) is marked by being in quotes or italics or something like that (e.g. "the singular they"), so this seems to indicates that it is not a compound noun. So, I change my vote to Delete. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I just realised that this is an RfD for singular they, and not one for the singular sense of they. I, too, change my vote to Delete. Tharthan (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Noteworthy set phrase that people are likely to want to look up. Should strictly be listed as singular they or singular "they", but I don't know whether we can accommodate this at Wiktionary. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

ghost corridor

"A corridor of a building that has been connected to supposed ghostly activity." Sum of parts. Note that the given citation is for "ghost's corridor". Equinox ◑ 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Per "retiring" above, I do feel there is a possible case for including a potentially SoP entry when a non-SoP entry is also listed. Someone could look up a "ghost corridor" that was intended in the "haunted house" sense, and get terribly confused. The logic for keeping this is IMO just as strong as the "coalmine" argument. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe the way we usually handle this is with {{&lit}}, as on dead president. Delete and add {{&lit}} in its place. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Per dead president, the entry would then read "Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see ghost, corridor". I am not completely sure that users would readily understand from this the meaning "A corridor of a building that has been connected to supposed ghostly activity". Mihia (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

-town

This is merely town used as a combining form in place names. In fact it is separable, as in Canning Town, Kentish Town. However, I think the form -ton is acceptable as a suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete once -town no longer appears in etymology tempates. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 19:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC).

point of no return

"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 2019

Ludgate Hill

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 [82]. 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)

Juliet

"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[83] and Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition at collinsdictionary.com[84]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

work like a charm

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: [85]. (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 the Google Books 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”, in 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 cave

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)

• Keep - fried egg... I believe there are plenty of citations online, books and Scholar that can be used to improve and support the definition. There are several related words/idioms: wine cask, wine bar, wine cooler, wine rack, wine thief, winepress, wineskin, wine vault, man cave, ice cave, coal cellar, root cellar and salt cellar. TFSA (talk) 11:34, 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)

January 2020

Insert

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 redistribution

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 firster

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)

• Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

m³/s

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, m², m³, 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 cop

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)

"A representation of X" as a sense of X (unicorn, etc)

portcullis, salamander, wheel

~20 entries have one definition for an animal or thing, then another for "A [heraldic] representation of such a [thing]". I want to delete the "heraldic" senses as redundant to the main senses; compare how we deleted the definition of Talk:quadriga as a representation of a quadriga. Such a sense could be added to any common (and many uncommon!) plant, animal, or object: an oak, hawk, gauntlet, etc, all exist in heraldry as "a representation of such a thing", and the use of "eagle", etc to refer to a representation rather than a real bird, etc is not (as claimed) limited to heraldry: my friend has an eagle hanging on her fridge (that her kid drew), there's an eagle (stylized representation) on the coin in my pocket. In a few cases, the def adds additional info, e.g. that a heraldic wheel is "usually with six spokes": well, a "representation" of a house, if you ask any child or many adults to make a quick sketch, is "usually rectangular or with a triangular roof", but does this mean "house" needs another sense? Nonetheless, by all means say if you'd like to keep some and delete others.
Note: lion claims to be "a stylized representation of a large cat", but given the leeway of "stylized" surely it really means "a stylized representation of a lion". And Agnus Dei oddly distinguishes "A small model or a picture of a lamb with a cross" from "A heraldic representation of a lamb with a cross", while woodwose includes "...or a representation such" in its one singular definition. (Bezant, in contrast, says that in non-heraldic use it means a particular coin of either gold or silver, while in heraldry it's any gold coin, which if true makes it different; similarly, ichthys and gillyflower have no corresponding non-heraldic sense, so I'm not RFDing those.) - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Just droppin' in to say that I like the cut of your research jib. Wow, what a list. Actually: agree with the general point ("there's a bathroom in my daughter's doll's house" should not support "bathroom" as "a tiny model of a normal bathroom"). I do wonder about heraldry, because it's the most stylised thing in the world and there might be some cases where a heraldic X actually isn't very similar to a real-world X; but I admit I have no particular example to show and would just like to be sure that whoever deletes these does it conscientiously, and checks this stuff. Equinox ◑ 09:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

