Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | 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 request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{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 as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, 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.

Newest 10 tagged RFDs

like ass
patch file
FWIW
consecrate a Buddha image
cow urine
baby cake
Sino-Indian
agriculture minister
imaginary friend
Lanapoogly

Oldest 100 tagged RFDs

not-to-scale
elder
occasional furniture
take its toll
Kube
stealth wealth
stem mutation
morel
abstinence
dynamics
ex-minister
be at
lavalier microphone
in conclave
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
anti-Hindu
accessory before the fact
accessory after the fact
unspoken rule
unwritten rule
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
subbranch
Lulu
Nissia
mean time
foregoing
unrequited love
El Camino Real
marine toilet
quarter-
do want
do not want
twelve hundred
December solstice
tacit collusion
aluminium-27
argon-36
argon-38
calcium-45
argon-40
beryllium-9
U-235
run
queen bee
neutron radiation
anti-Israel
number homophone
two-move checkmate
freak
aerophobia
hobosexual
digital signal processing
time perception
Magnificat and Nunc dimittis
racial segregation
diriment impediment
breadcrumb navigation
set-in sleeve
th sound
-tive
mutual aid
reincarnation
blue ribbon jury
language resource
-t
galaxy
Korea
araneomorph funnel-web spider
good deal
channel coal
Achilles tendon reflex time
box ears
malding
whoreson
disem-
consenting adult
make-work job
time stands still
language learning

June 2023

elder

One who is older than another.

Respect your elders.

This sense was removed by Mechanical Keyboarder on 28 April, with the edit summary “redundant”. We still have the translation table. J3133 (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Where it was, diff. It might have been considered redundant to sense 1, "An older person". DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this is difficult. I strongly support keeping the deleted sense ... it's definitely not redundant ... but Im having a hard time explaining why. Maybe it would've been more clear if we hadnt used the word older in the deleted sense with its literal meaning and in sense 1 with its idiomatic meaning of someone who is advanced in age ("elderly"). Further complicating things is that I think elder can also be used both ways, e.g. an elder child can be six years old, but the elders of the community cannot. —Soap— 09:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

[:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mechanical_Keyboarder] shows only 53 edits. Hardly an experienced user. DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

My Oxford Dictionary of English has:

(one's elders) people who are older than one: schoolchildren were no less fascinated than their elders.

(one's elder) a person who is older than one by a specified length of time: she was two years his elder.

Turning to Collins, my copy says, "an older person, one's senior", before covering tribal and religious elders. Online. Collins says: "A person's elder is someone who is older than them, especially someone quite a lot older: The young have no respect for their elders.

On this basis, I recommend that the deleted sense is reinstated. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge senses? The definition of the first sense, “An older person”, is problematic. We give two senses for older: 1. “comparative form of old: more old, elder, senior” and 2. “elderly”. A user who is not proficient in English cannot know that in “An older person” the comparative is meant; used as a noun, elder – whether “an elder” or ”someone’s elder”, does not mean “an elderly person”. (The person referred to may of course happen to be elderly, but this is not conveyed by the term.) That said, like the deleting editor, I suspect that the intention of this definition is the same as that of the deleted sense, so instead of simply reinstating it, I think they should be merged into something unambiguous, such as “Someone who is older (than another person).”  --Lambiam 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 to merging with the first sense. I can't imagine saying, of an older person, "see that elder across the way?" it has to be relative [someone's elder, my / your elder]. +sj + 20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is really an RFV question, isn't it? I think of the YouTube series "Elders React", where the participants were referred to as elders in a non-relative sense, in the same way as the word seniors is used. Here and here are some uses of elders in a non-relative sense. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. My first reaction was that these could be merged with sense 1 as ~"An older person (especially relative to someone else)". But could they, really? Maybe the difference in what "older" means in one vs the other, as Lambiam points out, suggests it's better to keep the senses separate like this (though I would move them next to each other for clarity and redefine this one more like "(in particular) A person who is older than someone else, in relation to that person"). - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep, as the entry currently stands. But I agree with User:This, that and the other that this is an RFV question. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• The wording and numbering may have changed from what is discussed above. What I see now is this:

2. (now chiefly US) An old person.

3. (Should we delete⁽⁺⁾ this sense?) (relational, chiefly in the plural) One who is older than another.

Respect your elders.

For me, sense 3 is a keep. I'm not very familiar with sense 2 -- I guess because it is US -- but assuming it means an old person, in absolute terms, and not an older person in relative terms, then it should be separately kept. Mihia (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

July 2023

take its toll

To me this is NISoP, as the quotations seem to me to show. DCDuring (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Agree this in principle could be SoP, but the relevant sense of toll is worded poorly (loss or damage incurred through a disaster), whereas the definition here does not reference a disaster per se. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would say that the "take ... toll" pattern is in itself idiomatic enough to keep, but there are the usual doubts and problems about how to lemmatise it, given the variations possible. Mihia (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

keep. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This sense of "toll" seems to be usable for any figurative "cost" in the form of negative effects. Phrases like "exact a heavy toll" come to mind, not to mention "pay a price". "Take" is fairly strongly collocated because it alliterates and works well prosodically with "toll", in the same way the "pay" and "price" go together. Whatever comes in between is prosodically unimportant, so it can be almost anything that makes sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Either delete take its toll or take a toll. Maybe it would be better if both are deleted and instead consolidated to something like take toll, mentioning the reflexive/impersonal sense? Besides, take its toll is basically just take a toll with a preposition.

Furthermore, petition for speedy deletion of take a heavy toll. That's like creating separate entries for e.g. taking a long break, taking a short break, etc. JimiY☽ru 06:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Kube

Rfd-sense "(computing) An individual container of the Kubernetes orchestration system." Jargon specific to a particular system, not particularly relevant for a general dictionary. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete Jberkel 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep. Not sure why we shouldn't have jargon. The real question is whether it's attestable. cf (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

RFV. CitationsFreak is right. Ugh, the "jargon" argument reminds me of this IP editor who removed the enneagram definition of w, with the edit summary "Removed excessively niche definition". Being "excessively niche" has never been an argument to delete an attestable definition or entry from Wiktionary. Khemehekis (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

August 2023

stem mutation

Originally this entry claimed it was a synonym of apophony / ablaut, meaning an internal vowel change like get vs. got. That's trivially false: of the first 5 relevant results I found on Google Books, 3 of them were talking about consonant changes (e.g. "nominal morphology of conservative Adamawa Fula is characterised by ... nominal stem mutation based on a system of initial consonant alternation" [1]). That leaves it just defined as a change in the stem, which looks SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Since nobody's bitten on this so far, I'd also point out that "stem mutation" is attested in other contexts like biology for genetic mutations in a plant stem or in stem cells [2], so it doesn't seem to restrict the meaning of "stem". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

abstinence

Two strange senses here. We've got:

1. (not being RFD'd): The act or practice of abstaining, refraining from indulging a desire or appetite. (with a bunch of subsenses)
2. ? The practice of self-denial; self-restraint; forebearance from anything.
3. ? (obsolete) Self-denial; abstaining; or forebearance of anything.

These are cited to the Shorter OED, which I don't have, but don't seem to correspond to anything in the full OED, which just distinguishes self-restraint (+ subsenses) and the practice of abstaining from a specific thing. I don't see what the distinction between our senses is meant to be, nor how the third one could be obsolete. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: I agree that senses 2 and 3 seem redundant to sense 1. Perhaps the terms “forbearance”, “self-denial”, etc., can be worked into sense 1. As for the difference between senses 2 and 3, perhaps the editor was trying to distinguish between uncountable and countable senses. The better way to do this is as follows: “(uncountable) Abstaining, forbearance, or self-denial; (countable) an instance of this.” But if the senses are merged into sense 1 this is unnecessary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

dynamics

Rfd-sense: "Forces that stimulate growth, change, or development. The changing dynamics in international politics led to such an outcome."

I don't think this sense is plural-only—you can say for example "the dynamic of China–US relations"—dynamic#Noun just maybe needs a better gloss. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe—but definitely not unless any revision made to the plural-form entry is carefully coordinated with revisions to the singular-form entry, where several senses are arguably plural-only and have sample sentences where the entryword is used in the plural. — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

be at

SOP. Compare "be on", "be in", etc. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If the usage examples are correct (and I don't know that they are) I think this would be worth keeping since it departs from standard English grammar. Vergencescattered (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds. On the one hand, I hate this—"where are you at " (or "where you at"!) means exactly the same as "where are you". But people do say this. My nephew says it all the time. If it's worth keeping nonstandard grammar, then I guess we should keep it. Though the meaning does seem pretty transparent, and I doubt anybody will be left in the dark if we don't keep it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

lavalier microphone

Is this SOP? You can also just call it a lavalier#Noun... we also have "lavaliere microphone" as a usex of lavaliere#Adjective (note the spelling variation). - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

WT:JIFFY? The earliest attestation for "lavalier microphone" I can find is 1946 (in Sales Management vol. 56), "lavalier" by itself seems to be a later development (OED has 1972, I can see some in the 60s). In early sources "lavalier-type microphone" seems to be common. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep as WT:JIFFY. I also edited the def here and at lavalier. This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there other uses for lavaliere#Adjective besides microphones? Jberkel 13:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

in conclave

SOP. PUC – 14:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The omission of the article is surprising, no? Isn't this part of a closed class of phrases like in force, in step, in secret, ...? (Note that, unlike in camera, in vitro, ..., this one is not Latin. That would be in conclāvī.) This, that and the other (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t it a predictable construction when an uncountable noun is involved? I’m thinking of examples like in amazement, in horror and in joy. The main thing to make clear would be that conclave can be used in this uncountable sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it uncountable in any other situation though? "Conclave is ..." for example. This, that and the other (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious, my vote is keep. This, that and the other (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think this construction needs an explanation, any more than "in school" or "in church" (although I note we do have "in hospital"). Still, it's just in + conclave, and it should be understandable by anyone who knows (or looks up) the meaning of "conclave" P Aculeius (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an unusual formation; readers may want to look it up to see if it has some special meaning. Moreover, a dictionary is not just for readers of English to look up terms they run across, but also for writers of English to check whether they are using correct idiomatic terms. This, that and the other (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

October 2023

adoptive mother

SOP. All translations appear SOP too. Compare Talk:madre adoptiva (Spanish). This, that and the other (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Reluctant keep because the Japanese translation doesn't appear SOP. 養 doesn't show up by itself as a word in the dictionaries I have with me. MedK1 (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

養 is given as the Japanese translation of adoptive. Perhaps the Japanese entry simply needs expansion. This, that and the other (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete if someone can confirm the East Asian translations are SOP. PUC – 14:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as transparently SoP. A mother who is adoptive. bd2412 T 03:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing !vote per THUB evidence. bd2412 T 15:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on Korean, it is not SOP. And Manchu does not look to be SOP either. AG202 (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep as THUB per @AG202. I would ask @ExcarnateSojourner and @BD2412 to reconsider based on this new information. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, keep as THUB then. Thanks for the ping. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 23:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

pro-Hamas and anti-Hamas

SOP Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. We must draw the line somewhere. Otherwise there is no end to it: pro-Trump, anti-Biden, pro-ISIS, anti-Taliban, ..., all are easily attested, with exactly the meaning one would expect.  --Lambiam 16:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete per Lambiam. PUC – 17:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

These should easily be Speedied. AG202 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Created them in good faith! We have pro-Israel and anti-Israel so we probably should be consistent, or invoke the dumb WT:COALMINE rule. P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody doubts your good faith. The canary-in-a-coalmine rule would apply if proHamas and antiHamas were acceptable orthographic variants, but they are not.  --Lambiam 11:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is the dirty word here. IMO, where there is no practical alternative, Lambiam's assertion is flawed. I can sympathise with WF in this particular case. DonnanZ (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What does this even mean? Theknightwho (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Prefixes aren't words. A single word should not be considered SOP. No one would argue that a term like antifascist is SOP; the only difference is the presence of a hyphen, which is grammatically required before a capital letter to prevent camelCase. See Talk:anti-Putinism and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Including hyphenated prefixed words as single words. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"antifascist" is quite obviously SoP. What ought to happen is that someone looking up "antiX", in the case where no non-SoP word (e.g. differently constituted word) exists, should get some kind of an auto-generated "try anti + X" hint, which will eliminate the need for us to anticipate every possible combination and create a million individual SoP entries. The same can apply to all such limitlessly reusable prefixes that may or may not be hyphenated. Mihia (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, since a word like anti-Hamas is SoP. However, if there are enough people who write it like antiHamas, then anti-Hamas must be included (along with antiHamas.) CitationsFreak (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We really do need to somehow move beyond this fixation that a trivial and cosmetic stylistic choice of writing e.g. "antiHamas" vs "anti-Hamas" is actually important to SoP and inclusion arguments. Mihia (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: While I agree with you in principle, it's difficult to draw up a rule that distinguishes SOP from idiomatic uses of affixes clearly and unambiguously enough to avoid endless argumentation and inconsistency. Even if we had one, it would still be hard to get consensus. As with most of our CFI, it's a compromise. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Anything of the form e.g. "antiX" or "anti-X" that is deemed to have a meaning not entirely predictable from the components, including any idiomatic cases such as you mention, should of course continue to have its own individual entry. In the case of argumentation or disagreement about whether this is the case, these would have to go to RFD, just as happens now in any other SoP dispute. Mihia (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You're just repeating Ioxxere's argument without addressing mine. There's nothing that makes pro-Hamas any more SOP than proshipper or proscience. You're treating pro- and Hamas as separate words, even though pro- is a prefix and cannot be used on its own. The only difference between pro-Hamas and a word like profascist is the presence of a hyphen, which is a requirement in English grammar because the alternative spelling of proHamas would look unusual to native speakers. This interpretation of WT:SOP effectively forbids all entries for prefixed words derived from capitalized stems. It's also the reason we have so few entries for words prefixed with ex-, despite it being one of the most common English prefixes – the prefix is almost always followed by a hyphen, which means that any resulting words are likely to be treated as "compounds" of ex- and the base stem. Binarystep (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel like it is the same concept. The reason we can't have "wine-lover" is that any user could just look up both "wine" and "lover" to get the full picture. Same thing with "pro-" and "Hamas". I do not care if the distribution of prefixed words is off, as we should have a note explaining why. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

A wine-lover is a lover of wine. Someone who is pro-Hamas does not feel pro- about Hamas. I think WT:SOP works best if it's strictly applied to compounds rather than transparent single-word entries. Wiktionary purports that its goal is to include "all words in all languages". I don't see why the presence of a hyphen should change that. Sure, the meaning of pro-Hamas is obvious... but so is profascist, and I don't think most users would consider that SOP. Binarystep (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Some one who is pro-Hamas is "agreeing with; supporting; favouring" "a militant Palestinianist and Sunni Muslim movement". It is SoP. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone who is profascist is "agreeing with; supporting; favouring" "a right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition". Is profascist SOP? Binarystep (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

As a single word, no. If there was only the word "pro-fascist", then it would be indeed SoP. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

profascist and pro-fascist are both single words. Prefixes aren't words. Binarystep (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Meant that in the sense of "-ist" and "black hole" being words. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete both as SoP. pro and anti can be used on their own (in the same way that prepositions can). This at least technically opens the door to pro-Hamas being pro (preposition) + Hamas (which I would consider, like wine-lover, to be more clearly not entry-worthy). — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• "anti-". in the sense of being opposed to something, can be applied to almost literally ANY noun, with totally predictable meaning. "anti-parking", "anti-landfill", "anti-pumpkin" ... you name it. I completely fail to see the point of creating thousands and thousands of individual entries defining "anti-X" as meaning "opposed to X" for every noun in the dictionary. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And, by the way, if we can somehow also eliminate the nonsense whereby it supposedly matters that three people somewhere wrote "antipumpkin", then so much the better. Mihia (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

pro-Israel and anti-Israel

Nominating these as sum-of-parts as well. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete these and all similar. Limitless, blatantly SoP pattern. Mihia (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

pro-Russian and anti-Russian

Also P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Keep at least as a translation hub. Nyuhn (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to 3+ non-compound translations for each? I only see maybe one (Chinese) for pro-Russian though I'm not sure about the Hungarian breakdown for both. AG202 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Others

Also nominating the following entries on the same basis as above. I have left out terms that have non-hyphenated forms, such as anti-Muslim and pro-Muslim. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

anti-American and pro-American

I did notice Cebuano amboy for pro-American. DonnanZ (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) (Modified)

That's WT:LEMMING. Which isn't offcial policy yet. But it could be. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

pro-Arab

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

anti-British and pro-British

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

pro-Indonesian

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

anti-Jew and pro-Jew

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

anti-Palestinian and pro-Palestinian

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

anti-Slavism and pro-Slavism

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

pro-US

• Personally I would keep all of these (if cited) as single words. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, per my comment above. DonnanZ (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

primiparous

Rfd-sense: "bearing a first offspring; having borne only one previous offspring", same as the senses "pregnant for the first time" and "having given birth to only one child" above. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think the first sense also needs to be deleted or at least verified: a woman who just became pregnant for the first time is not a woman who has given birth to only one child. IMO only the second sense is correct, although I think it is better to define this sense as “Having given birth for the first time”. The definition of the third sense is off. Queen Hatshepsut gave birth to only one child, buy it would be ludicrous to write something like “Queen Hatshepsut was a primiparous Pharaoh”. And when María Josefa Pimentel gave birth to the second of her many children, she had borne only one previous offspring but was not primiparous. So I definitely support deletion of the third sense.  --Lambiam 16:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A woman who is pregnant for the first time is primigravid. The first sense should perhaps be "giving birth for the first time" instead. RcAlex36 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought of that, but when I read “At 10–11 months postpartum, primiparous mothers continued to be more attentive”,^[3] or “3 months postpartum, when primiparous mothers have become familiar with their infants”,^[4] the present participle is too present. In fact, all GBS hits I see for primiparous mother are about postpartum behaviour or offspring survival statistics.  --Lambiam 16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

school-age

Attributive form of school age, not a real adjective. We also don't want working-age alongside working age. PUC – 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that it excludes university (and probably kindergarten, if people want to split hairs). —Soap— 18:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster considers it an adjective, unlike other dictionaries I checked. In any case, I've added a noun alt form section since school-age is attestable outside of attributive uses. If the adjective sense is deleted, the translation table should probably be moved to school-aged. I also created schoolage (with a noun header), which seems to occur only attributively. Einstein2 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any purpose would be served by deleting this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete the hyphenated attributive sense, following precedent. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

fat lot of good

Noun: of no use or help

Apart from being a definition that doesn’t fit a noun, it’s definitely sum of parts: a fat lot (“little or nothing”, sarcastic) + of + good. Theknightwho (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't a fat lot be moved to fat lot? As the RFD'd entry shows, it can be used without the article. Yes, it's probably omitted through a process of elision, but it still seems unnecessary to include in the headword. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Put together, the parts form an idiom. DonnanZ (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe redirect to "(a) fat lot". This collocation is extremely common but "fat lot" ought to explain the meaning. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've heard "a lot of good that'll do" with only the context and tone of voice to convey the sarcasm, as well as substitution of things like "help" for "good". Chuck Entz (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

A more common collocation is fat lot of use, while fat lot of help is also common, so this is IMO SOP. I think a fat lot should actually be moved to a fat lot of, to be classified as a determiner (compare a lick of), to which fat lot and a fat lot can redirect.  --Lambiam 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to either fat lot or fat lot of, since other words can replace good. I would lemmatize the form without the a since it can be omitted: Citations:fat lot. - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Refactor into an entry of fat lot. bd2412 T 00:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

November 2023

from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

Feels SOP-y to me, being from the river to the sea plus the rest of the words. It's not a set phrase, either, because there are some uses with "Palestine will be free" at the front. An example of this is in the 2014 essay collection Conversations in Postcolonial Thought, in an essay by Ronit Lentin, in which she writes "This forgetting [of the element of violence that made Israel] ... is precisely what pro-Palestine demonstrators say: Palestine will be free from the river to the sea." However, I will admit that this element seems like it makes up a large chunk of the uses of "from the river to the sea". CitationsFreak (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect to from the river to the sea, the minimal idiomatic component, per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  And while we're at it, I think we need to improve the definition of from the river to the sea. The current Al-Jazeera citation does not support the use of the phrase as a slogan, but rather as a literal prepositional phrase (of course, with fried-egg restrictions on which river and sea are being referred to). In fact, can we find any examples of from the river to the sea being used in isolation (without any complement) as a slogan? If so, then we should have two definitions here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirect. - -sche (discuss) 17:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep as a synonym- widely used. Inqilābī 22:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

Encyclopedic. The article was nominated 15 years ago with no consensus. [5] The only arguments seem to be for notability, which disagrees with our policy. brittletheories (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I've expanded the entry with three quotes that probably meet WT:BRAND. Einstein2 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how the quotes support any kind of inclusion. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The quotes don't identify Al Jazeera as a television channel, see the examples at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names. Einstein2 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Humans are capable of metonymy and irony regardless of ideomaticity. You could substitute Fox News for any one of them, and that was deleted before. brittletheories (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Good to know that I can sell videotapes of beheadings to Fox News. :)  --Lambiam 15:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If Al-Jazeera is used as a stand-in for somethimg, it should be explicated. For instance:

1. (informal) Any sensationalist media that publishes offensive or shocking content.

I'm not aware of such an association. As it stands now, the article doesn't name a single figurative use of the term. brittletheories (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that these cites are in reference to Al Jazeera being seen as a Muslim news source, and therefore must have beheading tapes on their newsfeed. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete per the above. PUC – 12:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete per Brittletheories, any figurative sense ought to be stated explicitly to support inclusion and I don't see an obvious one here. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)

Keep, but rework definition to explain quotes. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Weak delete. I'm not convinced by the cites; if a cite says someone could "talk to anybody about what she knew—even the Korean People's Army", does that make Korean People's Army idiomatic or is it still the province of an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary? I am thinking the latter. We have a lot of abbreviations of news media, like DW, BBC, MSNBC, CBS, but we don't have The Times, London Times, New York Times, Washington Post, British Broadcasting Corporation. - -sche (discuss) 17:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any abbreviation for Al Jazeera? Ironically, I tend to use BBC instead of British Broadcasting Corporation, and so do the BBC. DonnanZ (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, delete per Brittletheories and Al-Muqanna. The present entry does not even attempt to provide a non-encyclopedic definition, and the quotations themselves do not demonstrate dictionary senses, only contextually suggested associations or connotations of a nature that could routinely exist for proper nouns. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: no idiomatic use that satisfies WT:BRAND, as far as I can see. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete- sheerly encyclopedic. Inqilābī 22:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I've revised the definition with a less encyclopedic tone to include "known for their in-depth and frontline reporting in conflict zones", which might be the channel's most recognized trait. Looking into the quotes again, I think the cited texts in the entry do not identify Al Jazeera as a TV channel and they require knowledge of the term to understand the intent of the authors, thus satisfying the criteria illustrated at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names. Figurative usage, or being used as a stand-in for something, is not required for brand names (instead, company names have similar criteria: WT:COMPANY). Einstein2 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted along with all non-abbr translations. Svartava2 (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

accessory before the fact

accessory after the fact

SOP of accessory + before the fact and accessory + after the fact? PUC – 16:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, a very set phrase. bd2412 T 03:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete accessory before the fact. It was not immediately clear to me until I read our definition how one could "assist a crime" (accessory) after the crime had been committed. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm really not seeing the case for treating them differently. bd2412 T 18:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep both. No one would come up with this phrase just by stringing ordinary words together. It's stronger than just a collocation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

subbranch

Rfd-sense "part of a branch". How is this different from sense 1 ("branch that is itself an offshoot of a branch of something")? PUC – 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If a part of a branch isn't an entire branch in its own right, it wouldn't meet the definition of sense 1. I suppose there might be a way to combine the two, but it would have to be worded differently than the current sense 1. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure whether such “non-branches” would be called subbranches, and even if they would, is there a way to differentiate them from actual smaller branches? In any case, I think one definition line is sufficient (maybe after a bit of rewording). Einstein2 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Lulu

Rfd-sense. We shouldn't list given names as being from Chinese, they would either be anglicised (in which case indistinguishable from the other one listed above on the page) or transliterations (which we don't include for Chinese given names). – wpi (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Unlike the situation in European languages, I've been told that you can use more or less any combination of characters to form a Chinese given name. Therefore just about any combination of two Pinyin syllables would be attestable as a given name. That's a theoretical 400 + 400*400 = 160,400 Chinese given name entries. Plus some people have three-syllable names. I don't think this is worth our time. However, I'm not sure how I feel about excluding one particular language's (⇒ ethnicity's?) names from inclusion. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

-un-

From Wiktionary:Tea room/2023/November § Systematic element name infixes:

(E.g., as in unbiunium (“element 121”).) We have both un- (prefix) and -un- (infix), both defined as standing for the digit 1, but -bi-, which would be the infix, is a redirect to bi- (“2”), the prefix. -nil- (“0”), -tri- (“3”), -quad- (“4”), -pent- (“5”), -hex- (“6”), -sept- (“7”), -oct- (“8”), -enn- (“9”) are also redirects to the prefixes. See the RfD for -oct-, per which I suppose -un-, the only infix, should also be redirected. J3133 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

J3133 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support deletion; it should redirect to un-. 2804:1B0:1901:5FD7:6060:15B5:AFC5:BD81 13:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. I also deleted the stubs in the other languages. I also used a sense id for the redirect. This may be beneficial for the other numbers too. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@J3133: Not entirely sure what to do with -ún- and -ун-. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fytcha: I suppose they should be moved to ún- and ун-. J3133 (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

DKC2

Donkey Kong sequels. Per Talk:HP1 for Harry Potter. Equinox ◑ 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support deletion for both terms. MedK1 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete both. Inqilābī 23:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Support the deletion of both entries per nominator rationale. We should not keep these entries at all. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

RFD failed all P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk: Not DKCTF and DKC, as the rationale does not match and no one has voted on them yet. J3133 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

DKC3

Per DKC2 above. Equinox ◑ 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

DKCTF

Should be treated similarly. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

DKC

Should be treated similarly. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

December 2023

mean time

Redundant to mean and time. A westman (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume sense 2 applies here. It doesn't seem to match the definition in my Oxford and Collins, where both refer to it being the short form of mean solar time, as referred to in the entry for Greenwich Mean Time. DonnanZ (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. It's an alt form of "meantime" ("The time spent waiting for another event; time in between") which uses no sense of mean that is obvious to a modern speaker. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• @A westman Did you mean to nominate both senses? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep sense 1 (the alt form). Delete sense 2 as SoP to mean etymology 3, adjective sense 1 ("average"), which is far from being obscure or obsolete. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  @ExcarnateSojourner: Sense 2 could be kept as {{&lit}}. J3133 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Oh, good point. Let's do that. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

    There's actually a third sense that I added recently. It is the synonym of "solar time". newfiles (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

foregoing

Rfd-sense

Etymology 1, the adjective. This seems redundant to Etymology 2, which is the present participle and gerund of forego. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep: It is a recognised adjective in Oxford and Collins, and probably others. The verb is apparently archaic, but it is also a variant of forgo. DonnanZ (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Currently the structure is unclear.

