Talk:macho queen

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

macho queen

This seems SoP. Also context restrictions don't seem right. DCDuring 05:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem SoP to me at all, since the primary gay sense of (deprecated template usage) queen is "effeminate gay man" rather than "gay man who dresses in women's clothes". (And even that's only relevant if there's some context, since the general primary sense of (deprecated template usage) queen isn't gay-related at all.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the rule? That the more obscure the sense used in a collocation, the more accommodating of inclusion of the collocation we should be? It wouldn't be a bad guideline, though it would be a difficult drafting job to make it a rule. Also how does one attest collocation, probably colloquial, from the "Chinese" gay community? Send a research team to Shanghai or to some Chinatowns? Thanks for finishing the cleanup, R. DCDuring 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If it really has the specific meaning our entry claims, then it's not a collocation so much as an idiom: a phrase with a specific meaning that can't be discerned from its parts (in this case because those parts have lots of meanings, and the idiom has only one). As for attestation — no clue. We'll wait a month, and see if anyone manages. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that I was sure that it was not an idiom. I just wanted to leave the matter open. I thought that idioms are a subset of collocations. Some collocations that are not really idioms can also meet CFI, right? DCDuring 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I see what you're saying. I think of "collocation" as "sequence of words that for no particular reason happen to go together even though you could replace each with a synonym and have the same meaning", but I guess much of that is due to Q-based narrowing and isn't part of the word's actual definition. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So that's what they call the phenomenon. I was hoping that we could keep collocation as a way of referring to terms whose status is not yet settled and which may or may not even be entries. If some other term exists for the purpose, that would be fine too. DCDuring 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)