[[salamander]] says representations of them in heraldry "always" include flames, and though a look around Google Images turns up a few salamanders without flames (so the wording should be "typically"), that entry may be the best candidate for different treatment. (I'm open to the idea some of these may be keep-worthy even if the bulk aren't.) But then, it also looks like the flames aren't considered part of the representation of the salamander per se, but are blazoned separately, as "a salamander in flames proper", "a salamander argent, crowned and in golden flames", etc, so, meh. A phoenix, which does not currently have a heraldry-specific def, is also often represented in or near flames, if we decide that kind of thing is sense-worthy. - -sche (discuss) 12:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thinking more about the question of whether stylization is lexical: a "pedestrian" on a traffic sign almost always has a dot for a head (often unconnected from his body) and no hands, unlike a real pedestrian whose nonspherical head stays attached as long as cars brake for him, but is that lexical? Might it be sufficient to just put an image of a "pedestrian crossing" sign on [[pedestrian]], and of a unicorn supporter on [[unicorn]], etc? - -sche (discuss) 12:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Such images are nice, even though not at all essential to understanding. The heraldic details are encyclopedic, not lexical.  --Lambiam 14:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is a practice under which the figure in the street sign is referred to as "a pedestrian" in the same way as an heraldic lion is referred to as a lion. If you incorporated the figure from the street sign into a coat of arms, I don't think people would look at it and say, "ah, a pedestrian, dexter, on a field argent". bd2412 T 06:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that it's not just heraldry that has specific, well-defined ways of representing things. Eastern Christian iconography has well-established traditions in this regard. The vocabulary might be less technical, however. But it's the same general principle. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ceci n'est pas une pipe Purplebackpack89 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete all where there is nothing uniquely special about the heraldic representation versus some other depiction. Mihia (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete all. Canonicalization (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the heraldic sense from "Bengal tiger", the most egregious of these; it was defined as being used in the Coat of arms of Malaysia and Coat of arms of Singapore, but (1) the tigers on them look very different from each other but are clearly both representations of real tigers, and (2) neither is or is intended to be a Bengal tiger. I also deleted/merged griffin, harp, and popinjay. I struck double eagle; I expanded its heraldic sense slightly to include other iconographic and symbolic use; there's no other sense for the "representation" sense to be merged into.
Of the rest, only salamander (with its claim of being depicted together with fire), wheel (with its claim of a specific number of spokes) and hunting horn (with its claim of a specific shape) seem to go beyond being mere representations of the things. Crown tries to make itself sound idiomatic by saying it can appear on the heraldry even of an individual who has no physical crown (like the king of Belgium supposedly doesn't) or who has no head (like a town), but this seems vacuous as a city could also have a tiger or something on its coat of arms even if it does not have a real tiger within its city limits. - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've merged the heraldic senses of "book", "cockatrice", "eagle", "dragon", "lion", "mitre", "unicorn", and "hunting horn" into the general senses, adding images of heraldic arms in the first few cases and revising the definition in the last case, since I also added an image of a real hunting horn of the type depicted in heraldry, showing that real hunting horns do not have to be a spiral. One thing that can be seen from the collage of heraldic eagles I added to "eagle" and from comparing the various coats of arms that feature lions or dragons is that there is no one depiction; different people traditionally or individually draw them in different styles and at often vastly different levels and directions of abstraction. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

see

"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)

Broxholme Lane

Created by Wonderfool in response to there being an entry for Ludgate Hill. I'm pretty sure the was trolling. --AcpoKrane (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, probably. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

cease to be

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)

homing instinct

SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

like

I admit I found this very confusing, but the adverb sense "For example, such as; introduces an example or a list of examples." does not seem to be an adverb, but instead a preposition, and is already seemingly covered by our preposition defs. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/August#like,_such_as. Mihia (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

shining part

Just a pretty phrase. NISoP. See shining (def. 4)/shine (def. 3) and part (def. 2 etc.). DCDuring (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's quoted from a poem, isn't it? "Every shining part" seems to ring a vague bell. Equinox ◑ 15:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

But which one?