• Et1 of foregoing is empty, but based on the definition, seems to correspond to Et1 of forego.
• Et2 of foregoing points vaguely to forego which contains two et's.

Presumably User:Chuck_Entz reads Et2 of foregoing as a reference to Et1 of forego, otherwise why suggest the deletion of Et1 of foregoing? So then we would have two et's under foregoing that are both based on et1 of forego ...and nothing for et2 of forego.

I am strongly in favour of making the etymologies explicit in the foregoing entry, rather than missing or implicit.

I am neutral on the grammatical recognition of the adjectival form.

However, I thought a noun form should be added, per Talk:foregoing#noun (sorry if that's off-topic). Or is that already covered by the gerund label?

—DIV (1.145.214.72 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC))

'forgoing' is a common mistake for this word. Does that indicate something deeper abt this adjective sense? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

unrequited love

SOP: "love that is unrequited". I don't believe "even though reciprocation is desired" should be part of the definition. PUC – 09:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Love here is specifically romantic love (etymology 1, noun sense 2.3). If a mother loves her daughter but the daughter does not love her in return that would not be called unrequited love. Could WT:FRIED apply here? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I did find a couple of counterexamples (unrequited love of a mother for their child: [6] [7]) but they were picked out from a sea of examples that related to romantic love. I don't know what to make of it from a SOP point of view though. I'd lean keep but not strongly. In the event the term is deleted, translations should be moved to unrequited. This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Many of the translations are similarly SOP (imo) and not worth entries. PUC – 20:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the translations of the word unrequited in the SOP translations at unrequited love, which are not all present in the unrequited entry. This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the Japanese and Chinese translations make this worthy of a THUB. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

please restore adult diaper

I believe the adult diaper page should be restored, per the argument I made in August here. More succinctly, if our deletion policy is leading us to delete well-established terms as sum of parts, while continuing to list scarcely-used synonyms for those terms simply because they're not sum of parts, I think the policy needs to be reformed. —Soap— 17:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You created this: entire definition was "Any diaper sized to be worn by adults". I deleted it as "Non-idiomatic sum-of-parts term: please see WT:SOP: adult Adjective: Intended for or restricted to adults rather than children due to size". I think that deletion was sound. Equinox ◑ 09:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A synonym of incontinence diaper, I suspect. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep due to it being synonymous and more used than "incontinence diaper". (Maybe make it a THUB?) CitationsFreak (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying "Keep" is misleading when you want to change the definition. Maybe "Recreate and rewrite"! Equinox ◑ 14:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I think we should give "adult diaper" its definition, and replace "incontinence diaper" with "synonym of adult diaper". CitationsFreak (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep as a synonym of incontinence diaper. Theknightwho (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying "Keep" is misleading when you want to change the definition. Maybe "Recreate and rewrite"! Equinox ◑ 14:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Support restoration as a synonym. DonnanZ (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any difference between adult diaper and incontinence diaper from a SOP standpoint. "A diaper for adults" vs "a diaper for incontinence". There's no other sense at adult that could realistically apply. This, that and the other (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: No other sense? Just google "age play" and "adult diaper". bd2412 T 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 This is a good argument for adult diaper's SOPness. Incontinence diapers and role play diapers are both "diapers for adults". The term adult diaper doesn't convey anything about the reason the diapers are worn. It is sense 2 (2.0, if you will) of adult that is used in both cases. You've convinced me that adult diaper and incontinence diaper should both be deleted, honestly. This, that and the other (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly making an argument to keep. bd2412 T 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support restoration as synonym per what This, that and the other's words. MedK1 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Even though it may be a synonym of incontinence diaper, that doesn’t justify it being an entry in its own right. The words adult and diaper can be linked separately. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 20:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Soap makes a really strong point; nobody ever says incontinence diaper, usually just adult diaper or something euphemistic like protection, adult brief, continence aid or whatever, and Wikt does tend to be more sympathetic towards SOP entries that are widely-accepted specialist or technical terms. But, that said, it does unfortunately fit within WT:SoP; regarding said policy's stated exception "a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers," I cannot confidently say that our readers will not know what adult diaper means and find any use in an entry for it. Compare disposable diaper, which is probably the second-most popular childcare-related term after diaper itself, which noticeably does not have an entry because it is also SoP despite its commonness. Instead we have synonyms like sposie. While I would actually like an entry for this simply because it is the 'correct' (most common) term, Wiktionary's rules simply do not allow for it and IMO I cannot justify a strong enough argument to confidently say that it needs one.. maybe this is ultimately a problem with Wiktionary's rules, IDK 🤷 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support a page for disposable diaper as well, as otherwise it seems a foreign language speaker looking for the English term for it would either end up with the slang term sposie or nothing at all. —Soap— 14:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd add that I don't see how either adult diaper or disposable diaper runs afoul of SOP. People always seem to read this policy from what I'd say is the wrong end, assuming the person looking up the phrase already has it in front of them, when we're more likely dealing with someone who wants to translate it from a different language. That person isn't going to have the phrase in front of them. But this is a longstanding disagreement I've had and I've been writing it up on User:Soap/SOP in my userspace rather than on individual RFD's, so I'll just leave the link here for now. —Soap— 14:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. If anything, incontinence diaper should be deleted since it's less of a set phrase. Binarystep (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Restore: commonly used, and would be useful to keep (as a synonym). Inqilābī 21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

El Camino Real

WT:NSE requires figurative senses for individual roads, but we do not have any for this one. Previously nominated as a member of cat:en:Named roads. I'm making a separate request for the Spanish term. See also #Colon Street above. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 23:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for background: this was a route in California during the Spanish period connecting the missions in the region. It no longer exists in its old form, but it's symbolic of that period, and roads/highways that cover parts of the same route are often officially designated as part of it to empasize their connection to history. I think it's significant that "El" is capitalized, since it just means "the" in Spanish and it shows that the term isn't understood as the sum of its parts (I wonder if it makes any sense to have a Spanish entry at that capitalization). In fact, the term was probably not used for the modern concept during the mission period (any official route was so designated), but civic boosters in the past century or so resurrected it as a way to promote tourism by connecting their communities to what they portrayed as a romantic bygone era. I suppose it might be analogous to the Silk Road or the Royal Road, which we do have entries for, or the Appian Way, which we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should compare Spanish camino real (camino construido a expensas del Estado) with King's highway. Oxford, for Queen's highway (published before QEII died), a mass noun by the way, says "the public road network, regarded as being under royal protection". Thus not roads owned by the monarch, although they can use them. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: Purplebackpack89 19:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per Purplebackpack. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

quarter-

Not grammatically a prefix. Compare -prone above. Equinox ◑ 12:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe you're right, and we should also look at half-.

There is also Category:English terms prefixed with quarter-. Collins and Oxford don't seem to list quarter as an adjective either, just the noun and verb, but Merriam-Webster does make a brief mention of an adjective. Anyway, delete this. DonnanZ (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have my eye on half- if this one gets deleted; but, baby steps. It seems clear to me that "quarter-" doesn't morphologically merge into the following item. Equinox ◑ 18:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

An exception to this is cross-, which is a recognised combining form. DonnanZ (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Let's keep it brief because this thread is about quarter-, but: recognised by whom, as what? Hope it ain't the "it's not in the dictionary!" argument. An interesting counter-argument for cross- might be: if it's morphological, why must I say cross-state and not crosstate? They are separate words. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Crosstate seems to be a commercial invention, found in New Jersey and South Africa. Back to quarter-. DonnanZ (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems like some of the words in Category:English terms prefixed with half- (e.g. halfter or halfway) seem to be legit examples of this suffix but in most of those words (e.g. half-finished or half-open) the "half" part is not grammatically a suffix. A Westman talk stalk 22:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@A_westman: You can't trust the category though. Casual editors will add and remove things to/from categories based on feelings, not necessarily on grammar. You need to use strong arguments to defend or refute the membership. Equinox ◑ 00:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of what I meant... A Westman talk stalk 00:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Inqilābī 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

do want and do not want

SOP. A Westman talk stalk 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. They are not grammatical and would not make sense otherwise: compare my bad. Equinox ◑ 22:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of the verb inflections given for do want are rather suspect. DonnanZ (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep because "do not want" has an acronym tied to it. I'd absolutely say "delete" otherwise. We don't keep a special sense at am for cutesy slang like "am smol child" (where the subject is ungrammatically omitted), so I don't think @Equinox's reasoning to keep these is good reasoning. MedK1 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Both the etymology and the usex for do not want suggest that the term is an interjection. Is this also the case for do want? In that case, it is plausibly a back-formation from do not want.  --Lambiam 12:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: elision of certain words (“[I] do want [this]”) doesn’t, in my view, make these lexical terms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. These do not follow normal grammatical rules/patterns, so I'm not sure how they can be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

because reasons

SOP. We could instead put this meaning in reasons. A Westman talk stalk 18:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's actually already given as an example at because. (Saying "because X", rather than "because of X", seems to be recent net slang.) Equinox ◑ 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that "for reasons" is also used. So this meaning should be moved. A Westman talk stalk 22:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep, since it refers to reasons that are "tangential, dubious or unknown", so it's not SOP. Perhaps "for reasons" is also used (I've never heard it), but I don't think other collocations are possible. Theknightwho (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well: "for reasons" and "due to reasons" and "owing to reasons" obey traditional grammar. "Because reasons" doesn't. Anyway, your point about the "tangentiality" is something separate. Equinox ◑ 02:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The disobedience of grammar is already documented at because so I don't see the point of this. A Westman talk stalk 02:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox: time to take a step back and tone down the snappiness, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you pinged the wrong person... CitationsFreak (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

[8] [9] Word0151 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think this is simply a special use of because. In my experience, it's usually said with a pause between "because" and "reasons", with the "reasons" meant to be a humorous replacement for actual reasons that one does not want to elaborate on (or that don't actually exist). So instead of telling my friend I didn't go to the party "Because I didn't feel like it", I might say "Because, reasons...", which is perhaps a way of verbalizing "Because [reasons]". Which is not an SOP phrase and not dependent on the grammar of either word involved. I'm just speculating here, but this may also be the original phrase which gave rise to the Internet slang sense of because. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve heard “because, NP” (e.g., “because, politicans”) used in conversations. I’m not certain what constitutes Internet slang (Facebook, TAFKAT, neither of which I use?).  --Lambiam 12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly what this is an example of. "Because cozzie livs" is one I've seen/heard a few times recently where it literally just means "because of cost of living pressures". It wouldn't surprise to hear it dropped into conversation but it still originated at net-speak. 49.188.70.132 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, pragmatics with many analogues. In stream-of-conscious-like colloquial language some conventions of grammar are more frequently broken. Fay Freak (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

🐒 Word0151 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: I don’t think the elision of words (“because [of some] reasons”) makes the phrase lexical. Another instance is “I cannot [stand this]”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Compare I can't. J3133 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, we should nuke that one too. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I created it. It is listed as an alternative form of I can’t even at Dictionary.com. See, e.g., “What's the meaning of "I can't (emotes)"” (Reddit: “It means something is extremely funny.”), “What does I can’t. mean? I saw ppl saying that below a meme, is it means laughing out of control?” (HiNative: “In the context of laughing because of a funny meme (I can’t 😭) I can’t means “I can’t with this meme/post” or “this meme/post is way too funny””), “What does I can't with you mean?” (HiNative: ““I can’t with you” in slang terms can mean that dealing with you right now is too much! This may be meant seriously or used sarcastically in a funny way depending on context.”), “What’s with “I can’t with”?” (Reddit: “Yeah, it's a slang phrase. […] It is a shortening of "I can't deal with ... " but it's taken over as a phrase. It is not technically correct usage but it has become very common.”; Grammarphobia: “You won’t find this sense of “I can’t with” in standard references, but it’s definitely out there. And if enough people use it, we may be seeing it in dictionaries someday.”). I believe it is worthy of an entry. J3133 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep but replace with link to "because", it's an example of "because {noun}" which isn't typically grammatical outside internet slang. 49.188.70.132 03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

twelve hundred

sop? similarly, eleven hundred, thirteen hundred etc. Word0151 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete, yes, dumb. Equinox ◑ 04:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think WF has chosen the weakest link in the chain. There are entries for every hundred between two hundred and twenty-three hundred, including twenty hundred (for 24-hour clock), but no ten hundred for the 24-hour clock. It's pointless deleting this one without removing the others. DonnanZ (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete all the number senses. WT:CFI (established by this formal vote) is clear on this: "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI." The numerical use of eleven hundred, twelve hundred, and so on is already explained in "Appendix:English numerals". However, I think the 24-hour clock sense can stay. I am undecided on the year sense (leaning towards delete) as this is an infinite series—we should discuss this further. It may be better to explain this in a new appendix under "Appendix:Time". — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Convert all but the clock sense to an &lit sense. Or maybe delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Entry for hundred already includes the clock sense. Why do you think these should be kept? Word0151 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought the sense said something different. Delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the. 24-hour clock sense is already explained at hundred, delete the entire entry and all similar entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep the lot. DonnanZ (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete all, useless. PUC – 20:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

non-English: Undeletion of "not English" sense

Deleted sense:

• Not English; not from England; not of English ancestry or origin.

  Synonym: un-English

Sense in entry:

• Not in the English language.

  Synonym: un-English

Compare non-Japanese, which was kept, as @-sche pointed out recently. If not as a full sense, then at least as {{&lit}}, indicating that non-English does not only refer to language. J3133 (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: You can have non-English food, for example. It was a silly RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per above. MedK1 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose it means “not” and “English” in all senses of that word, making it SoP. Delete the entire entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: If there is no consensus for deletion of the entry itself, I assume you would not oppose adding this sense instead of having the entry incomplete. J3133 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@J3133: in that scenario I abstain because I do not support such entries on the whole. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete all of these non- entries. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

nonEnglish is a non-runner, in British English at least. DonnanZ (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously both senses should live or die together. I'd rather see them both die; the word is totally transparent. This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Question: how does the idiomacity of this term (or lack thereof) relate to that of un-English? bd2412 T 23:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Binarystep (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Broadly speaking, I would like to say Delete as limitless SoP pattern all "non-X" that mean "non- + X". This is why we have an entry for the prefix "non", so we don't have to individually list a million different compounds that all mean exactly what it says there. However, a fly in the ointment is that I do feel that we should keep, let's say, "non-runner" (at least in horseracing and vehicle senses) even though strictly this only means "non + runner", but I cannot exactly explain why, at least not at the moment. Mihia (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as SoP, and delete the existing entry on the same grounds. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

December solstice

SoP. The solstice that's in December * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep as part of a set. The explanation is good enough; from personal experience a December solstice is more preferable in NZ than in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the rest of the set not SoP too? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete SOP. winter solstice might be a set term worth keeping, but this is a clear SOP. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

tacit collusion

SOP: a collusion that is tacit. PUC – 11:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Author purposefully misunderstands CFI. As on PUC’s talk page, I’ve investigated and found that there are no legal peculiarities to the term. Fay Freak (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What shall be your view on the creation of tacit consent Word0151 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: ultimately it’s a form of collusion which is tacit, so it’s SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep - specialised term in economics. It refers to cartel-like behaviour where prices are fixed through implicit agreement, as opposed to a formal (hidden) agreement. Theknightwho (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have given this way too much thought, and I think we should keep this as the economic equivalent of seafloor spreading, listed as precedent under WT:PRIOR. I was actually going to vote delete: This is clearly a set term of art in economics, but there is no real additional meaning imbued by the phrase beyond the literal meaning of the two terms (other than that it needs to be for the purposes of maximising profit - but to what other ends do businesses collude?). I searched for a plausible synonym, "unspoken collusion", and most of what I found was articles written for the lay reader, written by authors who clearly understand tacit collusion to be the "real" term. But seeing seafloor spreading convinced me we should keep this too. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

One cannot gather the meaning of seafloor spreading from either seafloor or spreading, so clearly it is not SoP. But tacit collusion is defined as "A form of collusion in which colluding parties do not explicitly share information with one another, achieving a collusive arrangement by an unspoken understanding". In other words, it is a form of collusion that is tacit. The way I see it, defining the term with many words does not in itself make it less SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean it makes senses to write articles about it. But everything interesting on it is encyclopedic information. This, that and the other’s simile goes beyond what my creativity tolerates. Of course there are specialised terms that are SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't one? I can't imagine what else seafloor spreading could refer to other than the expansion (spread verb sense 6) of the seafloor. (Admittedly it could refer to spreading the seafloor with some substance as one spreads bread with peanut butter, but that is rather far-fetched from a practical standpoint.) And yet, it is a term of art in geology, so it seems we are keeping it solely on that basis - to allow our readers to benefit from the additional info and context provided in the definition line. This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: oh, I misunderstood you—I thought you meant seafloor spreading was some sort of economic term. If not it may warrant further examination. But it doesn’t change the point that I think tacit collusion is SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This seems wholly SOP. A Westman talk stalk 13:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: merry Christmas and happy New Year are already separate phrase book entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this one, but I just want to point out that there was a previous RFD discussion and I think this one should take the arguments made then into account. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is it is being used as a translation hub. It maybe should be kept for that reason, though most of the translations are red links. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Almost all the translations are SOP! Word0151 (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep, it's SOP but phrasebook entries don't fall under typical SOP rules. AG202 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per Sgconlaw. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 02:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete, this is more than a regular SOP, it's a SOPP (sum of phrasebook parts). This, that and the other (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted: truly, more SOP than a regular SOP. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Isotope names

The naming of nuclides is very systematic (element name + mass number, hyphenated), and there is nothing here but borderline WT:SOP mixed with encyclopedic content. The table of nuclides has over 3000 known entries; for example, the known isotopes of uranium range in mass number from 214 to 242 (cf. w:Isotopes of uranium). An entry consisting of chemical symbol + mass number is also included.

90 entries

• aluminium-27
• argon-36
• argon-38
• argon-40
• beryllium-9
• boron-10
• boron-11
• caesium-137
• calcium-40
• calcium-42
• calcium-43
• calcium-44
• calcium-45
• calcium-46
• calcium-48
• californium-252
• carbon-12
• carbon-13
• carbon-14
• chlorine-35
• chlorine-36
• chlorine-37
• chromium-52
• chromium-53
• chromium-54
• fluorine-18
• fluorine-19
• gold-197
• gold-198
• hassium-270
• helium-3
• helium-4
• hydrogen-1
• hydrogen-2
• hydrogen-3
• iodine-125
• iodine-131
• iron-54
• iron-56
• iron-57
• iron-58
• krypton-85
• lithium-6
• lithium-7
• magnesium-24
• magnesium-25
• magnesium-26
• manganese-55
• neon-20
• neon-21
• neon-22
• nitrogen-13
• nitrogen-14
• nitrogen-15
• oxygen-16
• oxygen-17
• oxygen-18
• phosphorus-31
• polonium-210
• potassium-39
• potassium-40
• potassium-42
• potassium-43
• scandium-45
• silicon-28
• silicon-29
• silicon-30
• sodium-23
• strontium-90
• sulfur-32
• sulfur-33
• sulfur-34
• sulfur-35
• sulfur-36
• tellurium-128
• tellurium-130
• thorium-228
• titanium-46
• titanium-47
• titanium-48
• titanium-49
• titanium-50
• uranium-233
• uranium-234
• uranium-235
• uranium-238
• vanadium-50
• vanadium-51
• yttrium-90
• U-235

LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll need help tagging these. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• While these are formulaic, they are not SoP. argon-36 means "argon with a mass number of 36", and the "with a mass number of" meaning is not communicated by any of its parts. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• We should treat these the same way we do chemical formulas like H₂O. This would mean that they must be attested in non-technical contexts, and the meaning of the terms must not be explained. Theoretically this would mean sending them to RFV, but I would be ok with mass deletion of ones that are virtually certain to fail these attestation requirements. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

run

Rfd-sense: "(transitive) To achieve or perform by running or as if by running."

The horse ran a great race.

seems at best a specialization of "(transitive or intransitive) To compete in a race."

The horse will run in the Preakness next year.

I'm not ready to run a marathon.

If it is supposed to be a figurative sense, then it needs a figurative usex, and with a figurative definition not conflated with a literal one. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

What is probably needed is a cleanup of the entire English verb section with attention to things like the correspondence of trans/intrans labels to usage examples, placement of parentheses around objects in intransitive definitions as well as redundancy. DCDuring (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

queen bee

Rfd-sense: stem cell. Is this really such a stock metaphor that it needs its own sense? This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep or send to RFV. If the term really is used this way (outside of explanations of the metaphor), we should have a sense for it. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep/RFV - clearly idiomatic if real. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

neutron radiation

Obvious SOP. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep Word0000 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete no reason for keeping given, looks SOP to me too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is the accepted term for a type of radiation; compare ionizing radiation, alpha radiation, nuclear radiation etc. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

occasional furniture

Apparently I prematurely archived the RFD of this term. It was resolved as far as it concerned occasional table, but not this entry. See Talk:occasional furniture. This, that and the other (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has voted delete so far, may as well keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Veda bread

brand of bread. Fond of sanddunes (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Don’t see a different, more generic definition, either. Fay Freak (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep Word0151 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Word0151 Your rationale? Equinox ◑ 06:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I suspect this has lexicalised beyond the brand, as I can see websites with recipes (including the BBC): e.g. [10], [11], [12]. Theknightwho (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: That I specifically considered, it as with any kind of brand on recipe sites. Your BBC example is naught as people when learning or having learnt and exerting themselves to cook or bake attempt to imitate industrial products. Say how to make Bounty or Knoppers at home. I admit I haven’t followed the brand criteria exactly to explain why we should or should not have Twix, which we have. But in the present form, with bread added and SOP definition and no suggestives cites I do not respect the entry.