A moon upon a moonlit sea
To me thou art;
And every shining part
Of heaven belong to thee;

from “Lost!“, Leon Gellert (1892–1977); or

Deep in the water's crystal heart,
Replete in every shining part.

from “The Moon and the Lake”, John Leonidas Rosser (1875–1972)?  --Lambiam 19:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay... not familiar. Maybe I'm getting mixed up with "sea to shining sea". Equinox ◑ 19:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

as far as

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[86] 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 [87]:

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[88]: "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)

pickled onion

Is this SOP? The bit about it being a common bar food seems non-lexical. Other pickled (bar or other) foods include pickled pigs' feet and pickled olives. (See also pickled egg: is that SOP too?) - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My comment above was a question rather than a clear delete !vote, because I was kind of on the fence, but at this point I do think this should be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say it is SOP, really the only non-SOP pickled item I can think of is a pickle, which is a pickled cucumber. I have pickled garlic and pickled beets on the shelf right now. - TheDaveRoss 13:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, keep, I forgot about fried egg. - TheDaveRoss 13:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss Hmm, but does this actually pass that test? Just being a food is not enough: what part of the definition goes beyond "pickled" + "onion"? The IMO non-lexical detail that it can be found, but certainly not exclusively, in bars? The claim that it's pickled specifically in vinegar? AFAICT that's partly wrong and partly an attribute of "pickled". Or do we want entries for pickled cucumber, pickled olive (pickled black olive) and every other pickled food? - -sche (discuss) 17:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@-sche I guess my view is that if fried egg is somehow lexical then so is pickled onion. In my book fried egg is not a lexical unit, even though it is most commonly fried in a particular way and an egg of a particular animal, it isn't always either of those things. If we have determined that fried egg merits inclusion then I can't see enough of a difference to exclude pickled onion. - TheDaveRoss 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss So, can I add all the other pickled things, too, like pickled pigs' feet, pickled black olives and other pickled olives, pickled green beans and other pickled beans, pickled corn, pickled grapes, pickled pears, etc? (And what about a pickled brain, pickled penis, etc?) - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. As I understand it, the fried egg rule is not because it is food, but because there are restrictions on what constitutes a "fried" egg that do not match all the ways one commonly fries eggs. Specifically, a "scrambled" egg is fried, but is not called a "fried egg". This does not apply to pickled onions. Usually, a pickled onion is either a cocktail onion or the spicy pickled red onions one finds in salsa bars. However, any onion one pickles is called a pickled onion - that is, the term is not restricted to the more common forms, the way fried egg is restricted. Kiwima (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep as a type of food. I'm not terribly keen on them, but they are probably regarded as a delicacy. DonnanZ (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In BrE, "pickled onion" is a highly debatable case, in my opinion. Yes, it is an onion that is pickled, but also it has a place in the cuisine or culture of the country far beyond what is true for e.g. "pickled olive" or "pickled bean". Mihia (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Not in any traditional lemming: “pickled onion”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Seems to be a sum of parts so if it is to be kept, there has to be a redeeming property. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete... This is certainly a commonly pickled food and Brits know what it is, and they know they can be found behind the bar, just above the Scampi Fries and below the Glenfiddich; but it's still just an onion that has been pickled; there's no magic about it, and no special meaning. I am mainly posting here to tell you that -sche has gone totally mad and created pickled olive and pickled black olive (because we don't have Wikipedia's WP:GAME policy) and he is now standing on the roof of the Beer Parlour with a spud gun. Equinox ◑ 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, and I have nominated -sche's (seemingly bad-faith) creations mentioned by Eq. The "but it's a food" reasoning is patently stupid. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think a question that we can ask ourselves is whether there is any type of onion that has been pickled that would not be a pickled onion in the commonly understood British sense. Somewhere in the combination of size, type, pickling method, packaging, presentation, serving etc., I think the answer to this question is probably yes, implying that the common British sense is something more than purely sum-of-parts. Whether this is enough to save the entry, I'm not so sure. It may be the case that a variety of ostensibly SoP foodstuff terms have usual local forms in various places, but listing all of these could be beyond the scope of any dictionary. Mihia (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  I suspect that most (and I know that some) of the restrictions go (a) beyond this collocation, and even (b) beyond the scope of what is lexical. For example, the same restrictions apply if you say you've just gotten some onions which you were going to pickle and some brine/vinegar to pickle them with. Restrictions also apply if a recipe for a pasta sauce or fajitas or something calls for "1 onion, diced": a reader will infer that a very tiny onion the size of a spring onion is not meant, and may also infer that some (e.g. sweet) kinds of onion may not be meant. (Btw, I did not initially RFD pickled egg, precisely because it claims that it is restricted to hen's eggs, but I suspect it too is SOP and the restriction is on egg: if a recipe calls for "2 large eggs", a reader will infer to add hen's/chicken's eggs, not ostrich eggs, although these are large eggs.) - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It could be a question of what type of onion is pickled. They always seem to be small, larger than a spring onion, but not whopping big onions. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. There is no British sense. The recipes one finds for pickled onions, in English, do not go beyond what one expects from the concept of pickling, and are the same as for Russian-language recipes for маринованный лук (marinovannyj luk), and the resulting cans and whole onions look the same. Fay Freak (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• There are 62 in favour of keeping, and 26 in favour of deletion, so this is RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, FYI, the vote tallies are reversed (the conclusion is correct). - TheDaveRoss 14:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

stupidfucker

This would be a rare misspelling given stupidfucker, stupid fucker at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. does not find it, and no frequency ratio can be determined. Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings; see also Talk:stupidfuck. For contrast, compare coalmine, coal mine at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 13:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, and then let's RFD stupid fucker as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this one of Luciferwildcat's (or was that stupidfuck)? Delete anything he ever did, even if it's an everyday word like cat. "It's the only way to be sure" as they said in Alien. Equinox ◑ 06:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. PUC 20:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

madly in love

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)

• Keep per WT:THUB. Even if až po uši (up to ears) is created, it would not necessarily be translated as "madly" outside of the phrase zamilovaný až po uši. Czech zamilovaný až po uši is listed in Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky and also in Nizozemsko-český/ česko-nizozemský kapesní slovník. Also of note is that madly in love is listed as a boldfaced item in Macmillan English Dictionarys love entry[89]. As for the Polish zakochany po uszy, I am much less certain about its translation in relation to po uszy, not being a Polish native speaker, but at least, the item is mentioned in Nowy słownik angielsko-polski 2003. There is also Japanese 首ったけ by @Suzukaze-c indicated to mean "head over heels in love; madly in love", but that is entered as a noun; should this perhaps be changed to adjective? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • To answer your first point: až po uši could contain all the information necessary: "madly (as in "madly in love")", "used exclusively with zamilovaný", etc.
  • If we really want a translation target entry, I think it should be head over heels in love, which strikes me as more idiomatic, and for which the lemming argument is somewhat stronger.
    • “be fall head over heels in love” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman..
    • “head over heels in love”, in Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1999–present. Canonicalization (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In general, I think this is a borderline case, and the translations are also borderline. Canonicalization (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    I like to opt for a more user-friendly design rather than go for artificial constructions such as "madly (used exclusively with zamilovaný)" to achieve minimality at any and all costs; I do not want red dwarf be moved to red with the use of a similar artificial construction. As for the choice of the translation hub entry, madly in love, head over heels in love at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. shows madly in love to have a higher frequency; head over heels in love is subject to the same sum-of-parts argument, by being broken down to head over heels + in love. That said, it would be better to have the hub at head over heels in love than not to have it at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 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)

Tardislike

Arguably, this is a rare misspelling since it is not found in Tardis-like, Tardislike at the Google Books 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 the Google Books Ngram Viewer., which finds both spellings, and kittenlike,kitten-like at the Google Books 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)

color me

SoP. This just a specific sense of the verb color (sense 5) + pronoun. Leasnam (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sense 5 at color doesn't tell us that "color me X" is very much a set phrase. (In fact I personally can't imagine saying "they coloured him confused".) At the very least we need a clear usage note and some real examples showing the verb in other constructions. Equinox ◑ 02:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

‘Rajinikanth said the attempts to "color him as a BJP man" were not correct.’ — “And the all-day-long pundits ... will ... try to color me naïve for even trying.” — “The Force Awakens humanized Ben from the start, coloring him as a broken human instead of a deadpan machine, like Vader.” (Not all are durably archived.)  --Lambiam 10:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I note also the uses with impersonal objects, such as "The chief minister J Jayalalithaa promptly issued a statement that it was a caste conflict between Thevars and Pallars and tried to colour it as a caste issue". Mihia (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a "portray (as)" sense to sense 5 at "colour". Mihia (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. "Color me X" is not an imperative telling someone to "portray me as X". It's an exclamation meaning "Boy, am I X!" You can't get that from its parts. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Set phrase, and comparatively recent construction. – Jberkel 19:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone understands this at all. It's a play on the printed materials like this that small children were were given for class assignments years ago. They had very simple sentences where the subject of the lesson told the child about itself and how to draw it (with crayons): "I am a fire engine. Color me red." For their class assignment, the child would write a simple one-word answer or two and draw a picture on the printed sheet according to what the printed sentences said. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