I see another problem here, we would create entries for popular fashion items that have trended strongly enough to beget reps, like Off-White belt, Gucci loafers, big red boot, shark hoodie, which naturally in most real-world examples, counting those in Asia too at least, are fake—genericized? Be it that at the same time many of these items deserve encyclopedia entries, even if I think more specific wikis are better suited to catch the heat. Fay Freak (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It obviously has nothing to do with Veda, the brand name appears to be coincidental. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep, I think. It may be a brand, but different bakeries also have their own name on the wrapper. Expatriates from Northern Ireland can buy it online. I'm obviously missing something here in Middlesex. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless it meets WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It should meet WT:BRAND in Northern Ireland at least, so it could be localised, not universal. Some quotes are needed, something for someone who specialises in digging on the Internet to do. I did find references to "some Veda bread" and "a loaf of Veda bread". DonnanZ (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This page has many occurrences of veda with a lower-case v (“I remember growing up on veda, toasted with cheese”; “have to wait till I go back home to get my veda”; “Someone sent me a recipe for a wee malt loaf but nowhere near like veda.”)  --Lambiam 12:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Some people are lazy with capital letters, "Veda" and "Veda bread" can also be found in that link. DonnanZ (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• RFD failed Denazz (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Reopening; the WT:BRAND argument is persuasive but needs more investigating. Perhaps we could do with an entry at veda and/or Veda then delete this as SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

morel

Rfd-redundant: "Any of several edible mushrooms", versus the taxonomically-specific second sense. Tagged by DCDuring but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely redundant: "the common morel or yellow morel" is Morchella esculenta. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added a sense to morel#Etymology 2 to include plants of general Solanum, Atropa, and Aralia. It is probably "archaic", if not obsolete, still occurring in dictionaries, usually in compounds (great morel and petit morel).

I don't think there are genera of mushrooms called morels other than the true morels of genus Morchella. I have yet to find recent instances of the sometimes toxic false morels of genus Gyromitra being called morels, except in the collocation "collected as morels", probably an example of the role of evolution in language. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete/combine. Fay Freak (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

number homophone

Sum of parts. It was added to the WT:REE request list, and uhh let's say that a recent user has been loudly begging for creations lately; thus it got created. But it is really nothing more than number + homophone. Equinox ◑ 06:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • On second thought,  keep sense 2 as idiomatic. I'm not sure about sense 1, because neither word covers the substitution aspect. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 21:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Christmassed out, Christmassed-out

A Wonderfool entry, ostensibly an adjective. However, as noted at Wiktionary:Tea_room#Problem_with_Christmas_verb_(word_of_the_day_for_25th!), this is SOP with a common and productive sense of out. The Christmas part seems to be a verb ≈"to subject to Christmas"(?), because you can also be Christmassed to death (rather than out), if things happen which google:Christmas you to death, and equally you can be meetinged to death if people google:"meeting you to death", or you can be google books:meetinged into apathy, turkeyed out, turkeyed to death, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like an entry for turkeyed out... I have an awesome pun waiting for thatDenazz (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

To go with chickened out? DonnanZ (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not quite as funny as thaat Denazz (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

two-move checkmate

SoP. The fact that it's one specific mate is not part of the definition - if a chess variant had a different mating position reachable in two moves you would call it a "two-move checkmate" as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between any old two-move checkmate (indefinite article) and the two-move checkmate. PUC – 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing that - if there's only one position in the entire game that is a two-move checkmate then it becomes the two-move checkmate. That still means no more than two-move checkmate IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

pronoun

Rfd-sense "(LGBT, chiefly in the plural) Any of the pronouns by which a person prefers to be described, typically reflecting gender identity", with the usex "My pronouns are she/her" and cites like "students I interviewed used nonbinary pronouns for themselves". This seems to just be sense 1; you can construct analogous sentences using "name": "My name is River", "some non-binary people use gendered names", etc, but it doesn't mean "name" has a new sense "The name by which a person prefers to be described, typically reflecting gender identity".
On the talk page, Equinox notes that '"My pronouns" means "the ones I want others to use about me" and not (say) "ones I have coined" or "ones that I use to describe other people"', but the same can be said of name: "My name" usually means "the one I want others to use for me" and not "the one I invented" or "the one I use to describe someone else", except in the same specific contexts in which pronoun could also mean those things. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Somebody might say "I don't have pronouns" or "I don't need pronouns", meaning the LGBT thing, and not the traditional kind. Equinox ◑ 00:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is true, but IMO if we want a sense to cover things like "I don't use pronouns!", it needs different cites, because IMO the current cites ("my pronouns are she/her" etc) are sense 1.
I'm also unsure about considering "I don't use pronouns!"-type use to make a different sense, because such people also say things like "I don't have a gender, I'm a woman", and (especially a decade or two ago) "I don't have an orientation, I'm straight/normal", or think of other people but not themselves as having race, or think they don't have an accent, which seems to me like a grey area between lexical and extralexical. OTOH I concede that we do seem to cover such use of accent as a separate sense, and there may indeed be enough otherwise-perplexing uses to support a "transgender gender(s)" sense at gender (e.g. the surprisingly common phrase "women and the gender community", which otherwise makes piss-all sense), and to support a "nonwhite race(s)" sense at race and racial (as in race music, racial spoils), so meh. I'm not strongly opposed to having a sense like this... I just think it sure seems an awful lot like just sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about entirely deleting the sense, but I don't like the label of "LGBT" on it. It makes it sound like it's solely LGBT folks that use them, when it's far from not. I'm not sure how to rephrase the labeling though. MW currently has "the third person personal pronouns (such as he/him, she/her, and they/them) that a person goes by", which we might want to emulate in our own definition. AG202 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the proposed removal of the LGBT label. Cremastra (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It should have some kind of label. It's overwhelmingly used by LGBT folx and not so much by others. Equinox ◑ 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've heard this terms before in uses like "The Bible doesn't use pronouns, liberal snowflakes!", so it feels weird calling it an LGBTQIA2S+ thing. Maybe it's a different usage, who knows? CitationsFreak (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really feel like any label is needed? Maybe "originally LGBT", but even that is pushing it, and I can't verify it. And again, it's not an LGBT-only thing, I've seen many many many folks outside of the community use it. We can just follow MW. AG202 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I just removed the label. Kept the cat though, as it feels right in this context. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete per -sche. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

freak

Senses 2 and 3: "A hippie" and "a drug addict".

These types of people would have been seen as "freaks" (as in "an oddball") in 1969. As such, this is a dupe of sense 4. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Would labelling them "dated" do the trick? DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, as they would have been seen as "freaks" (as in oddballs) in 1969. (The OED lists this term as being coined in 1890, and these two groups were seen as the counterculture in the late '60s.)

However, the same source does list the hippie sense as its own thing. So, mayyybe it fits in? Feels a bit iffy to say that, since it is based on the same usage as "freak" as our sense 4, and any reclamation would be the same as reclamation of any insult. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• I would put "hippie" and "drug addict" as subsenses under sense 4, or perhaps combined into one subsense, possibly with a label such as "now largely historical", or explicit mention of the 1960s, if it's considered that these senses are largely confined to the 1960s or references to the 1960s. Shocking to think of the 1960s as "historical"! Mihia (talk)

Perhaps "especially in reference to 1960s counterculture" would be an appropriate label. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No. These two senses have a different (albeit derivative) meaning from sense 4. (And the notion that these senses were confined to the 1960s is just wrong.) Nurg (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

aerophobia

Rfd-sense: (rare, by extension or possibly from acrophobia) Fear of heights

This might be just a typo. It's wrong anyway. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Hekaheka If you're saying this word is not used to mean a fear of heights, wouldn't this fit better at RFV? — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

hobosexual

Sense 2, defined as "Punning on bum (as a synonym of hobo).". That is not a real definition. The three citations do not appear to have the same meaning. Equinox ◑ 12:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I have encountered this word, it means a person only engaging in relations with a sexual element in order to avoid homelessness. Which for the first quote “a man who can only get excited by women who are real tramps” could mean that you yourself have to be kind of a tramp to accept such a boyfriend, otherwise too unorderly (sense 3) to care for himself; as with most sexualities the term is then used for the other party too, as by its formation the term implies to contain what one is attracted to. The definitions are unchanged since 2011’s creation by Doremítzwr, about whose reliability I have no information. Fay Freak (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sense 1: that also seems to be a pun (on "tramp" meaning a slutty woman) and does not refer to "tramp" in the hobo sense. Equinox ◑ 12:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Also. Where we see again that one can employ a word in multiple of its assumed meanings simultaneously. But only by the peripheral understanding of it that serial monogamy is promiscuity, assuming our definition of tramp correct.

The psychological reality can of course be personality traits of a woman to make her inclined to any described livelihoods but various internalized expectations prevent her. For example if someone is borderliner (almost 2 % of the general population) they seek attachment to other people fast while simultaneously disengaging up to the point of homelessness due to self-devaluation. Or if someone has dependent personality disorder (almost 1 %, especially in women) after a breakup they will enter the next nightclub and anyone hooking up will be the boyfriend henceforth—which should sound ridiculous to sound people; people generally have a vague idea of the prevalent determination of life by irrational behaviours. But punning is of course no clear concept yet and thus the creator likely implemented more ideas in his definitions than users of the word could know or imply about psychological or behavorial reality. Fay Freak (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

👍 Word0151 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

digital signal processing

The processing of digital signals. I suspect this is not the only SOP derived term at processing. This, that and the other (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; a pretty clear case of SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

alt.

Prefix: "Indicates that the following string is a newsgroup." This is a total misunderstanding. 1. It's not an English prefix but a fragment like biz or www in domains. 2. The dot is a separator, so alt.suicide.holiday is not a prefix alt. on top of suicide.holiday, but rather the three components alt, suicide, holiday all separated by dots. 3. It doesn't mean "newsgroup in general" but a specific hierarchy (alternative groups), as opposed to (say) comp for computing groups and rec for recreation/hobbies. All of those are newsgroups; alt is just one subhierarchy of newsgroups; so the etymology is wrong too. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox. What I was referring to when I wrote that was uses of the separator to refer to fictitious newsgroups. As such "alt.suicide.holiday" would not fall under what the definition was intended to cover, but "post this on alt.stupid.questions!" would. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Understandable misapprehension by Equinox based on the old definition, but as it stands, it seems worth keeping. Similar to TM or .com [13], neither of which we seem to have. This, that and the other (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the above. It seems similar to how we have UK plc and Singapore Inc due to the fact that countries aren't literally limited or incorporated companies. Perhaps we could try to generalise this phenomenon at PLC/plc and Inc/inc? I've seen Warwick PLC used to refer to the University of Warwick, for example. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

time perception

SOP. PUC – 23:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete, a redundant circumscription without concept. An actual term is autonoesis. Fay Freak (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why delete when there is a Wikipedia article with the exact title? newfiles (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia article with the title "List of cities in Australia by population"... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been altered to a synonym, so is there some rule which says that we delete synonyms? DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: WT:SOP PUC – 11:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If it had been treated as a synonym in the first place, perhaps you would have left it alone. DonnanZ (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I suspect some uses of this might pass WT:PRIOR, given it's something that's frequently studied. Theknightwho (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep. It serves as a useful and convenient synonym and has a wide coverage in the world of philosophy. newfiles (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep as a synonym. Inqilābī 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Not useful as a synonym. Ultimateria (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Magnificat and Nunc dimittis

SOP. Both the terms Magnificat and Nunc dimittis can refer to the canticle itself or to a musical setting of the canticle. While musical settings of the two canticles are frequently published together, as they are performed together in Anglican evensong (or evening prayer) liturgies, that fact doesn't give the term any meaning beyond its component parts. Graham11 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - this refers to a specific musical setting with two parts, in the same way mass refers to a specific setting in a musical context. What distinguishes it is that they're written as one unit: you can't take a Magnificat from one setting and a Nunc dimittis from another and call them a "Magnificat and Nunc dimittis" with the meaning of "a musical setting of the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis". Theknightwho (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: There was a Tea Room discussion about this last year. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna, in case you're interested in weighing in on this. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

racial segregation

SOP. PUC – 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep as thub. Jberkel 09:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: But which translations? PUC – 10:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete, no translations seem to qualify for THUB. This, that and the other (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, to the extent that this references a systemic policy, rather than an incidental occurrence. bd2412 T 03:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

diriment impediment

SOP? Denazz (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Only if we agree that diriment is an adjective. Doesn't sound like one. Merriam-Webster has an entry for "diriment impediment" but no entry for "diriment" alone. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think diriment would pass RFV as an adjective per se. I found some uses of it in a predicative position: "this affinity is 'diriment' of marriage" and "The impediment is diriment only if...". This, that and the other (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether "diriment impediment" or "diriment" existed first. If the adjective "diriment" is derived from the expression "diriment impediment", then "diriment impediment" should be kept per WT:JIFFY, isn't it? --Saviourofthe (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

takes (something) to

In this form, we probs don't want it. Other cases including placeholder "something" can be found at Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/something. Denazz (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to delete it we should also delete taking (something) to, took (something) to, and taken (something) to, no? Vergencescattered (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, part of me supports having "something"s used as placeholders to be in parentheses, as in "drink (something) like lemonade" or "spring to (someone's) defense". CitationsFreak (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

th sound

I feel like allowing this might encourage useless entries like r sound and whatever. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Romanophile: dental fricative is SOP too. I wondered whether it could be a defence, but either entry should be deleted.

The encouragement is limited by the capabilities of the vocal tract, to which alphabetic writing systems and hence actually used terminology are limited, so one could keep the terms in consideration of incoming search traffic; is their presence good for children learning phonetics? Ach-Laut is actually used German and another dictionary has ch-Laut which illustrates how encyclopedic the definition is: if it is both ⟨ç⟩ and ⟨χ⟩ it is on two distinct articulation places, palatal and uvular: there isn’t any definition other than “what, i.e. the phoneme or quasi-phoneme (according to functional load), the graphic sequence typically stands for (in the language we talk), because man doesn’t know language-independent phonetic terminology”.

So you are right that the analogy is strong. It is not really reasonable to assume idiomaticity for one such combination, like th sound, only because it more often makes sense than crazier Verlegenheitswörter. One should consider that not everything that language users answer in a questionnaire is a valid designation; elicited terms should have to be separated as invalid vocabulary, to some degree. Fay Freak (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"th" can have different sounds - ð and θ in the IPA. DonnanZ (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• For the uninitiated these are the sounds in there and thin, respectively. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

-tive

this doesn't seem to meet criteria for inclusion 2601:242:4100:22C0:AD:D9D8:8F5E:4926 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• More discussion needed. On the surface, it appears that -tive along with -ative, -itive, -utive etc. are just specific types of the -ive suffix. Useful for statistics or other language analyses, e.g. Category:"words ending in 'utive'", but I'm not sure a definition for each is necessary. Facts707 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• I'm baffled by Category:English terms suffixed with -tive - it only contains innovative, which is surely innovate + -ive. If someone can think of an example of this being productive (which as we all know is produc + -tive) I'd say keep, but as it stands, Delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • (-ative is different, in that it sometimes suffixes to terms that don't have an -ate ending. go-aheadative or babblative for instance) Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
    • A complete list of English lemmas ending in -tive can be found here. It's a lot to go through, but I have yet to find one that isn't from []t + -ive or the equivalent in Old French or Latin (except the -ative ones you mentioned, and some possible candidates for a -itive ending, such as behabitive). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

      there's actually a few that could count like descriptive from describe and absorptive from absorb (absorption is listed as from absorb + -tion after all) Maddylicious (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

mutual aid

This phrase has not four senses. It has a single SOP sense but is used in a variety of contexts. PUC – 23:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Can also describe military pacts, etc. Just means "helping each other" without more context. Facts707 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• We may need to consult people who know something about these fields (biology, sociology, etc) to be sure, but I'm not convinced all of theses senses are SoP. The emergency medicine sense in particular seems countable. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

blue ribbon jury

SOP: compare blue-ribbon committee, blue-ribbon commission, blue-ribbon panel, blue-ribbon investigation. We're missing a sense at blue ribbon, however. PUC – 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

time gentleman please

time gentlemen please

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

Please delete. The correct orthography is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time_gentlemen_please newfiles (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like SOP, either way. See the Interjection section at English time. I would say the rest of the phrase is just there to be polite. Not that I know a lot about bars and pubs... Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They are the same entry, not two. In any case, it's a time-honoured phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. newfiles (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete both as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete time gentleman please, that's wrong. Keep time gentlemen please, as an idiomatic time-honoured phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete both. "Time please, gentlemen" is just as well attested, suggesting it is not a set phrase. This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete "time gentleman please" as it's a clear mistake: the phrase is "gentlemen". (What if there's only one customer in the pub? Haha. Still doubt it.) Equinox ◑ 07:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RFD-deleted time gentleman please, but the jury's still out on the plural form. This, that and the other (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

through

Postposition PoS header (should be Preposition if this is not an Adverb)

From beginning to end.

The baby cried the whole night through.

The usage seems very close in meaning to the Adverb def:

To the end.

He said he would see it through.

The adverb usage example would work pretty well:

He said he would see the crying through.

The adverb usage example, as most usage examples, should probably not use the term it rather than a common noun, it often being arguably part of an idiom or otherwise changing the usage by virtue of its 'lightness'. DCDuring (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete [or "re-POS"] the "Postposition" section IMO, in favor of viewing this as an adverb like long in equivalent phrases: "The baby cried the whole night long." (Prior discussion: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/January#through,_long.) - -sche (discuss) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree ... these are tricky, but on balance I think it is best to call it an adverb. Mihia (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Resolved? I've re-POS'd it. We should probably check whether we need as many different (adverb) senses as we have or could combine some. - -sche (discuss) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

language resource

Seems SOP, although I am struggling to grasp the precise signification of the term (the WP article didn't really help). This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep as a specific technical term; see WT:PRIOR. Lunabunn (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lunabunn what is it about this sense of language resource that is more than just a "resource pertaining to a language"? Of course, if the term is used in computational linguistics, one expects that it will refer to resources that are relevant to computational linguistics, but that doesn't necessarily give the term more meaning than the sum of its parts. This, that and the other (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as the definition stands. Ultimateria (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

if you see something, say something

Not a proverb, but a very modern slogan heard for example in UK rail station announcements! Equinox ◑ 19:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

why do you feel that this oft-heard phrase should be deleted? newfiles (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not lexicalised. Delete PUC – 19:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I hear it every time I travel by train. Maybe the BTP should trademark it. DonnanZ (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Or for that matter, New York's MTA. --Slgrandson (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Or L[os] A[ngeles] Metro, along with "si ve algo, diga algo" (it sounds more like "dig'algo") Chuck Entz (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep but move to see something, say something. Clearly idiomatic, because we generally see things throughout our waking day. The phrase requires knowledge that the "something" has to be something suspicious, and the "say something" has to be a notification of an authority figure. bd2412 T 04:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. But the phrase is like Microsoft's slogan "where do you want to go today?" The "go" is figurative, but this kind of modern-day catchy slogan for promotional purposes is not dictionary material. Equinox ◑ 04:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. Fay Freak (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Common catchphrases, like advertising slogans, which are not longstanding proverbs and are otherwise SoP and not used outside their original context shouldn’t be entries. For those reasons, I’d argue that the phrase under consideration, and I’m lovin’ it and just do it, shouldn’t be entries. Compare finger-lickin' good, which is claimed to be used outside its original KFC context. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: How do we know that this is not used outside of its original context as a slogan? If attestation is the issue, this should be moved to RFV. Lunabunn (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lunabunn: the phrase is currently defined in a completely SoP manner. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw It clearly isn't, unless your definition of something is limited to "suspicious activity, misconduct, corrupt dealings, or the like" and your definition of say is limited to "report[ing something] to the relevant authority." Lunabunn (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW, another one they use on the trains around here is: "See it, say it, sorted". Equinox ◑ 12:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there may be no one-size-fits-all phrase. I'll be listening next time I travel by train (probably to Norbiton). DonnanZ (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: what if we move this to see something, say something, which appears to be a common enough shortening. bd2412 T 22:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @BD2412: isn't that still SoP? — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is it SOP to the specific concept of "if you see suspicious activity, you should say something to an authority figure? We don't have entries for see something or say something that specify these narrow meanings, and nothing at see or say clearly indicates any such meaning. bd2412 T 22:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Keep. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also heard: "If you see something, report it using the LA Metro Transit Watch App". Remember that this is in a very specific context: along with recital of rules regarding rider conduct and tips for not attracting attention of thieves, all introduced as safety information- and often different ways of reporting are also covered. It's very strongly implied that misconduct of fellow riders or threats to safety are what is to be reported, the fact that this is a recording played over the PA system on the bus or train suggests that the authories are involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as is. A speaker unfamiliar with this phrase would have no idea what it refers to. The definition needs fixing though, as it is somewhat broader. I'll have a go. This, that and the other (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep either as is or moved, whichever is more commonly attested. "[If you] see something, say something" definitely has a connotation beyond the meaning of its constituents (as per bd2412), and I have never set foot in the UK. Lunabunn (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

How can a subset of a phrase ever be less common than the phrase itself? Every instance of "if you see something, say something" is an attestation of the component, "see something, say something". bd2412 T 19:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 Disagree. "See something, say something" is already a complete phrase, so were what you said to be true, "if you see something, say something" would have had to mean "if you [see something suspicious and report it to the authorities]." However, it instead just means the same thing as "see something, say something," so we can see that the two phrases are rather alternate forms of each other.

If you are arguing that the shortest form of any given phrase should always be the one that gets an entry, that seems both arbitrary and inconsistent. By that logic, for instance, we must remove most entries that begin with "the" such as the night is young, the nail that sticks out gets hammered down, et cetera because surely they are also uttered sometimes without the initial article. There are many more similar examples among currently existing (and uncontroversially so, as far as I can tell) idiom entries. Lunabunn (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

(Honestly, I feel like we should, but had the actual on-page headword read "the night...", etc.) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that "see something, say something" is a complete phrase in use in a way that "night is young" without the leading "the" is just not. bd2412 T 03:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and move to see something, say something. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I would honestly delete this. I just don't see that it is dictionary material. It is non-self-explanatory only in the feeblest sense that a modicum of context is needed. We might as well include any other arbitrary slogan, such as it's a lot less bovver than a hover explaining how this refers to hover mowers. Mihia (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as idiomatic (regardless of whether we move it or not). — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 05:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

-t

RFD of the sense currently listed as "(African-American Vernacular, slang) An intensifier added to the end of words ending in <d>, representing a change in pronunciation from /d/ to /t/."

The thrust of my argument is that, based on Taylor Jones' article Tweets as Graffiti, -t (in my opinion, more properly <-dt>) does not carry any semantic meaning that might qualify it under the "conveying meaning" clause of our criteria for inclusion as, say, -ist does. Instead, I would say <-dt> is a reflection of a sociolinguistically marked orthographic norm that would be better recorded on a page akin to Appendix:Early Modern English spellings. Please Talk:-t#African American usage for further details of my opinion on the matter as well discussion between me and @Ioaxxere.

If the consensus is to delete, there will be down stream effects on goodt, periodt, and Category:English terms suffixed with -t (intensifier) which either need updating, rewriting, or similar deletion, with exactly which is needed up to people's opinions. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As possible evidence to the contrary, I pointed out this quote:

• 2021 January 7, “Best Friend”‎^[14]performed by Saweetie ft. Doja Cat:

  Bitch, you look goodt, with a T at the end / I'ma hype her every time, that my mothafuckin' friend

which seems to imply that -t has some intensifying force. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, a slang suffix is a suffix still. There are other words that can be found with this addition, e.g. "stupidt", and perhaps "hott". bd2412 T 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @bd2412: Your comment doesn't appear to address User:The Editor's Apprentice's argument. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  If these were not conveying meaning, then why is there one letter consistently used for this purpose? Why doesn't periodd or periodk carry the same meaning? bd2412 T 15:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are right. The argument is just phonocentrist. Clearly even if theoretically not even suprasegmentals distinguish the term then we would have a bespoke meaning conveyed. Keep for consistency with our eye-dialect spellings and what not, not to say this motion is just structurally racist: boy profiles blacks as speech-oriented and making improper sounds whose representations are less deserving of inclusion because they don’t represent actual thoughts (my experience is the opposite). Fay Freak (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Part of my argument is that <t> is not the only letter that is used towards the purpose, as Jones describes it, of indicating secondary glottalization. <k> is also used in this way in connection to words with a standard written ending of <g> (e.g. thangk, cf. thang, thing) and similarly with <b> and <p> (e.g. cribp, cf. crib). The reason these letter pairs are connected is because the phonemes they usually represent as monographs share the same place of articulation, but differ in that one is voiced and one is unvoiced. That is why the hypothetical *periodd or *periodk don't exist in the same way, those spellings don't involve a digraph of consonant letters corresponding to the same place of articulation in the way periodt does. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If that's true, it may be closer to "shm" reduplication as in "rules, shmules". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Assuming that your note about the development within AAVE is true, one cannot deny the slang usage of "goodt" and such aren't intensifying as per loaxxere.