if possible

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[90]; 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)

empathy fatigue

NISoP: fatigue of one's empathy. Not even witty. DCDuring (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 13:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

epicene pronoun and gender-neutral pronoun

I believe both epicene pronoun and gender-neutral pronoun are equivalent to the sum of their parts. Looking at WT:SOP, I could see "gender-neutral pronoun" being considered as "likely to be useful to readers", but I don't believe such an argument is strong. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. One can also refer to a person with an "epicene noun" or "gender-neutral noun". - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Clear consensus seems to exist. Can someone, such as Ultimateria or -sche, delete the listed terms? Many thanks. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

like-for-like sales

like-for-like adjective seems to cover this precisely, and is glossed as "sales". Equinox ◑ 00:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• SoP - Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Kaguya

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)

pickled black olive

pickled olive

I respect this entry's creator a great deal, but POINTing is a bad habit, in my opinion... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:GAME! Delete this delicious horror. Equinox ◑ 06:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why the discrimination against pickled green olives?  --Lambiam 08:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

#blackolivesmatter Equinox ◑ 08:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

— SGconlaw (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete both. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete both. Canonicalization (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I always delete the olives from my pizza, pickled or otherwise. -Mike (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• There is an entry for pickled (adjective) and another for black olive. There is no adjective entry for preserved, however, and seemingly no entries for preserved fruit, such as preserved pears, preserved peaches, preserved apricots etc. They all probably taste better than pickled black olives. DonnanZ (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Olives (whether green or black) are too bitter to be enjoyable if they have not been cured. The traditional method uses brine, and is popularly called pickling, although preservation is not the primary objective. Vinegar and herbs may be added for taste, but this is not traditional. The process may leave the olives very salty, which is good for long-time preservation but less so for a nice taste, so some soaking in fresh water before consumption is recommended. Industrially processed olives sold in jars will normally already have been somewhat desalted.  --Lambiam 18:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Your white bourgeois olive-chomping experience will put you first against the wall when the social justice revolution comes. No kidding. Also I now want to eat a raw olive to see what it's like. Equinox ◑ 15:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. This cannot even be idiomatic for the reason Lambiam has given. Table olives only occur in treated, mostly pickled, form. Fay Freak (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Liber AL vel Legis

Multiword book title with no redeeming lexicographical (or cultural) significance, created by a permabanned user. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete as a multi-word title of a modern book. Some other PAM religious texts can be found here, though most of them are single words, and Book of Shadows has been redefined to its generic, common-noun sense, which has more claim to inclusion IMO. I'm tempted to RFD Geniocracy, though. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it has no cultural significance, but it's a book title and (gasp! even worse!) multi-word, indeed. We don't have entries for stuff like Jane Eyre, usually. Delete. Equinox ◑ 07:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Nara period

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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 period

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

different light

Light (sense 7 - A point of view, or aspect from which a concept, person or thing is regarded) seems to cover this, and different is certainly not the only adjective which commonly modifies that sense of light (e.g. new), so SOP? - TheDaveRoss 13:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, translations are also SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Things can also be put in another light. Seen in this light. it is SOP.  --Lambiam 06:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Equinox ◑ 07:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

defining characteristic, defining characteristics

Seems to be defining + characteristic. Just as possible are "defining property", "defining trait", "defining feature" etc. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

... “defining issue”, “defining condition”, “defining question”, “defining element”, ... Delete, totally SOP.  --Lambiam 06:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Equinox ◑ 07:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you know that a defining characteristic alone serves to define, without help from other characteristics? That is to say, how do you know that when A is defined as B such that C and D and E, then C, D and E are not defining characteristics? That is, how do you know this from "defining" and "characteristic"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you know that a defining trait alone serves to define, without help from other traits? If C, D and E need other characteristics, they are not defining. Taken jointly, they might constitute a defining characteristic.  --Lambiam 04:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Mihia (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

keep a lid on it

Redirect to keep a lid on. PUC 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It was created based on a requested entry, but a redirect sounds fine. Rauisuchian (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, redirect. Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirected. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