Thus, keep with or without the AAVE label. If the AAVE label is removed (and honestly even if it isn't), the development should be moved to the Etymology section. Lunabunn (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Which "note about the development within AAVE" are you referring too? I'm a little confused. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. The song and other examples suggest that spelling good (etc) as goodt ("with a t on the end") has intensifying force, but they are, I suppose, noncommital as to whether -t is an affix, i.e. as to whether goodt is the result of adding a -t to good, or the result of changing d to dt (and the latter, changing d to dt to express a pronunciation feature of AAVE, seems like it may well be how this originated). Compare how (despite my own reservations) people decided to delete -k- as used in to traffic→trafficked, viewing it as a change of c to ck rather than as the insertion of a -k-. Also compare how "colour, with a u in the middle" does not, in my view, imply that -u- is a Britishizing infix. However, it would not surprise me if the singer or other speakers did think of the -t as something that was added like an affix (although a layperson might not be familiar with the word affix); it may have outgrown its origins and become an affix. - -sche (discuss) 16:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The "u" in British colour/labour/neighbour is just a spelling variation, though. No one is suggesting that "goodt" or "periodt" is a legitimate and proper spelling variation of the words. The "t" is only ever added as an intensifier. bd2412 T 21:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The evidence cited by TEA, and what else I can find when I search for the origins of these spellings (albeit that what I find is also another paper by the same scholar, Taylor Jones), is that dt is a phonetic and spelling variation. That it is from AAVE and not from a "legitimate and proper" dialect seems immaterial. lithp is not a "proper" spelling of lisp, nor sitchuation nor google books:"zese zings", but does that mean -th- is an English infix meaning "replaces s to represent a lisp", -ch is "added to indicate yod-coalescence", or z- is "indicating a French or German accent"? It would not surprise me if someone could find evidence that goodt, Lordt etc has gone beyond only being a pronunciation and spelling variation (indeed, I suspect it could have!), but it's hard to pin down. (E.g., both the goodt song by Saweetie and Doja Cat and e.g. Ocean x KungFu - Oh Lordt c. 1:25 seem to use an AAVE pronunciation of the relevant word, so it's easy to view them as just using the corresponding AAVE spelling of that pronunciation.) - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is accurate to characterize goodt and periodt as vernacular spellings, though. I see no evidence that there is a general tendency for members of a particular group to spell the words that way in common parlance, as opposed to spelling it that way only in intensified circumstances. bd2412 T 03:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

galaxy, sense #4

This is a poorly-contrived sense/definition:

(fashion, design) Any print or pattern reminiscent of a galaxy, generally consisting of blending, semiopaque patches of vibrant color on a dark background.

With such quotes as:

• "Her walls and ceiling were covered with galaxy wallpaper; it was like stepping into space."
• "Her nerdy glasses sat perched on her face, and she wore a May the Force Be With You T-shirt with a black lace skirt, galaxy leggings, and a pair of white Star Wars Vans."
• "She hurriedly said that she found an^[sic] faded galaxy blanket. She loved galaxy patterned things."

In the quotes that are given, "galaxy-patterned" is an adjective, and in the three of "galaxy leggings", "galaxy wallpaper", and "galaxy blanket", the actual nouns (this sense/definition is under the heading of "noun") are "leggings", "wallpaper", and "blanket", "galaxy" is not functioning in any other sense or with any other definition other than #2 and #3 above it in the entry. You can replace "galaxy" in any of the quotes with almost any other noun, e.g. "flower leggings", "racecar blanket", "slinky wallpaper"—"galaxy" isn’t novel in this sense.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• If "galaxy" really is a generic name in the fashion or design industries for a type of pattern "blending, semiopaque patches of vibrant color on a dark background", then I believe we should keep this definition, but it isn't very clear that the present examples are meant in this sense, rather than just the "literally pictures of galaxies" sense. I thought that "galaxy leggings" looked most promising, but Google image search does seem to show a lot of examples that seem to literally be patterned with galaxies. Who knew? Mihia (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

... and following on from that, I meant to say that perhaps this should be moved to RFV to see if anyone can find uses that unambiguously do not refer to literal galaxies ... BUT ... another point has occurred to me also. Presumably a (whole) galaxy should be a discrete thing, yet some of the "galaxy leggings" patterns on Google image search, while "astronomical" in appearance, apparently do not depict entire galaxies, but rather nebulae, as far as I can tell. Can this be dismissed as a non-lexicographical terminological mix-up, or could it be seen as evidence of the queried "not literally galaxies" sense? Mihia (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this, but I would not, at least for my own part, regard some leggings only depicting nebulae as relevant, because that seems to be a general phenomenon true of this class of things: a "tomato" is a whole fruit/plant, but some "tomato leggings" I see (in a quick Google Images search) only depict slices of tomatoes, ditto "onion leggings", "Danny Devito" is a whole person but most "Danny Devito leggings" I can find only depict his head, an "oak" is a whole tree but many paintings of oaks only depict the above-ground part and not the root structure, etc. Depicting a recognizable part of something and not getting overly fine-grained in your terminology when selling it seems like a general phenomenon. On a balance, I'm leaning delete because it does seem, as HTG says, like "x leggings" being leggings that depict an approximation of (some recognizable portion of) x, and likewise for "x wallpaper", etc, is a general phenomenon. - -sche (discuss) 15:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. "Galaxy print" was a huge trend in fashion about six years ago. It isn't just NASA photos slapped onto consumer goods – although cheaper examples on Amazon often will be. Higher-quality examples typically feature watercolourish clouds in aesthetically-pleasing purples and blues. They aren't "literal pictures of galaxies" but rather stylised artistic representations meant to evoke galaxies (or more likely nebulae). There might be stars, but there won't be a discernible spiral shape, the muddy yellow-black of real galaxy photos, etc. It's a prettified and abstract idea of space. We have a pattern-related sense of floral ("portraying flowers, especially in a stylized way") that's a lot more literal than this. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Korea

Rfd-sense: "a dependency of Japan". Now covered under the reworked main sense "a nation and peninsula in East Asia".--Saranamd (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I am leaning towards deletion. In general, I don't agree with the tendency of some of our entries to (in effect) put changes of government as a separate sense line; we do not, for example, have separate senses at France for France as a monarchy that also governed colonies overseas, vs a republic that also governs colonies / 'constituent parts' overseas, etc (even though the scope of the first France and the second France are different), or for the times Poland was ruled by others vs itself. - -sche (discuss) 15:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Same here. Keeping track of all the countries, provinces, client states, entities at various levels in various feudal hierarchies, etc. in Europe would be very, very messy. Is Serbia a kingdom, a principality, a republic, a despotate, a part of Yugoslavia (which Yugoslavia?), of Serbia and Montenegro, of Austro-Hungary, of the Ottoman Empire, of the Byzantine Empire, or of Bulgaria? All of the above, in various permutations, and I'm sure I'm missing some. Likewise, Korea has been a kingdom, a single state, a divided state, any number of collections of kingdoms, etc. This seems like the purview of an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I also tend to agree. To me, "dependency of Japan" seems more like an episode in the history of the entity "Korea" rather than a separate entity. As others have mentioned, this could explode if our policy was to give all similar historical episodes in various parts of the world separate definition lines. Mihia (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's scope for listing multiple polities when they are connected but in a discontinuous way, or we risk confusing readers (e.g. Gwynedd refers to a historical Welsh kingdom and a modern county in Wales, both being roughly in the same location, but neither is a helpful definition if you're reading something that's talking about the other one). However, it's silly to list all the different permutations that a continuous polity has taken over time. Theknightwho (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So, to make my position (see my comment above) explicit, I'm thinking delete this sense. Regarding Geographyinitiative's point about the scope of the nation and the scope of the peninsula being different (which is a separate question from whether 'the nation' and 'the nation as a dependency of Japan' are separate), we might want to have a general discussion about whether to split polity vs geography senses in general. Australia also lumps together the most common 'an island' and 'a country' senses (it only has a separate geographic sense for the plate-tectonic sense, 'the island of Australia, plus New Guinea'), whereas Philippines splits the archipelago vs the country (and also has a dependency sense I'm going to add to this RFD). - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know about policy, since it can get complicated, so even making a policy fails. Entries just need to look good, this one doesn’t. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Honestly, the Australia definition seems wrong - Australia the island does not include Tasmania; Australia the country does. I'm going to split those senses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Korea (2)

Rfd-sense

I second this motion. Sparing a niche historical setting as described, the first definition seems to already encapsulate this second one, since the former describes the unified Korea nation-state prior to its division in 1948, and so it appears to render the latter redundant; this is without diving into the not-so subtle nuances of racism propagated by Imperial Japanese fascism at the time. Kyujhppchtc 06:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, without prejudice to later better descriptions. Such things are stuff for subsenses, about which you have a general understanding. Fay Freak (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Philippines

Rfd-sense: "(historical) A dependency of the United States (1898–1946)." (See preceding discussion about the "dependency" sense of Korea.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

araneomorph funnel-web spider

Transparent SoP: araneomorph + funnel-web spider. DCDuring (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's SOP, how does araneomorph (“any of the Araneomorphae, a suborder of spiders whose fangs cross with a pinching action”) + funnel-web spider (“any spider of the families Atracidae, Macrothelidae, and Macrothelidae, all of which weave funnel-shaped webs”) give us araneomorph funnel-web spider (“any spider of the family Agelenidae”)? Doesn't seem SOP at all. Theknightwho (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If WP is to be believed (w:Funnel-web spider), we appear to have a simple a set-intersection type scenario here. The funnel-web spiders that are araneomorphs happen to be the Agelenidae. That makes it SOP if you know your taxonomy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

good deal

Sum of parts. I suggest adding a separate section in deal as interjection. JimiY☽ru 06:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Although I am not familiar with this expression, as far as I can tell I would lean towards keep, if only because of such similarity with the better-known or more widespread expression a good deal, or indeed literal sense such as "I got a good deal on my new car", which could confuse people as to the intended meaning of this "good deal". I don't think the present example makes the greatest sense ever relative to the definition, however. "You got everything packed? Good deal!" How does this "affirm, indicate agreement, or consent"? Can we find a clearer example? Mihia (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  People who use this phrase in this way intend it to mean approval or affirmation. "You finished the job? All right!"is exactly synonymous. 2600:1702:2C18:5F00:4956:14C5:17EC:D2CE 16:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have also noticed that, while great deal covers noun uses without "a", such as The audience is generally unaware of the great deal of work that goes into its creation (and in fact a great deal is missing (redirect only), and needs to be added if only for the adverb sense), the corresponding uses of good deal without the indefinite article, which could be directly substituted into e.g. The audience is generally unaware of the good deal of work that goes into its creation, are missing. Most probably the organisation of "(a) good deal" should be changed to mirror that of "(a) great deal", in which case the entry for "good deal" would be kept anyway, for the "ordinary" idiomatic uses. Mihia (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NOW DONE

channel coal

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.

Please see my talk page: [15]. By the way, I might delete this later, so if anyone wants to archive and copy it here, feel free, just let me know.

My understanding is that this is a (possibly legitimate) variant of cannel coal, but we have an academic, or at least a pedant, who wants it destroyed, even if there is a bunch of evidence for the term in use. So: what say ye, Wiktionarians? Equinox ◑ 00:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in RFV? Binarystep (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Binarystep: Principle of charity... move it all if you want. I wasn't inclined, after this guy's behaviour. Equinox ◑ 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Binarystep why did you want this brought to RFV? It always had three cites. The question seems to be whether the term fails CFI in some other way, perhaps as a rare misspelling - which is a subjective criterion best dealt with at RFD. This, that and the other (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Honestly, I must've missed that. I'll move it back. Binarystep (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Achilles tendon reflex time

Speedied as SOP by Kiwima but recreated by Mynewfiles. This, that and the other (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Kiwima actually deleted it because the original author provided a very unclear and unambiguous definition, not because it was SOP. newfiles (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

N.B. Kiwima's note in the logs --- rfdef|en|OK, so that's what the test is used for, but the definition says nothing about what the test actually is. newfiles (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thus, I recreated the term after finding the correct and accurate definition in the field of medicine. It wasn't an easy task to locate it. newfiles (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to respond to any of my points? newfiles (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there was some discussion about this on my talk page. This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the information. newfiles (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

box ears

Entry created for a user's convenience (see history), but the cites are really for box the ears, box someone's ears, and even box on the ear (noun, not verb). Not how Wiktionary works. Equinox ◑ 09:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to box someone's ears. On one hand, I can see how this entry would be useful to someone (and be more obvious than the correct page title), but on the other hand, we don't have entries for blow mind or lose temper either. Binarystep (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the original reason for drafting the entry was that speaking as a user I had struggled to find the topic in Wkt, so box someone's ears patently is not an adequate headword: Wkt is not supposed to be limited to users who already know the content. I did eventually, shamefacedly, find it via Google in MW, then just for laughs looked in Wkt and there box someone's ears was. But it seems to me a confession of inadequacy when we have to go to MW for information before going back to Wkt...!

Such an item could be worded in various ways, so I created "box ears", those being the key words (and you can check the Wkt index to see that the entry does work). Note that blow mind and lose temper are not perfect analogies, because it is hard to provide examples of natural use of them as terms, whereas a construction such as: "If this happens again I'll have to come down and box ears till they begin to listen!" is perfectly natural.

If there is a natural Redirect facility in Wkt, (is there?) then it would be adequate to have just one entry plus as many redirects as anyone pleases. But in that case, or if box ears is to be deleted, then because the entry box someone's ears as it stands, is inadequate, then the content of the central entry should be replaced with the current current of box ears. I added that content because it told me what I had wanted to know, and had had to research, whereas the existing article had not. JonRichfield (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading this brings cauliflower ears to mind... DonnanZ (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect for nominator's reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete If you search for "box ears", "box someone's ears" is the (now) second result, not sure why this entry was created. Jberkel 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

malding

Rfd-sense adjective:

1. (Internet slang, neologism, Twitch-speak) Angry about a game, especially on the part of a man who is a poor loser.
2. (Internet slang, neologism, by extension) Angry or irate.

I'd say both of these are covered as participles of mald:

(slang, video games) To become extremely angry, especially as a result of losing a video game.

Theknightwho (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly "being" in a state is not the same as "becoming" that state. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Isn't this just like raging or fuming? BigDom 13:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

disem-

Not a prefix. disembowel is dis- + embowel, disembark is dis- + embark, etc. PUC – 20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

OED has an entry for this prefix. Still delete?

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=disem- newfiles (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is no instance of a word actually formed with it, then yes, delete. PUC – 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

disem-/disen- would be a derivative of dis-/-em and and dis-/-en. newfiles (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"-em" / "-en" is not right, as these are not suffixes. PUC – 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There's disemelevator (and the lack of a corresponding *emelevator), but it failed RFV in 2021 due to being mostly attested online. It could potentially be allowed under our new policy, but it's also clearly based on disembark and analyzable as dis- +‎ em- +‎ elevator anyway. Binarystep (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The OED entry pointed to by Mynewfiles isn't a real entry, just a little discussion of the use of the prefix dis- with en- and em-. However, it does say this:

Forms in disem- and disen- are found even where no verbs in em- or en- appear, as in disemburden, disenhallow, disenravel.

When it comes to attestation requirements for affixes, we generally look for three words formed in the modern stage of the language using the affix. If we can attest those three words (or others like disemelevator) I would say this prefix can be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Heh, I see our entry for disemburden has for its etymology dis- +‎ emburden. OED doesn't have an entry for the latter word, but we do. Equinox created it so it's almost certainly real. However, its absence from OED suggests that disemburden predates emburden, which would make our etymology diachronic. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Anachronic, you mean? PUC – 07:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

anachronistic, you mean? LOL!n newfiles (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly. Anyway I looked into it some more and I think OED's remark is simply a reflection of lacunae in its coverage:

• emburden can be found in EEBO. OED lemmatises it at imburden. So disemburden is not evidence for the prefix disem-.
• The participle/adjective disenhallowed is almost attestable: Citations:disenhallowed (even if the verb is not), but enhallowed is actually more abundantly attested.
• The same appears to be the case for disenravelled/enravelled = disenraveled/enraveled.

So it looks more and more like PUC is on the money. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For disembowel the 1933 OED also has this:

Disembow·el, v. [f. Dis- 6 + Embowel v. (in sense 3); but in sense 1 app. only an intensive of Disbowel.]

 --Lambiam 18:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

make-work job

The definition gives a wrong impression of idiomaticity because its focus is off. It's true that a make-work job is likely to be a "job that has less immediate financial benefit to the economy than it costs to support", but make-work job does not actually mean that; it just means "work assigned or taken on only to keep someone from being idle". In other words it's a plain SOP of make-work + job, and is no more entryworthy than make-work project, make-work activity, make-work policy, etc. PUC – 22:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

time stands still

I think this is SoP: time + stands still. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I would keep this somehow, since it has connotations beyond the impossible situation (short of travelling at light-speed) that the words literally describe. There are, however, the problems mentioned earlier of how to list it, since there is no obvious infinitive form. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is correctly classed as a phrase (non-prepositional). DonnanZ (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

time stood still is also a phrase. Mihia (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Most metaphorical phrases denote impossible situations if taken literally (“the impossible happened”;^[16] “his eyes were fiery coals”;^[17] “my blood turned into ice”^[18]). The fact that they have nonliteral connotations is IMO an insufficient argument for considering them to be lexicalized. Lexicalization requires that these connotations are nonobvious, for example because the original meaning of some of its parts has become obsolete, as is the case for the expression shuffle off this mortal coil.  --Lambiam 09:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the connotations are completely obvious. Someone could think that "time stands still" referred to a very boring situation, one in which time dragged to an extreme degree, which is almost opposite to what it does often mean, e.g. in "I saw the car coming straight towards me, and for a moment time stood still". Having said that, the present quotations at the article do not all seem to very clearly illustrate this sense, which is the one I think the definition is referring to (though I don't think it is the greatest definition ever written), so this could need attention. Mihia (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You can also have a village where “time stands still”^[19][20] (or “stood still”^[21][22]), which can mean that nothing dramatic happens there so one’s soul can find rest, but also that the local traditions are old, allowing us to have a peep through a telescope back in time. Perhaps it can also mean other things; it is what you expect to see for a sum of parts that by themselves can have several meanings. Alternatively, one can say that “time was frozen”,^[23][24] with a similar range of meanings.  --Lambiam 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: I feel that what you said actually supports my views. Why couldn't someone write that a performance was so boring that "time stood still" for her? It wouldn't be obviously wrong. I also agree with @Lambiam's views above. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

They can write that, and, in fact, at least one of the examples that we presently have may refer to this sense. (The examples are mixed up and do not (all) illustrate the sense that the present definition apparently refers to.) However, I doubt that an entry should be disqualified because it has a range of uses. In fact, the contrast between, say, "a village where time stood still" and the "car coming towards me"-type usage is even more reason to keep, I would say. Above all, and different from, let's say, "time drags", "time goes quickly", "time goes slowly", etc. etc., this one to me just feels like a set phrase that has an identity of its own, some quality greater than the sum of its parts. Mihia (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The cites that we have are no good (they are clearly straightforwardly saying that time (sense 1.4) stood still), but I think this can be salvaged. I've added one cite that feels more clearly idiomatic, using the phrase adjectivally to describe travel through a storm as as "a time-stands-still' ride", and I'm sure I've seen it as a standalone phrase ("The glasses hit the ground and shatter. Time stands still. What have I done?") but it's hard to search for. I've also added a second sense (used to refer to historic-feeling places such as "a town where time stands still"), although I'm not sure about the definition. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for adding the additional citations. newfiles (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

language learning

language learner

If this isn't SOP, then what is? Ditto for language learner. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Is the term used idiomatically for non-human languages, e.g. programming? Equinox ◑ 22:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not idiomatic, it's brachylogy if anything. Programming language is still a language and it doesn't even deserve a mention in either definition. JimiY☽ru 04:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What does this even mean? PUC – 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be idiosyncrasy. I am self-aware about it as an autist.

But third language acquisition is of greater concern. We rather need to fill the link for language acquisition; note that, I think, language acquisition tends to mean native language amongst children, too, whereas language learning is the more systematic stuff one does when already possessing a language from upbringing and hence tackles one of an othered (sic!) language community. second-language acquisition may stay because it is a customary course in colleges, I know when I studied linguistics BA, they have Zweitspracherwerb as well as Erstspracherwerb, and coursebooks and the like on this. Not to speak of statistical language acquisition. The case is lost, I think, thanks to @Oliver201013’s bravado as the author of these entries this year. I mean, we won’t have fifth-language acquisition just because. Though I spy a few uses of fourth-language acquisition. We are limited by attestation either way. Fay Freak (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• "language learning" does seem to be much more common than other comparable phrases, e.g. "math/maths/mathematics learning", "speech learning", etc. Is this just because it is a more written-about topic, or does it point to any special quality of the phrase? Having said that, those others, such as "speech learning", "math learning", etc., can of course readily be attested. Mihia (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The fact that one counts languages, in one’s portfolio, achievement unlocked. Like law shopping is achieving an individualized result. Or credit-card churning squeezing it out like butter. People are thrilled by it, and if there is enough money behind it become professors in it, but at least teach it somewhere else with materials. I mean this explains the frequency whereby one talks about a thing, not whether the name for the particular method and application of collecting a particular kind of achievement is idiomatic. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Mihia: Never underestimate the influence of alliteration and prosody on commonness. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

    True, although some tests I did at Ngrams seemed to show "language learning" a hundred times, or even several hundred times, more common than other apparently comparable phrases with "learning", which did strike me as a lot ... Mihia (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, obvious SOP's. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep language learner for the translations, and because it seems to exclusively mean "foreign language learner" to the exclusion of people who are in the process of learning/acquiring their mother tongue. PUC – 18:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. I don't see that language learner satisfies THUB - we have transparent multi-word translations as well as some transparent closed compounds in the usual languages (Dutch, German, Hungarian). This, that and the other (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep as per PUC; "language learning/er" specifically refers to the act of/an individual learning foreign human languages, which is nonobvious from the definition of language. Lunabunn (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

sum of its parts

SOP. Nicodene (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Lol, this is a bit surreal. I added Jimbo Wales' quote about the purpose of Wikipedia ("sum of all human knowledge" etc) under sense 1 of sum ("a quantity obtained by addition or aggregation"), which should take care of this. Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

An autological phrase! Mihia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep Is this a joke? CheeseyHead (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep This would definitely be a novel instance of wikt-inception, but I'd need to see something far more persuasive/substantive from the proposer than "SOP" before giving it serious consideration. RogueScholar (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, or rather convert into a collocation. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep As much as it is absolutely hilarious, this isn't really SOP at all. Someone-123-321 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

mobile translation

Supposedly means "Electronic devices or software applications that provides audio translation." Only Wikipedia and our entry restrict this to audio translation (and amusingly, our definition doesn't even require that the translation have any "mobile" characteristic!). In truth the term is SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Does it mean the devices/apps, or does it actually mean the service/capability? I mean, if you have a device with this capability, do you say of it "I've got a mobile translation"?? Mihia (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

apple blossom, apricot blossom, orange blossom

Blatant SOP’s. Orange blossom’s mitigating circumstance is its handful of one-word Romance equivalents, which might perhaps insure survival as translation hub.