coronavirus

Recent innovation; synecdochal. Would not have cites spanning a year. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Put the hot word template on it? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep per Eq. Amidst all the stupid coronaviral entries of late, this is one of the few that we can be fairly certain has made its way into the lexicon. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep the general public widely understands coronawirus to mean the virus that causes Covid-19. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete for nominator’s reason. If you look at a newspaper article from the UK, it is bound to refer to “the Queen”. Should there then be a definition “Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom”? I th ink not. Also, if this sense is allowed to remain, then why not any other coronovirus causing widespread outbreaks since the 1960s when the word was coined? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the discussion at #Church.  --Lambiam 11:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep of course. This sense has entered the lexicon on a global level, and will be easily cited in a couple of years. Also, we do include synecdoches AFAIK. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Abstain. But I would probably move it to a sub-sense as a more specific use of the general sense and slap a date on it. -Mike (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've already voted. Moving it to a sub-sense looks like a good idea. I don't know how to do this, perhaps Mike can. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep, because SARS-CoV-2 is probably uniquely well-known. coronavirus is a technical term the general population would rarely need to know prior to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, and given it is an epidemic with far-reaching effects, it will surely be in the general lexicon for years to come. I don't think we can say the same for "queen" or "church". Ajfweb (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So, should we have a sense at flu for "the Spanish flu"? There's no doubt uses of "flu" to mean "the Spanish flu" could be cited from the contemporary media coverage of that flu. Mehhh. I lean towards deletion on that basis. If it's kept, perhaps it should be a subsense, as suggested above. (The suggestion above that this virus will have more "far-reaching effects" or whatnot than the church / the Church is ... amusing.) - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the difference is that it would have been called "the flu" as the most prominent type of flu at the time. In this case, "coronavirus" is often used without an article, indicating that people view it as a type of disease, not an allusion to a type of coronavirus. On this basis, I vote keep, though it could perhaps be relegated to a subsense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep as separate sense. – Jberkel 23:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep, it's obvious the second sense is widely used in the media, moreso than any other synonym for the COVID-19. In fact, it seems like many are even unaware of the first sense --217.105.26.102 11:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep as a hot word. That it is a separate sense is clear from sentences like "Coronavirus started in Hubei and has spread around the world" or "There were no confirmed coronavirus cases in Africa before February 14"—the first sense doesn't work for these sentences, because the family Coronaviridae probably didn't originate in Hubei and there were cases of Coronaviridae infections in Africa before February 14. (I made these two examples up, but I've encountered lots of similar usage recently—if anyone doubts that this usage exists please ping me and I'll look for citations. Though technically that would be an RFV issue.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

social stratification

Isn't the definition for this virtually the same as sense 4 of stratification? And isn't the process of stratification social by definition? Imetsia (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

delete'. @Imetsia is right, this is the same as sense 4 of stratification, with the modifier "social" added to indicate which type of stratification is meant. It is NISOP. Kiwima (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC 15:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

sexa-

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.[91] 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)

corporate monster

Definitions: "1. A large corporation whose practices pay insufficient heed to social responsibility. 2. A high-ranking corporate officer who uses unscrupulous means to promote their own interest or that of their corporation." Both seem SOP to me, with monster applying to unethical behaviour on both an individual and corporate level and corporate qualifying that. I've said in a previous RFV that "I think any non-rantish, not overspecific definition would automatically fail RFD." So let's run it up the flagpole. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. As I said in the same RfV, the discussion should be re-opened whether this is not just SOP. I think it is, so let's get rid of this lexicographic monster. That said, perhaps the senses of monster should be slightly extended; an entity does not need to be extremely cruel or antisocial to be called a monster, nor does it have to be a person in the sense that term is commonly understood.  --Lambiam 10:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. PUC 15:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Now a major motion picture. Delete – Jberkel 23:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

pull a Columbine

NISOP. We already have a definition of Columbine as "An incident in which someone shoots multiple people at a school." And there isn't any particularity with the word "pull." One could certainly just "plot a Columbine" or "carry out a Columbine." Indeed, one could instead "pull a Jonestown." (This discussion was originally at RFV, and I just appropriated this reasoning from @Kiwima and @Lambiam). Imetsia (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC 15:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP.  --Lambiam 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me that Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#do_a,_pull_a could do with more input so that it may be resolved one way or another. Mihia (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Over the years I've deleted several bogus entries in the form "pull a(n) X", where X is the name of some individual the vandal wants to insult by asserting that some undesirable action is characteristic of that person, with the action being described in the definition. For instance, the entry might be (to make up an arbitrary example): "pull a Joe" with definition like "to stab your coworkers in the back by reporting them to management over nothing". This shows that "pull a(n) X" is a very generic construction that's almost completely independent of the identity of X. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