There’s also cherry blossom and peach blossom, which have separate meanings, and plum blossom, which does things right. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all Purplebackpack89 23:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Delete as obvious SOP's, although I agree that orange blossom could be kept as a translation hub. I note that User:Purplebackpack89 gives no justification for their keep vote other than a statement on their user page that they disagree with the SOP principle (which is nonetheless a cornerstone principle of Wiktionary). Benwing2 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Bro, are you following me around to every vote I make #Harassment Purplebackpack89 00:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing wrong to get ‘stalked’ by more experienced editors. This is but part of an effort to make a quality dictionary. You on the other hand are a poor editor for taking everything personally and feeling intimidated by necessary actions of careful editors. Inqilābī 20:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• The nominator obviously overlooked appleblossom. In any event, this is a crazy case of blatant picking and choosing. I am inclined to keep them all. DonnanZ (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Blatant cherry picking perhaps? But seriously, there is no necessity for appleblossom to reference a separate entry apple blossom and thus require us to retain the latter, if there is no other reason to do so. appleblossom can simply be defined as "Apple blossom, i.e. the blossom of an apple tree", or something like that. Mihia (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  If appleblossom is attestable, WT:COALMINE demands that we keep apple blossom... that's just the way COALMINE works. This, that and the other (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not obvious to me that appleblossom satisfies CFI. It looks very strange to me and only one cite was provided (in the context of Johnny Appleseed, where the name suggests the unusual spelling). Benwing2 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, I remember now. You know when your mind blots out something that is just too horrible to face? That must've been what happened to me here. Mihia (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I find capitalised appleblossom is used by plant nurseries for names of varieties. The real issue here though is the nominator's pickiness - it's either delete 'em all or keep 'em all. I prefer the latter. DonnanZ (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  The nominator explained why (in his or her opinion) some should be kept and others deleted, namely that some have other meanings beyond the SoP, or in one case as a translation hub. So it is not mere "pickiness" as you put it. Mihia (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Donnanz: I have also created orangeblossom. J3133 (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all as likely set phrases, at least. Does anyone refer in any meaningful proportion to an "orange flower" (other than for a flower that is the color, orange), or an "apple bloom", or an "apricot flower"? bd2412 T 04:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @BD2412 Hi. I think you may be misunderstanding the difference between collocation and idiom. The canonical example of "strong tea" is often used in NLP as an example of a collocation that rarely occurs in the synonymous form "powerful tea"; but that does not make "strong tea" an idiom that would pass the SOP test. Same thing here; just because the term "blossom" is used more often with fruits than "flower" doesn't make these terms non-SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Benwing2: I did not say that these were "idiomatic", I said that these are apparently set phrases. bd2412 T 13:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @BD2412 But are they really set phrases? If money grew on trees, we would be talking about "money blossoms". Generally any crop with recognizable flowers (no "corn blossoms" or "juniper blossoms", but almost everything else) that bears fruit will be referred to as having "blossoms". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Will they, though? I will say, I have heard "orange blossom" and "apple blossom" all my life, as well as "cherry blossom", which is not nominated here (and would not be surprised in the least if orangeblossom, appleblossom, and cherryblossom exist), but have also heard "pine flower" and "cactus flower". bd2412 T 14:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Note that definition 1 of blossom is "A flower, especially one indicating that a fruit tree is fruiting". Given that many types of fruit and fruit blossoms exist, I feel that this might be sufficient, rather than treating every case as a set phrase. Mihia (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @BD2412 But the SOP criterion (see WT:SOP) is specifically worded in terms of idiomaticity. It says nothing about set phrases per se. It specifically says anything non-idiomatic is an SOP (hence worthy of deletion). Benwing2 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Also pear blossom, lemon blossom, lime blossom, pomegranate blossom, quince blossom, japonica blossom, mulberry blossom ... need I go on? The definition at blossom suffices, so Delete any that do not have additional senses beyond "fruit/plant + blossom". Mihia (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep apple blossom and orange blossom per coalmine. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

dont tread on me

Questionable creation by User:Purplebackpack89. A misspelling tagged as an "alternative form"; not even in Google Ngrams. Do we really want all possible misspellings of every random term out there? Benwing2 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Flummont (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

the Gadsden Flag contains the phrase without an apostrophe

• Strongest possible keep and suggest immediate withdrawal. First off, are you nominated this because I'm the creator, or because you actually think it should be deleted? Please remember to focus RfDs on content.

Also, what background research did you do before this nomination, apart from Google Ngrams? Simple background research would indicate that this is not just some "random misspelling". The first sentence of the Wikipedia article notes that the phrase is "usually stylized in all caps without an apostrophe". The Gadsden Flag and First Navy Jack, the most common displays of the phrase, contain it without the apostrophe. See also dont; that's how "don't" was spelled back then. Purplebackpack89 23:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Purplebackpack89. Not a misspelling. Binarystep (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but as something like "archaic typographical form" rather than "alternate form." This has value for non-native English speakers searching for the precise flag motto. There's editors who make a point of transcribing quotes from 17th-century books with long s. I don't see this kind of hyperprecision as much different. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy: There's {{obsolete form of}}. Binarystep (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• My view expressed above under #Bah! Humbug was "I think the entry should survive if this precise capitalisation and punctuation was a widespread form that was especially worth documenting." This would appear to be one of those cases that is "especially worth documenting" so I say keep. This, that and the other (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• If this is kept, can its historical/conventional significance be explicitly explained at the entry? Yes, there is a picture of a flag, but the present caption does not mention the spelling discrepancy. There is some mention of the apostrophe issue at Gadsden flag -- which, yes, is only a click away, but even so I think some words at don't tread on me to explain why dont tread on me is not any random unimportant spelling error would be very helpful. Mihia (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per all the above. Inqilābī 20:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Feels like it's time to close this as SNOW keep. Only the nominator has expressed deletion and a bunch of people have said keep Purplebackpack89 05:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is time for you to chill out, that's what it is. RFD's normally stay open two weeks or so at a minimum. I don't see why you are so antsy about this. Benwing2 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning Delete. I've searched for citations in good faith, but every hit I can find is directly quoting the flag ("a 'Dont Tread on Me' flag", etc), so I think this fails the "three independent citations" rule. If there were a couple of examples of people using "dont tread on me" as a slogan independent of describing the flag, I'd be happy to say keep, but as it stands, this spelling appears to be a one-off. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Smurrayinchester What you're saying is purely a matter for RFV, not RFD: they're two separate issues. We can still send dont tread on me to WT:RFV if it passes RFD, but it doesn't make sense to vote delete at RFD because you haven't been able to find any cites yourself: that's why we leave terms in RFV for at least a month, to allow people a chance to find them. Theknightwho (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete for the reason given by @Smurrayinchester. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• It was suggested above that there be a a usage note or something like that explaining the context of why there is no apostrophe. I added one earlier today but was undone by @Fenakhay. Can we discuss this? I think it should be re-added but I'm not willing to edit war to get it back in there. Purplebackpack89 16:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Purplebackpack89: that should be raised at the Tea Room. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete because it is bullshit, and secondly because it is Purple's entry. This time it is personal, and I'm officially joining the "we hate Purpleback" club. Hopefully Purple can attack me, instead of the project. Denazz (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Denazz: not helpful, but of course you know that. Dial it down, please. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  You know that your vote will probably be completely ignored, right? I mean, haters dont count. CheeseyHead (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Smurrayinchester. Fay Freak (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per WT:JIFFY: "Terms which would have passed at some point in the history of the English language", which would have applied in the past before apostrophes became standardised. Theknightwho (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That test is intended to distinguish idiomatic terms from SoP terms, so it doesn't seem to apply here. Mihia (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why WT:JIFFY shouldn't apply in general. Theknightwho (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. To give a random example, of the numerous phrases that we list incorporating the word "show", most probably one could find "shew" spellings for quite a few. Would we want to list all these separately with "shew", or is it sufficient to simply list "shew" as an old spelling of "show"? My inclination is towards the latter. Mihia (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia We wouldn't disqualify any shew spellings because it's an alternative spelling of show, so they'd pass CFI anyway. The key thing here is that a lack of apostrophe is now widely agreed to be a misspelling, and the question is whether it's relevant that that misspelling pre-dates the modern spelling. In my view, it's a clear case of WT:JIFFY, since there was a period of time when it would have been the only form of the term in existence. Theknightwho (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly have an opinion on "dont tread on me" per se, but the "WT:JIFFY" test is intended to distinguish terms that were once non-SoP even though they seem SoP now, so it wouldn't apply here. If we need an explicit rule about terms that were once correct spellings but are now deemed misspellings then I suppose this should be stated in the "Misspellings" section of the CFI. Mihia (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Send to RFV. AG202 (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete as a SOP slogan. We don't have entries for no taxation without representation or 54°40' or fight. ScribeYearling (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think the second one at least needs to be here. Historical terms and slogans are often poorly represented here. Purplebackpack89 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We could very well create those, no? MedK1 (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. MedK1 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ishango bone

demon core

Specific individual objects: do we want these? I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards "no: delete". We do not, for example, have Uluburun shipwreck, Bülach fibula, Moregine bracelet, Liudhard medalet, Sutton Hoo purse-lid, Azelin chandelier. Compare #Einang stone, below. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weirdly, "demon core" brings up a massive amount of (mostly Chinese) fantasy fiction on Google Books. I can't make out from the context whether it has a meaning beyond "the core of a demon". Otherwise I'd tend to say delete. I did wonder if it would be also be a generic term for a plutonium core, particularly one used for tickling the dragon's tail, but I don't think it is. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Happy with the extended uses. Keep demon core Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• In principle these are archaeological sites and scientific artefacts of contemporary history, that have been small enough or recent enough to be moved around and not even recognized as such. Keep. Fay Freak (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep demon core. Being the subject of memes and pop history videos has led to some use of demon core as figure of speech (e.g. "the demon core of ...") Nicerink (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

As I also mentioned in another thread, we need to be cautious about allowing "the X of Y" as qualifying figurative use because this pattern can be found with all manner of proper names -- even "Gettysburg Address" (e.g. "the Gettysburg Address of Baseball"), which most people have voted to delete. Mihia (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Einang stone

I created this in 2012, at which time I figured it was "no more SOP or encyclopedic than White House", but now I'm not sure (and in the intervening years, we even updated CFI so that buildings like White House are only kept if they have "figurative use"). Count me as an abstain rather than a delete here, but I think enough people might think this should be deleted that I'm bringing it up for discussion. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

For now keep because we have Rosetta Stone. Names of such notable historical / archeological things can be exempted, unless we explicitly decide not to do so. Inqilābī 23:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the Gettysburg Address, which almost everyone agreed should be deleted, also a notable historical thing? Or is there a difference between physical things and abstract things? Mihia (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

In principle you are right, but the name of a book, newspaper, or speech seems (to me) more encyclopedic than that of a monument (Taj Mahal), painting (Mona Lisa), or a stone inscription (as the one discussed here). We need to have more talks to determine if we want to allow the latter ones. Inqilābī 00:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant to mention also that Rosetta Stone is different because it also has the figurative sense. We would want to keep that whatever. I don't really understand on what basis we have Taj Mahal and Mona Lisa, however. Why not any building or any painting? Or do we just allow certain ones because they are very famous and well known? Seems a bit dubious or subjective as to what is deemed "famous enough". Mihia (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I’d vote keep for Taj Mahal but weak delete for Mona Lisa— my rationale being, renowned landmarks (Angkor Wat, Great Wall of China, Taj Mahal etc. etc.) are rather analogous to toponyms and suchlike geographical forms (as Fay Freak said beneath); personal artwork in all likelihood don’t merit lexicographical coverage, much like speeches. Your concern about subjectivity is a good point however- I guess we can retain or delete contested landmark entries on a case-by-case basis… Inqilābī 14:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Speeches like the Gettysburg Address are not the same thing as an erected landmark, e.g. more ephemeral materially, while these buildings are regarded by our toponym votes, and cornerstones (hah!) to weltanschauungen, religions, arts and sciences, and hence linguistic idioms humans develop and espouse. We also create all holiest sites in Shia Islam, which are of interest due to their treatment in diverse languages, don’t we? Keep, Fay Freak (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

CFI says "Most manmade structures, including buildings [etc. etc.] may only be attested through figurative use". That would seem to include, or rather exclude, Taj Mahal. Not sure whether Einang stone counts as a "structure". It might do, or it could be seen as an artefact. Mihia (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We cannot create the local pub, but beyond that the policy decision appears undecided in what the actual criteria area, hence it describes a kind of probability (“most manmade”). Whether man or nature more have shaped a feature only addresses gameability, that’s again why we don’t create digs.

Bodies of water in densely settled and developed countries are in about half of cases manmade, channels and reservoirs, delimited by manmade dams; I highly doubt that we can create rivers but not canals, the more so that we can create reservoirs (Stauseen) as opposed to canals since they are not in the mostly-not-included list. That part of the CFI was written from the perspective of a more aquatic ape living near a natural lake or river, isn’t it, rather than in a settlement with a reservoir or canal as the largest body of water.

I clock that a major question we answer ourselves is the value as a touristic attraction (Wikivoyage yay, Wikipedia nay), or scientific or artistic, and on the other hand the conspicuousness of a term or its translations as an idiomatic factor, perhaps more concretely whether you should look anywhere else than Wiktionary to resolve your place-names in any language; for both reasons Angkor Wat is a good thing to have, while only due to the latter it can hardly be argued away that we should have die Tüte, as boring as a tram station entry but without which local press and police reports are imperfectly understood.

Only recently I have been definitely informed that the construction of what is figurative or literal differs by attention focus, so we all are a bit at loss here. By their very natures, the specific designations of buildings, if they have any at all rather than being mere numbers on a street, then tend to be tongue-in-cheek, hence figures of speech. Case in point, die Tüte puns upon the form of the described entrance area, figuratively using the container name: only figurative use exists here, no literal one. Or did you know that Gazastreifen (literally “Gaza Strip”) is a street in Berlin? Does it make a difference whether the name is informal or official? Then again boozing-kens which we should not create use to have fancy names that come out figurative, not even always clear whether the trader or his customers originally invented the name of the house, the further you go back in history. Fay Freak (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Leaning keep. Theknightwho (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

samblind

Middle English.

I don’t think it is attested, and the Old English form *samblind is itself unattested according to different sources. Inqilābī 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Inqilābī this should be at RFVE. But I agree, it does seem unattested. This, that and the other (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

12 MN

12 NN

Tagged by User:Ysrael214, but not listed. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There are Philippine-related entries for MN and NN, but I can't verify these. Maybe they should be in RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz I can attest MN and NN (sometimes mn/m.n. and nn/n.n.), but I'm not sure if the following should be created, 12 MN, 12 NN, 1 PM, 2 PM, 3 PM, 4 PM, 5 PM, 6 PM, etc. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Though mn and nn are only used in time contexts. You can't say "I'll meet you later this nn.", that's wrong. Just "..later this noon." 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ysrael214 Sounds a bit similar to o'clock, which needs a number before it, but expressions like "twelve o'clock" are still SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete per SOP. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 11:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the label of the relevant sense of MN, that abbreviation is only used in this expression. That sense should be changed to {{only used in|en|12 MN}} and we should keep 12 MN. Same with 12 NN and NN. This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If MN and NN are only used in those two collocations, then I would do as TTO says, keep these and define MN, NN as "only used in..." links to the full phrases. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

river dune

Is this idiomatic? You can also have e.g. google:"a lake dune", google:"an ocean dune", google books:"a desert dune". The definition implies some slight specificity, as if perhaps not just any dune formed in/by a river would be a "river dune", but looking at google books:"river dunes" it seems like any [river] [dune] is a [river dune]. Am I missing something...? - -sche (discuss) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

But we do need to tweak the definition of dune, as dunes can be formed by things other than wind, see google books:"underwater dunes", google books:"deep-sea dunes". (Done.) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: There's a coalmine: riverdune. Looks very easily attestable so I vote keep. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

the math ain't mathing

We already have: the math is mathing. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 20:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: So? Purplebackpack89 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Seems to be the canonical version of the phrase, with the ‘is’ version being a humourous inversion. I’d keep this and delete the latter (but mention it in the usage notes or something). Nicodene (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to list this as a negative form, because nobody's going to search for the math is mathing. It should be noted that it's not just ain't though; isn't will also do, and perhaps is not. —Soap— 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep This would be my preference as well. I've heard it said various ways in the negative form owing to regional preferences for those constructions, they don't impact the meaning. Also, like @Nicodene:, I would shift the scrutiny to the positive entry as it strikes me as artificial at first glance. RogueScholar (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect. See Category:English negative polarity items for examples of terms being listed in the positive. @Purplebackpack89, are you going to RFD and RFV all of them? Ioaxxere (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

More likely I'd CREATE the negatives. If a phrase is used mostly in the negative, a definition should exist with the negative phraseology. That shouldn't be controversial. you can't judge a book by its cover, Rome wasn't built in a day, clothes don't make the man and many other phrases containing not, don't, can't, etc already have entries. And, for what it's worth, the negative polarity category seems to be a strange mishmash. Some of the things categorized in it already contain "no", "not", "don't", etc. Some of them are used in both the positive and negative. And one more thing: will your vote change if "the math is mathing" fails RfV? Purplebackpack89 21:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: All those examples are proverbs, which have a fixed wording. On the other hand, the math is mathing doesn't have a fixed wording. The quotes show various variations replacing "is" with "appears to be", "started", "just isn't", etc. If "the math is mathing" is never used in a positive context my vote could change although this isn't the case here. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're sure that isn't the case? Are you prepared to back up your statement by adding enough positive citations for it to pass RFV? Purplebackpack89 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete together with the math is mathing. Both are equally SoP.  --Lambiam 09:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's an SoP per WT:JIFFY. Math as a verb is primarily used in this idiom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep We have different version of terms. It's not a big deal. CheeseyHead (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

the math is mathing

Phrase is more commonly rendered in the negative (the math ain't mathing or the math is not mathing) than in the positive. I'm not even sure "the math is mathing" without the not or ain't even passes RfV. Purplebackpack89 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect one to the other (I don't care which), and add Category:English negative polarity items. PUC – 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Since one can say things like, they didn’t provide enough data for us to say whether the math is mathing, it seems better to use this as the main form. But isn't this SOP, with a verb sense of math (“to add up, compute; (by extension) to make sense”). Note that there is also the entirely positive collocation “the math did math”.  --Lambiam 21:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be a little concerned that that phrase isn't actually cited that way, in the positive? As of now, it doesn't pass RfV. Purplebackpack89 23:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

When you wrote this, there were many positive quotations, including one in precisely this form. I might be concerned for its safety if no quotations had been found after this term had been listed for a considerable time at RfV. Here at RfD we deal with different concerns, such as whether this is merely a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 09:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Those quotes were added between when I wrote that and when you responded, FWIW Purplebackpack89 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep It really dosen't matter if it is more common or not. Any other reasons for it being removed? CheeseyHead (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

hair remover

Sum of parts. Included in Collins but that definition doesn't seem convincing. Einstein2 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep as a synonym of depilator and depilatory. Inqilābī 19:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how that supports keeping the entry. Are you suggesting we should keep hair remover alongside depilator/depilatory per WT:THUB? We only tend to do that when the one-word synonym is rare and the multiword entry has a much higher chance to be entered as a search term (e.g. Anglistics and English studies; tractor driver and tractorist; infectious disease specialist and infectiologist). The translation table is currently in depilatory, and it actually seems more frequent than hair remover. Einstein2 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hair remover is a simpler word more likely to be employed in everyday speech, while depilator(y) sounds more technical and inkhorn (and I came to know about the latter term just yesterday). We probably don’t have any such guidelines but I am of opinion that every synonym of a term should be valid entries. Inqilābī 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

grasively

We shouldn't be documenting bullshit generated by AI. Not yet, anyhow... Denazz (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, this does raise questions about the future of CFI. I only saw one result from a 2023 book on mental health. I'd say put it into an appendix, since a word that proves a text was written by AI is useful. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i think the appendix would be good if we see these words crop up by the tens and hundreds, but right now we just list three: this one and the redlinked adapitates and elosphite. —Soap— 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (although I'm not convinced by sense 1 - the quote given also looks like it means "comprehending" - that's an RFV thing). We document non-existent words used by non-native speakers (see Category:Non-native speakers' English) where these are common enough that people might come across them, and we also have words like medireview, which are also computer-generated gibberish. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

(In fact, I think the cites at both senses are more suggestive of "in an comprehending way". If the etymology is right, I'd suggest it's an accidental blend of grasp and comprehensively, with the LLM mistakenly interpreting the comprehens part as having something to do with comprehension. That would also explain why it appears to have a secondary sense of "thoroughly") Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Entry revised accordingly. An RFV may still be warranted for the surviving sense. I don't know policy—can the entry go to RFV while this RFD is open to inform the decision here? (I am indifferent to keep or delete as long as we end up with clarity in WT:CFI as to whether and when these LLM coinages should be included.) 166.181.80.177 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The AI is trained to write texts that convey meaning, and it's using this word in an effort to do this, so any uses would be perfectly valid uses for attestation purposes. Compare medireview for another technologically-generated word. If there end up being too many of these "AI-coined" words I would reconsider. This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RFV, I guess: if texts written or at least edited and published by humans are using the word, as with medireview, then this would be includable on a level with that, with its coinage by AI being etymology. If the only place this occurs are in texts written by AI without human revisions, I am sceptical: texts written by computers/algorithms combining words do not seem to be new, I have come across gibberish books from decades past which were the result of a human feeding a list of words to a computer/algorithm and the computer assembling them, and I am not aware of us previously accepting the resulting gibberish. - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep This is a surprisingly common term (probably partially thanks to AI coining the term), and we also document terms made by non-native speakers (which is a somewhat related category). If all else fails, possibly appendixise to something like Appendix:Terms coined by AI text generators when or if that gets created but don't delete Someone-123-321 (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Boots

Not sure that it has a figurative sense (none in the entry at the moment) or that it passes WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say it's a household name in the UK. I was surprised to find recently that Boots manage the pharmacy at Kingston Hospital. DonnanZ (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

But does it pass WT:BRAND? Can we find sufficient evidence that one would call, for example, a Lloyds or Superdrug pharmacy a “Boots”? — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i tried searching a few phrases and got hits like "good old Boots" but all that i found refers directly to the chain. —Soap— 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have never heard "Boots" used to mean "pharmacy", except when people are using it as an example where the specific company isn't actually relevant: if someone suggests you "pop down to Boots to get some sun cream", they're just saying you should go and buy some sun cream in town, and are unlikely to think the specifics of exactly where you buy it matter, without some additional establishing context that limits it to Boots in particular. However, you can do the same with any common chain of shops, depending on the product; the implication is that it's an example, not that the term actually carries the broader meaning. Theknightwho (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I would argue it should be kept in this case TBH, since it might be ambiguous; compare also entries like YouTube (“any website that allows users to upload content”, noun) and Pornhub (“any pornographic website”, noun). Regardless, I could not find any solid attests for Boots being a common way to refer to any pharmacy, hence my vote below. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Well, LloydsPharmacy has sold off all of their pharmacies in the UK. As for Superdrug, if the shop in my town (which is next door to Boots!) is anything to go by, it doesn't have a pharmacy, concentrating on cosmetics, toiletries and the like. I think Boots would pass WT:BRAND in the UK, they do sell Boots-branded pharmaceuticals, and the name has been around for a very long time. DonnanZ (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete – fails WT:BRAND. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

get into it

This clearly appears to be SoP: "get into" + "it". Any input is appreciated. mynewfiles (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously redundant, and the en-verb template inflects another entry. JimiY☽ru 06:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• It seems similar to other Category:English terms with placeholder "it", like knock it off. These are (I assume) considered idiomatic because "it" doesn't have to have a referent. That's the same with get into it. You can say something like "I should be doing my taxes but don't want to get into it" or "we have a lot to talk about, but let's not get into it right now", for example. Mazzlebury (talk)
  • Keep in case that wasn't obvious. Mazzlebury (talk)
• [Edit conflict with Mazzlebury] Is this believed to be the same as sense #10 of get into, "To argue about (something)"? While I readily understand the example there, "Oh let's not get into that again", I wouldn't understand specifically that the "get into it" example, "We're finally going to get into it about the policy", means to fight or argue. This, and the fact that the "get into it" example is labelled "US" (I am from the UK), seems to suggest some point of difference. Perhaps the "it" without referent makes a separately idiomatic phrase. Mihia (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Mazzlebury. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Mazzlebury. Cremastra (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep per Mazzlebury above; they make a solid argument IMO. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Smarandache function

Requested for deletion for self-promotion. Smarandache is an infamous crank in the mathematical community and there are many other instances of him self-promoting, e.g. on Wikipedia.

If you need further details, see the Talk page of the corresponding wikipedia article "Kempner function"; although "Smarandache function" is a redirect link to it, there clearly should not be a Wiktionary page for the term Smarandache function. Vstephen B (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the page was made by Equinox, and not a member of Smarandache's crew, as far as I know. I don't think that RFD is appropriate here, given the circumstances. Maybe RFV, to see if people are using the term. (Side note, when I go into Google Books, I see some results. Not sure if every result is just Smarandache, or if it has been rarely used.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Looking on Google Scholar, this has been used in the "Smarandache notions journal"(!!) and in some books by people who appear to be at least close acquaintances of Smarandache (with forewords acclaiming him for being not just a brilliant mathematician but also father of a field of literature, for instance). My suspicion is that this would fail RFV on a close reading (I doubt anyone who writes about Smarandache is truly independent of him) but it would take deep searching to verify and it wouldn't surprise me if three maths students writing doctoral theses stumbled across and cited him. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Send to RfV per Smurrayinchester and CitationsFreak. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

busted my neck

busted his neck

Recreated by User:Purplebackpack89 to make some kind of POINT, even though we don't have soft redirects for terms like bust one's neck with other pronouns. @Benwing2, AG202 - PB89 has been editing for many years and knows we don't do this kind of thing, so this is just intentional disruption in my view. Theknightwho (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy kept Article is not a redirect, it's an inflection, and most of nomination is an attack anyway Purplebackpack89 04:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a soft redirect, as I said. You are being extremely disruptive. Theknightwho (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As are you. You should've just backed away from this for awhile. You didn't Purplebackpack89 04:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

??? It's an RFD nomination that you explicitly told me to do instead of speedy deleting, even though these kinds of entries are routinely speedy deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep First off, this is a conjugation, not a redirect, let's get that straight. People use this conjugation; it can pass RfV if you want. I don't see any rationale for deletion here at all. Also, nom needs to be cautioned against using RfD nominations as personal attacks. Purplebackpack89 04:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hard redirect or delete. PUC – 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons I stated at "Wiktionary:Tea room/2024/May#busted my neck", a discussion which is still ongoing. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that all three of these are currently in Category:English entries with incorrect language header. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm going to say more or less what I said before, namely that we should not be needing individually hand-crafted entries for every combination of tense and pronoun for this and all the numerous other similar phrases. It's ridiculous. If we think people are going to be looking up busted her neck, busting their necks, etc. etc. etc., and not understanding that the lemma form would be bust one's neck, which may not be entirely unreasonable, then this can be handled automatically by the search feature, or some other automation, thus relieving us of the necessity to manually create a million^TM boringly predictable entries. Mihia (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we're not willing to do stuff that that, how can we still call ourselves a dictionary? Creating such entries is necessary. If we're deleting things on the assumption everybody knows what they mean anyway, let's delete the and of while we're at it. Purplebackpack89 00:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: The same way that all the other dictionaries on the planet do, since I'm not aware of any that bothers with such things. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Funny how you accuse others of slippery-slope reasoning, only to go down that road yourself. PUC – 07:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hard redirect. I don't see a need for soft redirects (actual entries with headers and some kind of "form of..." template) but I support hard redirects (#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]), they're cheap and help anyone who looks up a specific version like "busted my neck" without knowing they need to generalize their lookup to present tense and "one's". - -sche (discuss) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is useful for people who do not know what the lemma form would be, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the manual effort to create however-many-it-is redirects for every phrase of this type is "cheap" -- and also in practice the task would "never" be fully completed. In these days of computers and artificial untelligence, can us humans not be relieved of these monotonous tasks? Mihia (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO, no-one has to create such redirects if they don't want to. If someone wants to create a particular redirect, e.g. because they came across that particular form that day and it took them a sec to work out where we lemmatized it, they're easy to make and don't (AFAICT) hurt anyone. The only marginal downside I see is that if anyone sees one of these forms is a blue link, they have to click it to find out whether it has correct content [a redirect] or not, but that applies to all our entries, where vandalism tends to last a long time if it doesn't get noticed right away, like the RFV'd senses of baby massage which I only noticed because I was clicking on and actually opening and looking at the definitions of all the pages in Special:AllPages that started with baby.... - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hard redirect per -sche's reasoning. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hard redirect per WT:REDIR. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

leaf lard

Do we need another def that explains what leaf lard needs to have legally? All of sense 2 is included in sense 1, along with an assortment of less-than-apptizing leaf lards. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I don’t think so. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete that sense. FYI this is another case where User:Surjection's proposal of having the ability to link a headword to a particular sense (of "leaf") would come in handy. Benwing2 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete sense 2, folding any broadly pan-jurisdictionally applicable elements of it into sense 1. This is an example of what the sense of #capital murder discussed above was illustrating (and the many senses of first-degree murder, etc). This was discussed a lot about ten years ago; there are probably other vestiges which need to be sought out and RFDed or folded in to the general senses. (The vote was never run, but see the discussions linked on this 2013 page.) - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Sense 2 is not a lexical definition. If someone has some lard made from the leaf fat of a swine but it's contaminated with a foreign odour, they can't legally sell it as leaf lard, but I cannot imagine anyone - even an inspector - actually saying "That's not leaf lard"; they'd just say "That leaf lard doesn't meet the legal standards" or "That leaf lard smells funny". Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Whether an inspector would say that or not, the standards of identity establish a legal meaning of the phrase, such that calling it leaf lard as the seller of the product is in fact illegal. I would grant that there are identifiers for which this is less likely to be relevant, but if something is described as, e.g., "low fat" and it does not meet this standard, trouble will follow. bd2412 T 21:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

    I would say that those would go under a usage note, but I generally don't think it matters. (If there's evidence of a certain term being used because the standard of intensity doesn't apply, I'd say add it. An example of that would be "partially gelatinated nondairy gum-based beverages" being used over "shakes" in certain contexts due to them not officially meeting the legal requirement for them.) CitationsFreak (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

    • I admit it's a grey area; I agree there can be cases where a legal definition is different enough from the lay definition to be lexical, analogous to chemists having a broad definition of alcohol that includes things like cholesterol that would not be alcohol in a lay context. OTOH... if I go to Russia and call the war in Ukraine a war or война, calling it that is illegal and trouble will follow! and yet I hope no-one thinks we need a new definition for война (and war, to the extent I'd also be prosecuted for saying it in English to reach an international audience), "large-scale armed conflict not including foreign odours the latest one in Ukraine". To me, the fact that people still use война and war the usual way (with or without repercussions), and the fact that people use leaf lard the 'usual' way (and would say that leaf lard is contaminated - you can't sell it), makes me conclude that speakers don't perceive the law as creating a new meaning of leaf lard (we/I don't think leaf lard that doesn't meet the regulations has ceased to be within the scope of the word leaf lard, just that it's unsellable), but instead [correctly, IMO] perceive the laws as just regulating the purity or safety of the thing and how it can be marketed. - -sche (discuss) 16:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, also the other three. They can be used as arguments why something is not SOP, and in usage notes. Fay Freak (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me add three more, representative of the general category of such terms: - -sche (discuss) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

mixed nuts

Rfd-sense "(US standards of identity) A mixture of: shelled peanuts (optional); at least four types of shelled tree nuts (or at least three, if the container for sale contains less than two ounces and is transparent), each in a proportion of at least two percent; and, optionally, other functional ingredients. No one type of nuts may comprise more than eighty percent of the mixture." In line with what Smurray said above, LOL @ the idea that any human would ever say "these aren't mixed nuts, they're in an opaque container!" (pours them into transparent container) "ah, now they're mixed nuts". - -sche (discuss) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as an overly precise definition purposefully constructed for legal purposes, and not used in general communication. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

tomato juice

Rfd-sense: "(US standards of identity) A food obtained from the unfermented liquid extracted from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties of Lycopersicum esculentum P. Mill, strained free from peel, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances, containing finely divided insoluble solids from the flesh of the tomato." as distinct from "Juice made from tomatoes" (As Smurray suggested, you serve someone tomato juice with seeds and they're going to think "this tomato juice has seeds in it", not "this is no tomato juice! it's juice-of-tomato-with-seeds-in-it!") - -sche (discuss) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as above. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

ground beef

Rfd-sense: (US standards of identity) Chopped fresh or frozen beef without the addition of beef fat as seasoning, with no more than 30 percent fat, and with no added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders." as opposed to "(Canada, US) Beef that has been finely chopped; minced beef." Let these entries represent the general principle that such overspecific senses based on specific laws at specific times should be removed in favor of the general, lexical senses, or else endlessly proliferated to account for the 24% definition in use in one region from 1969-1975 vs the 25% definition in use there from 1975-1987 vs the 20% definition in use the next jurisdiction over vs the one that allowed binders, etc, etc. For other discussions, see the 2013 page I linked above. - -sche (discuss) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as above. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all and salt (refined salt containing about 97 to 99 percent sodium chloride, to which optionally anticaking agents and/or iodide in the form of cuprous iodide or potassium iodide has been added) the earth. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Communist Party of China

• Delete: not dictionary material. —Svārtava · 07:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Political parties are dictionary material. See Republican Party. CitationsFreak (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  We have CCP and CPC. The point however is full names of political parties and most organizations aren’t dictionary material; let Wikipedia alone keep those names. Inqilābī 15:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per citations freak. Certain types of proper nouns are acceptable. Purplebackpack89 21:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete for nominator’s reason. Republican Party should be considered for deletion as well. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Sgconlaw that we should reconsider Republican Party and other similar entries too. Imetsia (talk (more)) 16:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I am inclined to delete: "Communist Party of China" is exceptionally transparent. For Republican Party, a {{no entry}} pointing users to Wikipedia might be helpful, as I suggested during the discussion of it. I admit it's difficult to say exactly where to draw the line. On the IMO-obviously-not-inclusion-worthy side are things like City of London Chess Club, which I hope no-one wants to add, and we also deleted People's Liberation Army Navy. On the IMO-obviously-includable side are things like United Nations. We also don't include just any corporation name (which seems reasonable to me), but we do have religious denominations (which also seems reasonable to me). - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  @-sche In many cases I'd agree, but "X Party of Y" names are often a bit different since it doesn't necessarily refer to any political party in China which happens to be communist, so it's not SOP. A better example would be the Communist Party of Nepal, as distinct from the Nepal Communist Party or the 9 other parties with (official) names that follow the "Communist Party of Nepal ([more specific ideology])" format, like Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) etc. etc. 22:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Theknightwho (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  IMO Nepal Communist Party or Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) are also transparent, notwithstanding there being multiple, because the names still tell you what they are; equally, there must be cases where "[city name] Chess Club" is not the only chess club in the city. But transparency or "SOP" is only a secondary concern for me here: if there were a "Moscow Chess Club" that was actually the city's discreet gay club, or a Communist Party of China that had become quite capitalist (like this one!), I would feel the same inclination to delete, because I don't see why these things would be considered "words" for a dictionary to define. Communist and Republican as common count nouns (and potentially adjectives), yes, but Communist Party of China or People's Liberation Army Navy? No, IMO. But I admit it's a grey area, and clearly some people draw the line in a different place and would include some or all these. - -sche (discuss) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  @-sche Sorry: to be clear, I was arguing specifically that "Communist Party of Nepal" would not be SOP because of the existence of all these niche parties, as I was intending to show how "Communist Party of China" cannot be assumed to be straightforwardly SOP. I'm not arguing we should include all of those parties as separate entries. It's not just any old party that's Chinese and communist; it's one specific party. Theknightwho (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete obviously. Delete all political parties unless they are abbreviated names. Inqilābī 15:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per all the above. PUC – 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete – Wiktionary should not have political party names IMO. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted: 7-3. Svartava2 (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I haven’t seen this vote, so am a bit late. I also think we should have deleted this one before. Tollef Salemann (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

human death

SOP? PUC – 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It sure looks like it. - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It does appear as SOP, but it is an actual, distinct term/definition in the field of law. mynewfiles (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If so, can you add the elements that make it not SOP to the definition?- -sche (discuss) 20:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

...because failing that: delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per my take on #human evolution. Inqilābī 12:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You haven't made a cogent argument there, so I don't know what your rationale is here either. PUC – 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Another way to explain my rationale is, I’m in favor of including every compound word containing the word human; and no amount of reverts of etymologies I add is going to make them a mere phrase. This is not the Norman period in English language. Inqilābī 16:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If it were a compound of the noun human, humandeath or human-death would be attested, don't you think? Or humanbody ~ human-body alongside human body? PUC – 16:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily, in my opinion. English orthography is inconsistent, so spellings should not be relied on for word origins. Inqilābī 16:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Unlike human life, this isn't a set phrase. The single quote in the entry states that human death is different from animal death, but uses the phrase in such a way that it's obvious that it's not considered a lexical unit. They could just as easily have said "the death of a human being", though it wouldn't have sounded as nice. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless some non-SoP and verifiable sense is added. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a clear case of SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Delete. Nice name for a band, but it looks like SOP. Tollef Salemann (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

RFD failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

human life

As above PUC – 21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Same as above for human death. It does appear as SOP, but it is an actual, distinct term/definition in the field of law, used in briefs and legal documents. mynewfiles (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not. Beginning and end of it are debatable, and hinge on the biodiagnostics available at the time of debate. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that every court defines "human life" as starting when the sperm fertilizes the egg. CitationsFreak (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The beginning point is definitely a matter of POV that we shouldn't spell out in such detail. A fertilized ovum is definitely alive, and it's human, but that's also true of skin cells. The question of whether it's a human life in the same way as a newborn infant as opposed to being like an unfertilized ovum is a matter of vehement debate and people are fighting and dying over it. That sure looks like something beyond SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hence my reason for creating it. mynewfiles (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as it stands; the current overspecificity is, well, overspecific; different people/works/etc define the beginning differently, so if we clean that up ("beginning from [one person's ideas]" → ~"beginning at its beginning", like all things) it's clearer that it's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I added cites to both human life and human death to illustrate their unique usages. mynewfiles (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongest delete possible. SOP and seems to exist primarily as a sneaky way to push an anti-abortion POV. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That was not my intention at all. I have no opinion on the matter of abortion. mynewfiles (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One does not inadvertently define "human life" as "beginning from the fertilization of the human egg." This is not objective scientitic fact. It's not even an uncontested philosophical position. It's a religious tenet that only gets invoked in the context of arguments for banning abortion, conctraception, IVF, and stem-cell research. In any case this needs to be nuked from orbit. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That may be your view, but the topic of abortion was emphatically never on my mind when I created this entry. There's no need to be overly aggressive in your incorrect assumptions of others. mynewfiles (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edit history includes Pledge of Allegiance and Nasty Pelosi. Forgive me for finding it doubtful you lack familiarity with the texture of debate surrounding an issue that's been at the forefront of American politics for 60 years. In any case, this is SOP. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your assumptions are once again becoming more and more incorrect and ridiculous with each subsequent reply. I've created hundreds of entries with a multitude of meanings of various political persuasions. mynewfiles (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not neutral to define "human life" as beginning at "fertilization" whether or not it was done so with the intent to forward an ideological position. It's not a neutral definition in and of itself. It's possible for definitions to reference contested ideas (for want of a better term) without presenting said ideas as objective fact. In this entry that could take the form of something like: "a human being and their biological and social development (variously defined in law and ethics as beginning at points from fertilization to birth)." I still think this entry isn't inclusion-worthy for strictly CFI reasons. But it would've been fully possible to construct this definition in a way that didn't set off alarm bells. I'm not the only one to have pointed out the "fertilization" definition is problematic. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should check on their edits. It all seems too ... weird to not have some bias. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as a term of art, though it needs proper explaining. Nothing to do with abortion, either, and we wouldn’t delete it on that basis if it did. Theknightwho (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a "term of art" (i.e., a technical term) for which there is no corollary Wikipedia article. Just a disambiguation page pointing to some articles on topics readers might connect to the phrase "human life." Wikipedia doesn't seem to want to define this as a concept when it can do so with the scope afforded by an encyclopedia. Why should we, a dictionary, seek to define it in their stead? There is no singular definition. Any definition will inevitably be uselessly vague and overbroad, or forwarding a narrow agenda. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho, how would you describe it? CitationsFreak (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per my take on #human evolution. Inqilābī 12:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

But you haven't made a cogent argument there? PUC – 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. Inqilābī 16:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I changed the definition to get rid of the unrealistically narrow scope and added some usexes that show more idiomatic use. It's a set phrase that refers to one or two specific intersections of the senses of its parts- a bit of a gray area. Part of the debate over abortion, etc. hinges on the difference between the fertilized ovum as something human that's alive vs. the same as a human life- whether it's a human being or not. That seems to be the core of what makes this idiomatic. There's also completely non-idomatic usage, which muddies things up a bit. If we keep this, we should probably add {{&lit}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless some non-SoP, verifiable sense is added. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's Wiktionary's definition of death zone in which this term may appear non-SOP:

A area of land at sufficiently high altitudes inn which there is not enough oxygen to sustain human life. mynewfiles (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In this example, human life is used in a physiological/biological sense. mynewfiles (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles: that’s an SoP sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

One can also make a distinction semantically, let's say, between two different types of rights: animal rights vs. human rights. Hence, there could be a distinction between life or any of its derived variants and human life. mynewfiles (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

RFD failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

chemical depilatory

SoP of chemical + depilatory: I don’t see any lexicographic merit in its inclusion, though keeping it as a {{collocation}} or a redirect is an option. Inqilābī 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

RFD failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

renewable

Rfd-sense "(of a resource) Sustainable; able to be regrown or renewed; having an ongoing or continuous source of supply." Not distinct from sense 1, as far as I can tell. PUC – 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Both are actually distinct senses— the first one is used more generically, whilst the other one in scientific/environmental contexts. Keep / don’t merge. Inqilābī 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, it seems like the noun senses need to be merged. Inqilābī 15:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The second sense is actually the first sense used in environmental contexts. It is not a new sense. PUC – 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is where {{defdate}} comes into play. Anyway all dictionaries I saw split them as separate, fullfledged senses. Inqilābī 16:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There are probably three senses. Renewable energy comes from wind farms, solar panels, and hydroelectricity. Then there are renewable forests, also called sustainable forests. These are usually plantations, which are cut down and replanted with about a 30-year cycle. They have been doing this in New Zealand for decades. DonnanZ (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the above arguments. No objections from me. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Double antibody suffixes

-zumab

Monoclonal antibodies are assigned names according to a complicated WHO naming sytem. The usual nomenclature is the following: [1] a variable prefix; [2] an infix referring to the medicine's target (target substem"); [3] an infix referring to the source of the antibody ("source substem"; omitted in antibodies named after 2017); [4] a suffix ("stem" = -mab for every antibody named before 2022). (E.g. abciximab: ab- +‎ -ci- (“cardiovascular”) +‎ -xi- (“chimeric”) +‎ -mab (“antibody”).) -zumab, -ximab and -umab were created by JoeyChen in 2020 after removing the entries for the standalone -zu-, -xi- and -u- (I haven't found a relevant discussion prior to the changes). However, these are merely three of the frequently co-occurring combinations of [3] and [4], and semantically are not more closely related to each other than e.g. [2] and [4]. Guidelines also treat source substems and stems as different entities. I find the treatment of these combinations as genuine suffixes misleading, therefore, I think they should be deleted (along with their categories) and removed from the etymology sections of antibody entries, while -zu-, -xi- and -u- should be reinstated as infixes. Einstein2 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

phytozome

all attestations I can find are for the comparative platform for green plant genomics Phytozome, no usage of phytozome as a name for plant genomes. Anatol Rath (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Inqilābī 15:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Did the RfV move get lost in the mail? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

theatre organ

This refers to any organ installed in a theatre, so it's SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Not really, because a) this also describes attributes and functionalities of the organ, b) most extant organs of that description aren't in silent movie theaters (which now are virtually non-existent, and c) not all "theatres" have this type of theater organ. Purplebackpack89 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The definition as currently written is, "(music) A large pipe organ, usually also containing percussion and sound effect elements, of the style found in silent film theatres.", fwiw. Purplebackpack89 03:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 Yes, that is the definition you wrote, but there are (were) plenty of Wurlitzers installed in conventional theatres, too, and those are theatre organs as well. The fact that not all theatres have a theatre organ is irrelevant. Theknightwho (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. The point is that not all theaters WITH ORGANS have this type of organ. The additional point was that this definition as currently written ISN'T SOP Purplebackpack89 20:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep, not SOP. Wurlitzer organs essentially are theatre organs, even if not installed in a theatre (see). I'd call any organ with certain distinctive features (e.g. tibia clausa stops with the distinctive wide tremulant, or percussion stops) a theatre organ. I'm sure I could find durably archived evidence if needed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Theknightwho (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

church organ

Refers to any organ installed in a church. For some reason, the definition specifies "Christian church", but I don't think that's necessary. Theknightwho (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 06:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• I will keep church organ and theatre organ because each of them is a special variation of the pipe organ, constructed very differently and sounds unique when played (I read that the theatre organ even has orchestral features and it may not be a true organ despite the name). The fact that the terms are lexically sums of parts should be irrelevant; the definitions can be improved however. Inqilābī 18:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep both per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian

Nonstandard use of capitalization. Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an alt form, I would allow it. But transsiberian is much more dubious. DonnanZ (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The prefix trans- is not normally capitalized, nor is the word trans-Siberian a proper adjective. To capitalize the T is nonstandard per capitalization of English words. It is not a valid form of the word, nor is it notable enough as a nonstandard form to merit inclusion, and should be deleted. It appears to be mistakenly reanalysed from Trans-Siberian Railway, which is indeed a proper noun.

On the other hand, transsiberian follows the older tradition of uncapitalizing a proper noun when it comes before a prefix (cf. other examples such as transalpine, transamerican, or transneptunian). This is perfectly standard in the English language, and is highly attested. What exactly do you find to be, “much more dubious”? Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 15:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. A reminder to Donnanz that whether you personally like or loathe a word bears no relevance in our inclusion, and stating your opinions thus can be confusing and misleading in a formal procedure. Inqilābī 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That's hardly necessary, but I did forget about transatlantic. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We keep non-standard spellings too, and this is not a valid ground to rfd an entry. If you doubt its attestation, then go over to WT:RFVE. Inqilābī 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So be it, then. Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 15:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We do delete rare misspellings, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, but possibly RfV I would agree with Inqilābī's assessment that the nominator didn't provide valid grounds for deletion Purplebackpack89 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added a proper noun sense, since "Trans-Siberian" is sometimes used to refer to the Trans-Siberian Railway. Theknightwho (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

declare war

A set phrase, but SOP. There's a figurative sense because war has one (war on drugs, etc.), it's not specific to this combination. As far as I can tell, none of the translations is entryworthy and warrants a THUB; these, although set phrases too, are equally SOP. PUC – 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Inqilābī 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's taken only 13½ years, from November 2010, to discover that fact. Abstain for now. DonnanZ (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

My verdict changed to keep. I found enough refs that illustrate it is indeed a set phrase with a figurative meaning. As for PUC's aversion to SoP translations, the hard work put into translations by some editors would be wasted if this entry was deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

People who regularly add translations have added translations to innumerable entries, and I don’t understand how few entries getting deleted would be a wastage of their effort. Anyway, a pro tip would be to avoid adding translations or quotations to questionable entries if you don’t want your contributions to get deleted. Inqilābī 11:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstain for now, because I feel like an indefinite article would normally be expected there. But I would also point out that if I painstakingly reconstructed The Garden of Earthly Delights by hand using only ASCII and CSS, all the hard work I would have put into it would be wasted if it were deleted. That doesn't mean it should be kept. That's a bad argument. Hythonia (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase/construction and as a translation hub. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Which translations qualify? PUC – 20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The Mandarin, Japanese, and Korean ones, mainly. But presumably most of the languages have set phrases, rather than just being any old combination of "declare" and "war", so it's useful to have this entry for those collocations as well. For instance, I suspect that "ilmoittaa sota" in Finnish would be incorrect, even though "ilmoittaa" is listed as one of the translations of the relevant sense of "declare". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep (although I think the definition is overspecific - it just seems to mean something like "to begin hostilities, or prepare for such") - phrases like "secretly declared war", "informally declared war", "silently declared war" don't work if there has to be a literal declaration involved:

• 1884, Sir Sidney Low, Frederick Sanders Pulling, The Dictionary of English History, page 292:

  In 1579 Elizabeth entered into an alliance, offensive and defensive, with Holland, and thus informally declared war against Spain.

• 1982, William L. Rivers, The Other Government: Power & the Washington Media, Universe Publishing(NY):

  To combat such favoritism, a few of the correspondents silently declared war on the president.

• 2008 June 16, Martin Dugard, The Training Ground: Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Davis in the Mexican War, 1846-1848, Hachette UK, →ISBN:

  On April 23, Mexico secretly declared war on the United States.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the two posts above. I agree that the definition should be either be generalised or a new sense or subsense created too. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I dont see any way this could be sum of parts. The nominator never explained it either. —Soap— 15:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Vergencescattered (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

attack is the best form of defence

attack is the best form of defence and all variations inc. the best defence is attack, the best defence is attack, attack is the best form of defense

None of these seem idiomatic, IMHO these are all SOP. — BABR・talk 09:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Seems paradoxical/oxymoronic and paradoxes and oxymorons aren't SOP Purplebackpack89 11:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: We don’t keep non-idiomatic proverbs? Inqilābī 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm not sure but WT:CFI says:

  An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP).