English-based

German-based

SOP. The definition given is not the full picture (a "German-based" company is based in Germany, just as well as a "German-based" creole is based on a German language), and the phrase isn't special, one can also have a "Portuguese-based" creole, a "Chinese-based" company, etc. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SoP.  --Lambiam 06:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete both, SOP. PUC 18:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete all "X-based" where the meaning is nothing more than "based on X". Mihia (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Court

I submit to the Court that any word for an institution or title can be capitalized in this way, and it does not require an entry; the Cabal and the Church see RFD above and the Association disapprove, though the Department, the State and the University catalogue such things in the Book of Records on the orders of the Mayor, etc. - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete in accordance with the tenets of the School.  --Lambiam 18:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete: we've done it with others (New and City, IIRC?). Equinox ◑ 18:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

YRC for New: Talk:New#RFD discussion: September 2016. We do have City which AFAIK was never challenged.  --Lambiam 18:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

dwagon

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)

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)

• 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)

• Useless. PUC 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

pearl-necklace

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)

hat parade

SOP? Looks like a hat parade to me. Made by Wonderfool, so most likely crappy. --Alsowalks (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

umbrella body

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) 

• It sounds like a synonym of umbrella organisation, so it's a possible keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

borrowin'

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)

lower extreme

upper extreme

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)

boomer remover

boomer remover 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)

• Financial Times [92]
• The Inquirer [93]
• Newsweek [94]
• New York Post [95]

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 [96][97] 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)

Maastricht Formation

I'm thinking we probably don't want names of formations... it's rather encyclopaedic, even more so than geographic names. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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-19

English entry is redundant, because a Translingual entry already exists for these exact senses. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

Epstein

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)

• Delete for the reason given by Lambiam. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

gone one's separate ways

go one's separate ways and its other verb forms were already deleted, but this one still lingers. Probably should be deleted. Imetsia (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedied - TheDaveRoss 16:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

curve-flattening

Hyphenated attributive form, for which there is precedent for deletion. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 12:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedied as attributive form. - TheDaveRoss 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

provided that

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)

• I agree that this is a general grammatical feature, and nothing particularly to do with "provided". We don't have entries for assuming that, considering that or allowing that, though we do have one for given that. Hmm. Mihia (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of yoten.

(Deleted by @Robbie SWE.) It's a humorous past participle of yeet, and still linked to from that entry. It's in use ([98], [99], [100], [101]). 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)

birth minute

Pretty transparent (SoP) - is this a technical term used in, say medicine? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted by Surjection. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

exponential growth

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

• Keep. Set phrase, widely used and understood. Far more common than exponential expansion, exponential heightening etc. John Cross (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • {{R:Longman}} has an entry for exponential growth, increase, etc.. PUC – 11:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
    • See also: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/exponential_growth John Cross (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep. - TheDaveRoss 12:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete and improve/generalise the definition at exponential. Yes, perhaps exponential growth is a common example, but I see no real difference between this and exponential rise, exponential increase, exponential improvement or anything else. Mihia (talk)

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 ([102], [103]). 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)

marine mammal

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)

dog wheelchair

Somebody told me that this is sum‐of‐parts, so I’m putting it here. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 21:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Whether it's SoP or not, it needs sources, so RFV treatment may be necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? Couldn’t and shouldn’t we delete an entry aquamarine furbelow (defined as a furbelow having an aquamarine colour) as being a pure sum‐of‐parts without searching for attestations? (It reminds me of the joke from Lubitsch’s Ninotchka.)  --Lambiam 10:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Although it is obvious how the sense got extended to contraptions for locomotionally challenged pets, none of the definitions given for wheelchair properly fits this extended use. What about adding a third sense at wheelchair with a “(by extension)” label (and then deleting this specific instance as SOP)? Note that there are also cat wheelchairs and even a tortoise wheelchair.  --Lambiam 10:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s why I made the entry, since a ‘dog wheelchair’ is not a chair at all; it’s more like a set of training wheels, and ‘wheelchair’ does not (at the time of this writing) have any definition corresponding to that. I had never heard of it applied to other animals either until today. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 19:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It seems from Google results that this sense extends to animals generally, in which case we should add it at wheelchair and delete this specific instance. Mihia (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 12:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Animal meaning added, so now Delete.  --Lambiam 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Maven

"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)

Delete – Jberkel 20:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)