  To me, it does not appear that "attack is the best form of defense" applies to that at all. I think anyone who knew the meaning of the component words would know what the phrase meant as a whole meant. — BABR・talk 18:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Solid collocation that also has its own Wikipedia article; that said, I see no reason for deletion — JimiY☽ru 04:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia article is for the best defense is a good offense. None of the phrases above are the exact title of a Wikipedia article. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 20:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Abstain. Inqilābī 20:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep: I don't think the definition is SoP: "attacking the opposition first is better than waiting for them to attack". It's specifically a preemptive attack that is advised. Wikipedia says the phrase advises "proactivity ... instead of a passive attitude". But if Wikipedia or my experience are anything to go by, the lemma should be at the best defense is a good offense, since that is the most common form. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 20:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Monster Manual

Let's kill this fast Denazz (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, delete. Inqilābī 17:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep - doesn't feel any weirder than having entries for specific chess openings, and Dungeons & Dragons is fairly well-established at this point. Theknightwho (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If (as I initially assumed) this were a colloquial nickname for a book with a title like A Handbook of Non-Playable Races or something, it would be in a greyer area, and we could debate whether it was more like personal nicknames like Talk:J-Lo/Talk:RPattz that have (for better or worse!) been kept, or book/film-nicknames like Talk:HP1 that have been deleted... But since it in fact seems to be the official title of the book(?), it's a clear delete IMO: we don't keep the names of modern books, Wide Sargasso Sea, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, etc, and I think that's reasonable, they're not words, they're something for an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary to cover, IMO. (We only keep really old books like Genesis.) - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@-sche It's probably more accurate to say it's the name for a type of Dungeons & Dragons sourcebook, since there have been been a large number of them published over the years, and they're all referred to as "Monster Manuals". The AD&D Monstrous Compendium is still a Monster Manual.

I'd support changing the part of speech to "noun", on that basis. Theknightwho (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a common noun with a more generalized definition would probably be fine (although it does get a bit grey: surely "monster list" or "book of monsters" wouldn't be includable); I do spot some lowercase cites. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning keep per Theknightwho. bd2412 T 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Can you give a reason? CheeseyHead (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think, therefore I am

Alongside I think therefore I am, presented as a proverb (which it isn't). PUC – 19:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@PUC: I have changed the forms to phrases instead to match the main entry. What about the translations with entries (e.g., French je pense, donc je suis)? J3133 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, the French, it's not a proverb. PUC – 18:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Japanese has an interesting translation 我思う、故に我在り and Chinese also seems to be a set phrase from literary Chinese, I wouldn't want them deleted. Justin the Just (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In keeping with my vote last time: keep. The fact that this has been snowcloned suggests that it has lexical value, as do the translations that Justin mentioned. This phrase is also used as something of a philosophy "catchphrase", apart from its literal context. In its original context (i.e. Descartes Meditations) it was SOP and non-idiomatic. But it has since taken on a life of its own as a set phrase. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Indeed, you've made that argument about snowclones before, but it's as bad as it was the first time. That a phrase is snowcloned doesn't prove it has lexical value in and of itself. By that token we could create the first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club (Appendix:Snowclones/first rule of X: do not talk about X). PUC – 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@PUC: Yes, I guess you're right that the snowclone argument isn't very good. I mostly reiterated that argument because no one pushed back against it last time. Nonetheless, I still think it has lexical status as a philosophy "catchphrase". It's often the only thing people know about philosophy and I've heard people use it simply to signal, "Hey, I know some philosophy too!" But I'm simply trying to express my gut feeling that the phrase is lexically significant. If other people disagree, so be it. I'm not strongly attached to this entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Fair enough, I just wanted to push back against that specific argument. PUC – 12:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Fix and keep per above Purplebackpack89 04:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fix what? PUC – 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking "fix that it was tagged as a proverb", but it's already been fixed, it's now a phrase. And @PUC, what rationale other than "it's not a proverb" do you have for deletion? Purplebackpack89 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

first grade

thirteenth grade

(Including variants like 1st grade, grade one, grade 1 etc. etc.)

Purely SoP in my opinion. I was actually surprised to find these entries. Inqilābī 22:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep per WT:HOSPITAL, along with WT:FRIED imho. Our definitions need to be updated as many, if not the vast majority, schools in the U.S. consider kindergarten to be the first grade in elementary/grade school (mine in Texas sure did). Hence first grade is usually the "second" grade that people go through, especially in states where kindergarten is required. CC: @-sche AG202 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm - this can be applied to many different systems. I guess it's not terrible, but I'm not thrilled about creating entries for the UK equivalents year 1 to year 13, which are also offset by a year (with reception being the equivalent of kindergarten). That's before you get onto the historic system(s), too. Do we really want entries for all of these? Theknightwho (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: The following rationale may be more encyclopedic in nature, but I think it's useful for when someone sees "first grade" in running text wants to look it up. They'd be able to find it here, see what it refers to, and how it's a NAm + PH-specific term. I see how it might be redundant especially with the year X examples, but I find them useful. It's helpful to know, more so for learners, that ex: the equivalent of French CE1 is actually second grade in the US, year 3 in the UK, or year 2 in Australia. The fact that it's this variable pushes me even more towards WT:HOSPITAL, and other websites like WordReference take note of this difference as well. There's still lexical info in the end. (Also thirteenth grade would have an even stronger case if our definition were more accurate...) AG202 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

For example: our grade one definition currently points to first grade, even though that's not even truly accurate. AG202 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@AG202 That's true, and we do already have sixth form (which refers to years 12, lower sixth, and 13, upper sixth), which is a weird holdover from the old system that I won't delve into here, but there used to be fifth form, fourth form etc. as well, and I think a few private schools still use that system. Without knowing about them, they're very opaque. Theknightwho (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all per AG mostly, and, if for no other reason, because without a dictionary definition, you wouldn't know if 1st grade is when you are the youngest or the oldest Purplebackpack89 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. In French it's the other way round: seconde is your second-last year of school (our entry is missing that sense, but that's more a reflection on the state of our French entries than anything else). And that's not to mention the difference between grades and forms. This is a finite and reasonably sized set of entries. So keep. This, that and the other (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I remember forms when I went to school in NZ, the term sixth form (at least) is still in use in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: some of these entries don't have proper definitions. E.g. eighth grade is "The period in school that comes after seventh grade and before ninth grade". Then grade eight is defined as "eighth grade". Ultimateria (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Why would these be removed? It would not improve anything, and they make sense to exist, so theres no point in deleting them. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all. But ...

Improve the definitions. Two being between one and three isn't helping anyone. The def given for "first grade" is much better and that should be copied on to the others. (for the US entries)

... Make it more international, as there are only US examples so far.

In my (1960s) Australian schooling, we had a very simple "first grade", or more commonly but interchangeable, "grade one" for the first year, "second grade" for the second year etc, right up to twelve. But other terms where used, such as Junior or Senior for the 9th and 10th, and 11th and 12th years respectively. A generation before there was "Scholarship", for eighth grade.

I lived in Ireland for a while, and "first grade" is not the first year of school. It's about third after kindy and prep type years. I think it's changed since my kids were at school. And "junior cert" and "leaving cert" made an appearance there somewhere.

As mentioned by others, there are variations around the world. These entries would be a good place to hang those other entries from.--Dmol (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I just added an idiomatic sense to thirteenth grade. As someone who graduated from high school in the 12th grade and also has degrees from both a community college and a university, I can attest that people often jokingly referred to college (especially community college) as the thirteenth grade. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I find it weird that people feel so strongly about it, since the grades exclusively depend on the local legal framework and are thus the sum of an existing authority examining you plus regulatory decisions, rather than based on idioms of the people, like in Germany many states introduced 8-th-year gymnasium and then reverted to 9 years after 4 years of elementary school so we have thirteen grades again in most schools.

Even Chuck Entz’s idiomatic sense could be put off as pragmatics. We also have jokes amongst jurists about various kinds of things being a drittes Staatsexamen (“third state examination”): for attorneys-at-law in areas where you can be notary public in parallel it is the notarielle Fachprüfung needed to be appointed one on the side in these lands of Germany (as opposed to those regions where you get appointed for a prepatory service to then have it as your exclusive profession) and for judges (which you can become immediately after your second state examination just like you become an attorney) it is a secondment to the upper court for the purpose of a promotion. Pharmacists and physicians on the other hand, clueless as they are, just call the third part of their single state examination (dritter Abschnitt der pharmazeutischen Prüfung, dritter Abschnitt der ärztlichen Prüfung) drittes Staatsexamen, technically erroneously. Should we even add pharmazeutische Prüfung and ärztliche Prüfung though, given that it is clear that, in developed countries, you can’t become an apothecary or practising physician without prior examination? Perhaps I ultimately should create the term drittes Staatsexamen, which is either a joke or a misnomer in all interpretatory contexts: Wikipedias can create these in either case and then get copied while we are charged with leaving coverage gaps.

But the argument of AG202 is valid, that it is reasonably looked up and described, since there is no immediate danger of proliferation of SOP entries on this model, given that humans grow up in definite numbers of years. Even though (for Purplebackpack89: even more so because) there is a historical depth behind these grade names that could make entries convoluted: these grades have been unified across states but five or six decades ago, after being called Sexta for being the then fifth grade up to Oberprima for then 13th grade because they counted from the end; they say, on German Wikipedia, that in one canton of Switzerland they still did this in the 2010s. I think the entry threshold to cover this is high enough that we can keep the entries, though with weak prejudice. Fay Freak (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

plasma gemstone

plasma gem

Appears to be SOP, plasma already refers to a mineral. ScribeYearling (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

keep Doesn't the Fried Egg rule apply? Plasma is not always chalcedony. Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

But cat's eye marble and cat's eye gemstone don't exist either, despite the fact that cat's eye can refer to both a gemstone and style of marble as well as a few other senses. ScribeYearling (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The fried egg test would apply if there were other kinds of gemstone that one could reasonably refer to as being plasma gemstone (for examples, if there were also gemstones fashioned from blood plasma), so that someone unfamiliar with he term could not know which sense is meant. An organ is not always a musical instrument, but in organ music it is obvious that this is about the instrument, not about someone’s lungs, so the combination is a transparent sum of its parts. Likewise here.  --Lambiam 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

underground car park

Probs fails WT:THUB Denazz (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Although we don’t have an entry for it, Dutch has parkeerkelder – an underground parking space, usually but not necessarily for multiple cars.  --Lambiam 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this fails THUB. The German literally translates as "low garage". The German translations at underground are unterirdisch and Untegrund-, not Tief. If we add the Dutch, we pass the requirements of WT:THUB. This, that and the other (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep per TTO's comment above. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

live under a rock

Rfd-sense "to live in isolation" as distinct from sense 1, "to be isolated from knowledge of current events". Maybe we can reword sense 1, but I disagree that this is a different sense. PUC – 14:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete – I am inclined to agree. This second sense seems very rare, perhaps it might simply be a misinterpretation of the first sense; through some searching I found only a handful of uses for "live under a rock" to mean "living in isolation" (such as being a recluse or extremely introverted) on Reddit and Twitter. IMO not worth combining into the first sense either unless there are some more usage examples to be found that I am missing, otherwise it seems like undue weight to me. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

emergency parking bay

Tagged but not listed with rationale "SOP". Ultimateria (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't see how this can be anything but SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep as WT:FRIED: The definition is way more specific than just "a parking bay reserved for emergencies". — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the "or where vehicles can wait" sentence: if that part can indeed be attested (there are no quotations so who knows), it would, in my eyes, mean that this is not SOP. Though, I imagine an "emergency parking bay" could be for both emergency vehicles or for vehicles to park when experiencing an emergency. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

scare the fuck out of

Probably one of those X the fuck out of constructions Denazz (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete after the fuck out of is created (cf. the shit out of). Einstein2 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• I am in exact agreement with Einstein2. bd2412 T 18:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: already covered by the fuck, so I don't think the fuck out of needs to be created. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is covered by the fuck. The second sense there (which is the most similar) covers uses where the fuck is added between the verb and particle in phrasal verbs, which is not the case here (*scare out of doesn't make sense on its own). Einstein2 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  You can scare lots of things out of someone though, and we have entries for them:

  • scare the bejeebers out of
  • scare the daylights out of
  • scare the fuck out of
  • scare the hell out of
  • scare the life out of
  • scare the living daylights out of
  • scare the shit out of

  It's worth noting that, in comparison to the uses found in the quotes at the shit out of, the sense involving scare is somewhat more literal. It's conceivable that you could scare someone so much that they lose consciousness, or perish, or lose their fecal continence - but when it comes to charming or suing the X out of someone, we are strictly in the realm of metaphor. Not sure if that's a useful argument for keeping, though. This, that and the other (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Good observation, although scare is not the only verb where this construction is used in a somewhat literal sense; we even have entries for phrases like knock the living daylights out of and beat the crap out of. It seems to me these can be combined rather freely, so I suggest lemmatizing them at the "the X out of" forms, while the more frequent "verb the X out of" phrases can be turned into hard redirects. Einstein2 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would say that with "the living daylights out of", it is only used with verbs like "beat" and "scare". People wouldn't say "charm the living daylights out of" or "sue the living daylights out of", though "charm the shit out of" and "sue the shit out of" are possible. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:A66B:2813:3AA2:8438 21:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  A quick Internet Archive search brings up results with e.g. hack, burn, plague, reinforce, shake, embarrass, annoy, cheat. Einstein2 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Google searches for those phrases does turn up results, though. They may not be common, but they do exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think that for all the cases of "the X out of", the primary verbs are "beat" and "scare" and it is used secondarily with other verbs. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:C47:40B8:9E8:5244 20:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wassup. Just came here to say, per the rfd instructions, that I added the translations section to that page, since it's meaning is a perfect match for the Portuguese pregar um susto do caralho, which, because of using the word caralho, is much stronger than to scare the shit out of. I also deleted the two last usage examples that didnt make much sense. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  The problem here is that this phrase is an intersection of a generic "(blank) the fuck out of" and a generic "scare the (blank) out of". bd2412 T 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Einstein2 and Sgconlaw. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

as a matter of law

No quotes and seems like SOP. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I have added quotes going back to 1839. There are uses of the wording going back decades earlier, but as a prepositional phrase analogous to as a matter of fact, I have not yet found anything earlier than 1839. However, from that time, there are plenty of sources using the term as a prepositional phrase thereafter. If not kept, it should be redirected to matter of law. bd2412 T 05:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to matter of law per the additions of quotations thanks to BD2412. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I do not see the case for treating this any differently from as a matter of fact. While the latter is more common, the former is still well-enough used. bd2412 T 00:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Shavian shit

all of this user's Shavian English has got to go! Denazz (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• shit in here is probably related. Denazz (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Don't you mean 𐑖𐑦𐑑? Theknightwho (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeh, I can't see any of those symbols, and I'm not gonna download any Firefox extensions to do so Denazz (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is RFV issue. Nothing prohibits us from adding attested Shavian script lemmas. Inqilābī 13:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any point including Shavian-script English in the dictionary. If there is consensus to delete, we can spare ourselves the RFV process and just put a note in WT:AEN saying Shavian isn't allowed. This, that and the other (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep the symbols, delete the words. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

doll's pram

A pram for a doll. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54BC:581B:5785:CEDB 20:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

doll's pram and doll carriage both have entries in Merriam Webster/Collins/Cambridge. Equinox, why are you back? [personal attack removed] mynewfiles (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I like it, SoP or not. Besides the Collins ref, you need to be stony-hearted to deny a doll a pram. It's a toy, innit. DonnanZ (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! By analogy, we also have doll's house. mynewfiles (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't like that edit reason. Is there any reason why it isn't SoP? CitationsFreak (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Other dictionaries have entries for doll's pram and doll carriage. We also have baby carriage. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:5959:4682:75BD:5268 22:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Just added seven cites spanning a century from 1918 to 2018. 2600:1702:A30:2F60:B59E:862D:B72E:7942 21:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. Just added seven cites spanning a century from 1918 to 2018. mynewfiles (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Thought this meant a pram that a doll would hold. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep (but tweak the entry) as a common name for this specific toy pram thing regardless of whether or not there is a doll inside. While this seems intended for dolls, which would indeed make it SoP, children et al. could easily push plushies, action figures, squeaky toys or live animals (pets) in it, and one would still refer to it as "that kid is pushing a doll's pram in the park" even if there is no doll inside. Mynewfiles makes a good point by mentioning our entry for doll's house; to elaborate, a "doll's house" is a model toy house, not a house made for a doll per se, and that same rationale applies here as the quotations prove. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep per LunaEatsTuna. But it's dangerously close to being SOP. ScribeYearling (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

door close

and door open. Dumb. There's a button on my lift reading call in case of emergency Denazz (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The "names of buttons" (on computer keyboards and gamepads) was argued years ago, and in general they were kept... Start, Jump, Fire, etc. I argued against this. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54BC:581B:5785:CEDB 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. In lots of elevators the so called door close button doesn't actually close the door when pushed and is just for show. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:C47:40B8:9E8:5244 12:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Get an account! P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. If there was some evidence of the button being called "the door close", it would be different, but every Google Books hit for "pressed the door close" adds "button" afterwards. SOP. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

True, but nobody says "pressed the start", "pressed the delete" either. What you really should be looking for is "pressed door close" and similar searches. This, that and the other (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Smurrayinchester * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Smurrayinchester. Argument so good they were cited twice. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Talk:Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. In lots of modern elevators the button only closes the door when the elevator is in fire service mode and does nothing during ordinary operation. Marsbar8 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The fact that the door close button is useless (like most crosswalk buttons) is beside the point, in my opinion. ScribeYearling (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

hung up on

SOP? Whalespotcha (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

hung up is missing some senses, especially the "enamoured with" one Leasnam (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems idiomatic, but honestly it should be merged then redirected into the entry Leasnam mentions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete. I'm thinking SOP. ScribeYearling (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

hump someone's brains out

SOP? X one's Y out? Whalespotcha (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It's one of a series on the same theme: others are beat someone's brains out, blow someone's brains out, fuck someone's brains out, and for good measure beat one's brains out. DonnanZ (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(Just as a footnote - blow someone's brains out, at least in the "shoot in the head" sense, is not the same kind of SOP as the others. It's not just "blow" + "someone's brains out" (i.e. spectacularly, dominatingly). Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. We could create separate entries for 'someone's brains out' and 'someone's lights out' instead but these are widely used set phrases, only certain verbs tend to precede 'someone's brains out' and 'someone's lights out' in any case. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This is somewhat similar to the entries mentioned in #scare the fuck out of above. Indeed, there are a handful of verbs which co-occur with someone's brains out more frequently than others, but there are probably dozens (if not hundreds) of verb + someone's brains out constructions that are attestable and it's difficult to draw a line as to which ones are common enough to have separate entries. That's why I think lemmatizing someone's brains out and someone's lights out may be the best solution. Einstein2 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think the verb is an essential part of a verbal phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That may be true, but when these fragments are so productive, creating a lemma for the bare "idiomatic" fragment is a more feasible compromise. See also: someone's heart out (M-W), someone's arse off (M-W), one's way, [one's] way out of a paper bag. Einstein2 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. And verb + someone's brains out or verb + someone's lights out would be SOP in my opinion. ScribeYearling (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Move to someone's brains out per DonnanZ and Einstein2. Solid arguments. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

tentabulge and similar terms from Category:en:Homestuck

If I understand WT:FICTION correctly all of these entries should be contained in a separate appendix and not in the main dictionary space due to their insular usage in relation to this fictional work, no? Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. WT:FICTION applies to terms originating in a given work/franchise. The entries in the category were coined outside the fictional universe of Homestuck. Einstein2 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Per Einstein2. WT:FICTION applies to terms taken directly from a work of fiction. It doesn't preclude the inclusion of terms that reference fiction. It would be impossible to include Sherlockian, Scroogelike, etc. if it did. Most of the entries in Category:en:Homestuck were coined by fans and thus not subject to WT:FICTION. The two exceptions are kismesis and moirail. Both of these are taken directly from Homestuck. However, I believe the cites show evidence of long-term idiomatic usage. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Understandable misreading of the WT:FICTION policy. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Shaviliuk Gambit

This is hardly dictionary material. In addition, it's barely attestable. Should we also delete other entries for chess openings such as Zilbermints-Benoni Gambit and Staunton Gambit? They seem to be purely Wikipedia material. mynewfiles (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Don’t really see why it wouldn’t be dictionary material, it’s an idiomatic term where people might run across it and want to know what it means. If it’s not attestable, then send to RFV; otherwise, keep. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Leaning keep as it doesn’t appear to be SoP. However, we’d need a chess expert to weigh in on whether the definitions are accurate … — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Send to RfV because it looks just about barely attestable. We do allow chess openings on Wiktionary BTW, no matter how complicated either; see Category:en:Chess openings for our 56 entries on openings. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Victoria

Hello, I am writing to contest the inclusion of Sense 3 of the aforementioned entry.

My objection to the definition in question is a perceived redundancy. Namely, when someone refers to Queen Victoria, they are referring to a specific use of the given female name Victoria (i.e. Sense 2 of the entry). Would it not be easier to remove Sense 3 and put the corresponding quotation as another example of Sense 2 in context?

See also this inquiry on referents to specific British royals as name definitions I raised at WT:ID. While I personally am was fine with these definitions appearing on Victoria, Alexandra, Elizabeth, Diana, William, et al., differing opinions were expressed at that venue.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you,

AndrewPeterT (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC), edited 01:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Previously failed RFD (see Talk:Victoria, and compare Talk:George), should not have been recreated... - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would agree with merger with Sense 2. The nominator tried to delete the translations of Queen Victoria, but that was reverted. But it is difficult to ignore the impact of her, her reign was during the expansion of the British Empire, and many geographical features around the world were named after her. It would be difficult to erase her completely from Wiktionary, as she features in etymologies for various places. Many places in the US are named after George Washington, so we can't ignore him either. DonnanZ (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• I guess the same rule applies to Washington, Sense 3. That puts the cat among the pigeons. DonnanZ (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't have specific people having a certain name in our defs. The Washington def should go as well. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No, we should keep in some form. It seems curious that a specific queen should be deleted, yet a specific goddess would remain untouched. We also have entries for Boadicea or Boudica, another queen. Oxford, Collins, and Merriam-Webster all include the queen; I was able to add refs for Collins and M-W. This is a maverick dictionary that includes all kinds of crap, so why delete this? Because of CFI? DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete in line with my views expressed at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/June#Names of people" (it would be good if that discussion can be continued and some consensus reached). — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Sgconlaw + too encyclopaedic for a dictionary. DonnanZ, I would advocate for the removal of most to all people names on Wikt. Regardless, her name is often used alongside "Queen Victoria" anyways. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

diamido-

Prefix unused? Denazz (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep @Denazz: took some Googling but I found usage for this use in diamidobenzene, diamidophosphoric, diamido-ether and diamidogen. Looks rare but attestable. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

stannoso-

Prefix unused? Denazz (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

OED has two quotations for this: stannoso-stannic, which is probably just stannoso + stannic, and stannosochloride, which we can also dub a compound of stannoso + chloride. Prefix seems unused in modern IUPAC nomenclature, as I could not find any recent chemistry names for it in any web databases. Perhaps a dictionary misinterpreted this as a real suffix based on the aforementioned entries? Or it might be obsolete and extraordinarily rare. Delete for now. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

totes appropes

totes inappropes

SoP. Einstein2 (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both as SOP. Two abbreviations/clippings do not create new words; this would be like having totally appropriate/totally inappropriate as entries. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The phrases totes appropes and totes inappropes are more integrally linked than totally appropriate and totally inappropriate to the point where they've become phrases in their own right. For example, three of the five cites for inappropes are preceded by totes. TDHoward (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Those forms are not trivially predictable from “totally” and “(in)appropriate”. Nicodene (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. ScribeYearling (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

rainbow unicorns

"used to symbolize a childlike, naïve fantasy". Passed RFV, but it doesn't have a real definition. Ultimateria (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ultimateria How about making this a syn of rainbows and unicorns? The quotations on your RfD'd entry seem to line up with this entry. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. I think what I was struggling with, and the reason the RFV pointed toward this page being SOP, is that the lemma was the singular form. All the quotes use the plural, so you're right, it's used as a synonym of "rainbows and unicorns". I've moved the entry and made it an alt form of that page. It should be good to keep now. Ultimateria (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a non-gloss definition for this, though a substitutable gloss ("naive fantasy" doesn't work) would be better. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep in its current state. ScribeYearling (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Pornhub

As XVideos above. PUC – 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would we keep the sosh meed (Twitter, Discord etc) but not this? My reading of WT:BRAND suggests that popular products (websites are products) are chill with their own entries since they are very familiar and widely-used, like "John Doe is on Facebook" or "She jotted it down on her iPhone before leaving the café". Pornhub is taboo but still used in this way as the most-visited website, just slightly less than some social media but more than others we have entries for. Unless I am mistaken on my reading of the policy? By the XVideos rationale all our social media entries would have to be deleted as well (I am vaguely in favour of keeping them based on the WT:BRAND logic). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Added some quotes (Dec 2017, 2019, 2020, Jan 2024) that probably qualify under WT:BRAND. Einstein2 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This should be kept because of the noun sense by default. AG202 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete the proper noun sense, which can be stated in the etymology for the figurative sense. Inqilābī 17:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete the proper noun sense, as the quotations do not satisfy WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw What about quotes 3–6? They are independent in their usage and they span three years. Is there a reason they do not satisfy BRAND? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

igpay

Looks like straightforward Pig Latin to me, even when it's used to refer to police officers. Considering that there is at least one Pig Latin counterpart to pretty much every word in the English language, we shouldn't even get started on Pig Latin entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – I agree: if we had a fancy "Pig Latin for X" template, there would easily be thousands of attestable entries. Additionally, considering Pig Latin words are all formed via the exact same rules, I feel like having entries for each would serve no useful purpose. (Was gonna write this message in Pig Latin, but I could not be bothered to work it out in my head). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Take to RFV - I'm not opposed to words derived from Pig Latin, where they occur in running English sentences not otherwise written in Pig Latin - I think there's a difference between "erehay omecay the igpays" and "Here come the igpays", with the latter showing lexicalization (see for instance, ixnay, amscray, kayfabe). That said... I'm not finding any examples of that. "igpay" only seems to appear on Google Books in the phrase "Igpay Atinlay". If there's actual examples of use to mean pigs (the animal) or police, then Keep. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Send to RfV in principle per Smurrayinchester. google books for "igpay -atinlay" finds a decent number of uses, but most of them are mentions or scannos and I found only two things I would call uses, both of which are very dubious. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• End-say to Equests-ray for Erification-vay. Binarystep (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church

Probably SoP. Inqilābī 16:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Svartava (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• I see it is a proper noun.. as such, can it really be SoP? Either way, this looks to be part of our unresolved "problem" regarding the inclusion of the names of organisations and organisational entities and bodies on Wiktionary. But, out of general curiosity, what do you make of our entries for Anglican Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Latin Church, LDS Church and Mormon Church? Additionally, @Inqilābī, Wikt also has entries for each of the other Orthodox Churches (if you wish to bundle them to this RfD as well, at your discretion): Albanian Orthodox Church, Alexandrian Orthodox Church, Antiochian Orthodox Church, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Jerusalemite Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, Polish Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church and Syriac Orthodox Church. Interestingly, a great deal of these were added by IPs. Either way, I am going to say delete based on the arguments presented at Talk:National Hockey League, such as Facts707's "Definitely Wikipedia material", the fact that this does not, for me, satisfy THUB, and based on our de facto practice of linking abbreviations and alternative names to their respective Wikipedia articles, hence insinuating (albeit not formally) that such elongated organisational names are not worthy of entries in a dictionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: ‘SoP’ was a thinko on my end, I was going to state the rationale as ‘encyclopedic material’- but then the term is also a SoP of Constantinopolitan + Orthodox Church nonetheless. It did occur to me that several similar terms would exist but I was too lazy to track them; and also thought we may as well discuss church organizations one by one, cause we may have never nominated these lemmas for deletion before. I have to thank you, though, for having hunted down a list of them all! I honestly wanted to just see how other editors would react to the nomination of this particular term, Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church. Speaking of other lemmas you listed: Eastern Orthodox Church in particular is rather a very basic term, being literally one of the major branches of Christianity, and thus comparable to the likes of Sunni Islam, etc. I think all of the other Orthodox Church branches in your list can be deleted. Most of the other churches you mentioned farther above can also be deleted, except perhaps Anglican Church, which seems broader and more generalized in scope, even though it is arguably still SoP seeing as Anglican covers the relevant sense. Thank you for the discussion; depending on the progress of this nomination I will decide if I will nominate the other terms for deletion or not. Inqilābī 19:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would keep if it is a valid term. There is now the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, a separate organisation to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. DonnanZ (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There's also a bunch of other orthodox churches. But as name of an organization, they look like SOP. The term "Orthodox church" itself is not referring to a specific organization tho. Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - not SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Knight Purplebackpack89 02:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

noradrenenergic

Rare misspelling. Einstein2 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how common it would have to be to warrant inclusion as a misspelling, but a quick Google search (including also using Google Scholar and GBooks) reveals tons of results for this term from several journals and numerous books spanning 1977 to 2022. As such, I am leaning keep. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not convinced it is a misspelling. The form noradrenergic may come by haplology from noradrenenergic = noradren- +‎ energic.  --Lambiam 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I now think it is a misspelling; the suffix is -ergic.  --Lambiam 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

bleed until one can't breathe

Just a metaphor in the Shawn Mendes song? I don't want to RFV this, as it looks like a meta-question for treating metaphors. Snowclone of "X until one can't Y" perhaps? Denazz (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This is a song-specific metaphor, not an idiom in the English language. We similarly don't have entries for end of June (from "Watermelon Sugar" by Harry Styles), in the spin cycle (from "Dirty Laundry" by Kelly Rowland), or cornflake girl and raisin girl (from "Cornflake Girl" by Tori Amos). Binarystep (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

semieidetic

Plz delete this entry as there are no known cites in this unhyphenated form; only the hyphenated form, semi-eidetic is cite-wise. mynewfiles (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete – Seems insanely rare. (Although mayB this should have gone to RfV?). No results from Google's Usenet archives, GBooks, GScholar, any subscription-only service on the Wikipedia Library nor Newspapers.com. All I found via a Google Search was a single post on Reddit and a single tweet. Hardly worth keeping IMO. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I found an academic paper that might use the word. If it is a valid cite, I would say keep. Right now I'm neutral, leaning keep. ScribeYearling (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

novelty value

Unlike something like shock value, which has a bit of depth to its meaning, this feels like a sum-of-parts entry. Tagging @Mnemosientje as the creator. Hythonia (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - This looks idiomatic to me. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete – I would argue that, while common, this one is not idiomatic; we can combine pretty much any word with value to create a similar meaning; hypothetically, we could (and through quick Google Searches these are attestable) have a “scare value”, “horror value”, “curiosity value”, “nostalgia value” (this one I have heard a lot), “aesthetic value”, “melancholy value”, “education value”, “action value”, “dance value” (‘dude, this song has such a good dance value’) etc. There is nothing particularly different about novelty value unless we want to create entries for all of these (which would be totally permissible were they not SOP). Compare this with dog freak that was listed above and deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. ScribeYearling (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

scores of

SOP? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – yes. We were missing a sense at score but I added it as: "a great deal; many, several". LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

keep mum, stay mum

Both verbs are a transparent sum of parts, keep (or stay) + mum. Compare the synonymous remain mum,^[25][26][27] as well as keep silent^[28][29][30] and stay silent,^[31][32][33] which are equally transparent sums of parts.  --Lambiam 19:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 19:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nominator rationale. See mum (“silent”, adjective). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom, repurpose content as colloquation and images. Juwan (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. Svārtava (tɕ) 14:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

brush with death

SOP. PUC – 19:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete and repurpose as collocation on brush #6. ―⁠Ktom (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

aranga

Discussion moved to WT:RFVE.

human body

Although I created this and I'm inclined to keep it, I don't believe it's protected by WT:THUB so I'd like some input. PUC – 19:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a Korean translation, 인체 (inche), which appears to meet the THUB criteria - although 체 (che) means "body", the Korean translations given at human are 사람의 (saramui) and 인간의 (in'ganui), not 인 (in), which seems to be an archaic form which is fossilised in a few set expressions. One is not enough, of course, and I wasn't able to identify any other non-SOP translations. This, that and the other (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

軀 seems to be Chinese, and also 人体 is Chinese and Japanese. Justin the Just (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

hoppily

Rfd-sense "(humorous) Alternative form of happily, used for involving rabbits and frogs." This is not a separate sense; any uses of this for happily are simply puns. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Surjection are puns disallowed? I see that we have at least a few other such entries, like pawsitive (“alternative form of positive, used in situations involving pets such as cats and dogs”). udderly (“alternative form of utterly, used in situations involving cows”) and purrfect (“perfect, in contexts relating to cats”). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Those have different spellings and presumably also pronunciations from the word they are punning. That itself probably justifies keeping them. This word does not. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see what you mean; could you please elaborate on how hoppily is specifically different from those linked examples? Your reply went over my head, sorry. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't follow it at first, either, but I think the distinction is that udderly has only one definition, viz. "utterly in situations involving cows" (the word udderly exists only as a funny respelling of utterly), whereas hoppily is (according to our entry) a preexisting word meaning "in a hoppy manner"... so the argument as I understand it is that "hoppily ever after" (etc) is just using the other ("in a hoppy manner") word in order to pun, and it'd be sufficient to just have the other word (maybe with a usage note that it's used in puns). I'll say more in a comment below. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Not too sure how Surjection proposes to distinguish this from e.g. udderly. I would say keep as far as RFD is concerned. Moreover, it's clearly attestable, mainly but not exclusively in the phrase hoppily ever after.

I'm not sure that the definition is right though: this use relates to a child (?) dancing around like a bird, this referring to a planthopper, and this talks of dancing "hoppily like parched peas". This, that and the other (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Looks like they are using it as a synonym for hoppity. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no adverb sense at that entry though. I think all the uses I found were clear adverbs. This, that and the other (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

hoppily ever after is not evidence that "hoppily" can mean "happily", it's a pun where we replace happily with hoppily. It's the exact same reason why "sole" isn't a word for "soul" if I tell someone "did you hear about the tragedy at the shoe factory? many soles were lost". udderly is not a word that can mean anything else, because there is no way to do something "in an udder manner". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

in theory i think we could list soul~sole and others like it, but a single cite won't get it through CFI. The others we've added are all backed up by multiple uses in independent contexts. I didnt add cites for pawsitive but it has a surfeit of examples. i agree that empty puns — Im sure there are video games where you play as an animal and have to "press PAWS" — dont help the reader. I'd hope that our existing three-cites CFI hurdle would be enough to filter those out. —Soap— 09:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps it also matters which is the true reading of the word. There are two ways to read that joke. One is that it really does mean "sole" (of a shoe), but uses the familiar wording we use after major disasters to amuse the reader. The other is that it does mean soul and is a pun. Whereas the words like udderly and pawsitive can only mean "utterly" and "positive". —Soap— 09:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Im sympathetic to the KEEP side of the argument here, but have not yet voted. Im hoping this discussion can set a precedent so that it wont keep coming up again for each individual word. Maybe the Beer Parlour is a better place for that. But for now I will just say one thing ... if we do keep these words and also agree to set a precedent, I hope we can all come to an informal agreement not to abuse the policy by creating hundreds of frivolous words that just barely pass CFI and would do no good in educating the reader. For example, someone writing about gnomes can add a g- to any word beginning with N, and since there are a lot of stories about gnomes, it won't be too hard to find three independent examples of some of these words. I think words like these are of a lower quality than words like pawsitive which result from the happenstance collision of two unrelated words. There's more to it than that, but I can't right now put into words what makes me admire the "good" words and not the "bad" ones. Which is why maybe a discussion on the Beer Parlour would be a good idea. Thanks, —Soap— 10:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To underscore my idea of having an informal agreement ... I can think of three unrelated policies that editors could be abusing to create thousands of useless entries ... but we just don't do it. I think we have enough community spirit that we need not formulate our rules in the strictest possible manner to prevent bad-faith editors from exploiting them purely to ruin our efforts. —Soap— 11:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: this is just a pun, which does not make it a distinct sense. Innumerable rhyming puns can be created in this way. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above comment. This reminds me somewhat of car meaning 'cat' which I sent to RFV but could've just as easily sent here to RFD. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and send to RfV. Is this attested as a word with this meaning? If so, RfD is not the place for it. bd2412 T 03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and send to RFV per above. ScribeYearling (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. If the only attested definition were this one, I would say "keep", like udderly (as noted above) and e.g. Winterpeg ("Winnipeg, in reference to its harsh winters"), but I see there's a second definition, pertaining to hopping, so I do see the argument that uses of "hoppily" in e.g. "hoppily ever after" are just using the hop-related word in order to pun. I'm trying to think of comparable cases.
If some politician were named Jonson (spelled sic) and had many affairs and someone said he was "thinking with his Jonson", would that make Jonson a word meaning "Johnson, penis"? (Probably yes?) OTOH, if e.g. a wastewater treatment facility released an end-of-year report saying they were "flush" with success (treating wastewater better than average) and reminding people that they "pooh-poohed" flushing menstrual pads down the toilet, etc, that would indeed just punny without creating new senses of the words. But this does seem more like the "Jonson" situation. Meh. Abstain, leaning towards "weak keep". - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Poultry

Fails CFI § Place names; individual roads and streets are excluded from Wiktionary unless they have a figurative sense, i.e. Downing Street or Savile Row, otherwise we would have potentially millions of entries for every street and road on Earth. Our current entry for Poultry does not give a figurative sense. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Dealing with smartarses and spoilsports is the reason I now avoid adding anything to Category:en:Named roads like the plague. It's too toxic. I suspect this entry was made for its historical interest, which CFI should take into account, but fails to; you wouldn't find poultry there today (near the Bank of England). DonnanZ (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I see the logic here, but there are over 85,000 streets in London alone, and most of these may very well satisfy the rest of the CFI criteria. And, due to the city's age, I reckon at least over ten thousand of these streets have some sort of historical interest etymologically speaking; the street near my house in outer London, was built recently, c.1922–1923, and was named after a brook that flowed next to it that no longer exists, making the name nonsensical and a complete mystery to most (and it does satisfy the rest of the CFI due to independent usage). Regardless, I feel there would be no easy way to distinguish between a 'notable' or 'historical' street and a 'non-notable' one; even so, I do not think Wiktionary should have a notability policy like Wikipedia does, since we like to generally be more relaxed in regards to entries. But Wiktionary already has an abundance of (perhaps too many) entries for ghost towns and small unincorporated communities, also allowing street names would be a step too far IMO and greenlight the possibility of over tens of thousands of new entries on streets around the world. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I too live in outer London, two miles up the road from Surrey. Wikipedia doesn't attempt to list every street in the world, it has a page for London Road, but none of them rate inclusion here. Berkeley Road and Sole Street qualify as place names. I looked at the page for Ebony, Kent yesterday, but it can't be found on OS maps, so didn't add it here. I added Birdcage Walk, which I thought was interesting enough, but it was deleted. I am voting keep for this entry though, for the reason given. DonnanZ (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW, your comment about "small unincorporated communities", I find that in the US some can be larger than so-called cities, it is possible to find cities with populations of less than 100. The system over there can be crazy. DonnanZ (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete for non-compliance with CFI. I looked at "w:Poultry, London" but it is only the name of the street, not of a district. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

even if

RFD-sense, in an unconventional sense (perhaps a more appropriate forum can be found). Rather than deletion, this discussion concerns the repurposing of sense #1 as an {{&lit}}. Sense #2 is also better repurposed as a {{synonym of}}. These two operations are easy to justify and perform; what leads me to bring this to discussion is the translation table, a mess which contains what I suspect is a mix of translations of the unidiomatic sense of the expression and the idiomatic ‘even though’ sense; language-wise, the translations on even if and even though do not overlap well, and importing adequate transitions to the latter will require expert attention. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO it is clearly SOP, so if retained it should be as an {{&lit}} because of sense #2 or as a translation hub. The translations that I am competent to check are also SOP, though; even the Greek translation. (Although we write at ακόμα και αν, ‘(literally: "even and if")’, a better literal translation is “even also if”, which is also used in English. The combination ακόμα και, meaning basically the same as the English adverb “even”, is also used standalone, and although ακόμα και αν (akóma kai an) is far more common, just ακόμα αν (akóma an) is also used.)  --Lambiam 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sense 2, "even though" -- "if" can mean "though" generally, as in e.g. "She is polite, if a little cold". Is there a special idiomaticity about sense 2 that makes it more than "even" + "if" in the sense "though"? Mihia (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, per Lambiam and Mihia, or (if enough translations are idiomatic) retain as an &lit/THUB. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete both per above—in their current definition, at least. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Spanish colonial period, American colonial period

I think this is Sum of Parts. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe colonial period isn't. DonnanZ (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete both (proudly using a bullet point for consistency unlike someone above me) – okay, so, I was really divided on this but here is my rationale: this is SOP because there is no idiomatic meaning beyond "Spanish colonial period", i.e. "the colonial period of Spain [the coloniser]". Instead of being, say, a word, it is rather a more straightforward descriptive phrase that consists of three components that, when put together, are (often) immediately clear to most readers without requiring specialised context per se. This is different from other time periods, i.e. the Migration Period, Era of Great Power, Progressive Era or early modern; the meanings of each of these cannot be ascertained simply from their words themselves. This would be like having an entry for "Obama era" [34] or "Boris Johnson period"; [35] descriptive and sentence-like rather than idiomatic.

Not sure if this will be brought up but I did consider this hypothetical point: "Spanish colonial period", in the context of the Philippines, refers to a specific fixed date range, that is 1565 to 1898. Does this disqualify it from being SOP? It does not: following the same rationale, Kenya, for example, can have a British colonial period (1920–1963), Tanzania has its own British colonial period (1919-1961), and so does Uganda (1894-1962) and several other colonies. This is another marker of what makes this entry SOP, as is the fact that there is a French colonial period, German colonial period, Russian colonial period etc. for a lot of countries around the world. Hope I explained it well enough! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment - are these sum of parts? Particularly for American colonial period, my first thought would be the United States pre-1776. Theknightwho (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point! I think calling it SOP might be incorrect, but it would be strange to me to include a word with so many vague meanings. Like, when I googled "American colonial period" I got (in order): pre-1776 United States, United States colonies of other countries (including, but not limited to, the Philippines), the Philippines time period and Liberia [the latter on page 3 of Google]. It would feel somewhat strange to add sense for each of these, as I reckon none of them would survive if they had existed on their own; or would we somehow have to decide which sense is &lit and which ones are not? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that each region’s colonial period may span a different time period doesn’t mean such terms are not SoP. Essentially in each case the term still means “the period when (a place) was colonized by (another country)”. Consider a term like modern era which again could vary from place to place by time period. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, because the fact that the period usually so described in each instance is not immediately apparent seems to show that they are not sum-of-parts; the phrase has a specific meaning that cannot be intuited from the words that make it up. I don't know that "American colonial period" is commonly used to described the post-Spanish-American War period, but if that's the case, that would also need a definition—and the fact that readers may not realize that such phrases may have more than one application also argues for keeping them. I would distinguish "modern era" because it does not refer to a particular place, and has no meaning on its own besides that which can be intuited from its parts; "colonial period" by itself seems more worthy of inclusion because it's not necessarily apparent whether it refers to the period of time during which a place was colonized, or the period in which one entity colonized others (presumably both would be correct, which is an argument that it needs to be defined to say so; a writer might want to make sure that the phrase can be applied to one, the other, or both). But where historians regularly define "colonial period" with a geographic modifier, that period certainly needs a definition. Whether such use of "modern era" leads to standard or at least common definitions would need to be determined separately. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, IMO, per Sgconlaw and Luna; I am not persuaded that different places being colonial in different periods stops this from meaning colonial + period; if I read that something happened during the Roosevelt administration, that does not, on the face of it, specify what years it happened during... and yet, I do not think that makes it a word, to expect to find in a dictionary... - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

next next [time]

Some user added the following entries:

• next next Christmas
• next next day
• next next hour
• next next minute
• next next month
• next next week
• next next year

 

This seems Sum of Parts and can be reduced as Philippine English next next that just means the next one after the next, the following [time]:

next next graduation, next next Halloween, next next time, next next program, etc. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, delete. They are just as much SOP as next Christmas, next week, next minute, next hour etc. They are just using the Philippines English "next next". 2600:1700:4410:47A0:3394:F09B:409A:98E6 23:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete all per the IP address and nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete all as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete all. Ultimateria (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep some as WT:THUB, e.g. next next year = Chinese 後年 and Japanese 再来年, or next next day = Chinese 後天 and Japanese 明後日, which are not simply the Chinese/Japanese word for "next" applied twice. See {{Japanese temporal nouns}} for more examples. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Per WT:THUB, those should be at year after next, similar to day after tomorrow. Edit: Oops -sche beat me to it. AG202 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete any which are not saved by THUB; and we should consider, for ones which do meet THUB, whether "next next year" is the most common English phrasing or whether the THUB should be moved to e.g. "year after next". - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

green goddess dressing

• green goddess dressing
• green goddess salad dressing
• green goddess salad dressing sauce
• green goddess sauce
• green goddess vinaigrette
• green goddess vinaigrette dressing
• green goddess vinaigrette salad dressing
• green goddess vinaigrette salad dressing sauce
• green goddess vinaigrette sauce

 

Pleonastic sum-of-parts entries. Einstein2 (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

green goddess seems to be rather bare, if you know what I mean. I had never heard of it, but WP has an article for Green goddess dressing. Based on that, I would keep green goddess dressing at least. In any case, they all seem to be synonyms, and we keep those, right? DonnanZ (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the large number of variations and the fact that green goddess is often used without any qualifiers imply that the idiomatic part is green goddess. We include bloody mary but not bloody mary cocktail or bloody mary drink. Einstein2 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we have an entry for hot cross instead of hot cross bun? Nope. DonnanZ (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We could create an entry if it is attestable. However, as far as I know, hot cross is not normally used outside the phrase hot cross bun, unlike green goddess. Einstein2 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect all to green goddess Purplebackpack89 21:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect all: SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Hard redirects in mainspace are not helpful for situations like this. Theknightwho (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all due to redundancy and SOPness and per Theknightwho, but keep green goddess season vinaigrette salad dressing sauce spread condiment mixture blend as a totally valid redirect. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete all per Eintein2. Polomo47 (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect green goddess dressing, green goddess sauce, green goddess vinaigrette (to green goddess) and delete the rest. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. "salad dressing sauce"? Seriously? Ultimateria (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

we got company

Not sure this "pronoun" (ahem!) is more than sum of parts! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F4E8:32FB:F63A:C6A4 15:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it’s idiomatic, as also the equivalents in my two native languages, which aren’t word-for-word and thus put the entry under the protection of WT:THUB, if not WT:PB. Though we also have we have visitors in English. It is hard to fathom here what makes you sound like a native speaker. Fay Freak (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, even supporting speedy as no useful content given. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Arguable POS does not equal useless content. We can change to Interjection, or Phrase, and then? Fay Freak (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep the second sense, "encountering an enemy", as clearly idiomatic: company does not list any senses that could infer enemies or bad guys in general. To me, at least, "we got company" clearly carries a very different meaning to "we have company"; disregarding tone (as we all know, English is a tonal language frfr), the latter example sounds like it could be referring to having people over, whereas the first hypothetical example immediately sounds much more threatening and negative, as if it involves a group of villains. While the first example can easily be a synonym for the second example, this does not work the other way around – "we have company" does not quite carry such connotations. Also, I have no idea why it is listed as a pronoun, and my professional cryptographer charged me extra for the first sense, so I was not able to afford to have it translated and thus am not sure what it means. But the second sense goes hard. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I would have speedy deleted this - the creator is generally clueless, and their inability to use Standard English is a serious hindrance to their participation on this site. But since we're here, maybe move/recreate at we have company and redirect nonstandard forms there. This, that and the other (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep only in the idiomatic sense. ScribeYearling (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

poor little rich boy

Sum of parts. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Surjection do you also wish to bundle poor little rich girl with this RfD? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This common set phrase is not sum of parts because often used to describe an adult man (who is neither little nor a boy). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FC:ACA7:543A:629 20:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

IP’s reasoning is wrong, but the wording is peculiar. This is the style of manic pixie dream girl. Lean keep. Fay Freak (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to keep both this and poor little rich girl but only if the definitions are improved, since I don't think poor little rich boys/girls are necessarily young or even necessarily unhappy. Also, it would be good if someone did the research to find out whether the phrase originated with Richie Rich comics, because if so, that would be worth putting in an Etymology section. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep per Mahagaja largely because this is a stock character; compare bad guy, evil twin, idiot savant and mad scientist, all of which are pretty SOP-y. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

run out of patience

Sum of parts (and completely incorrect labels to boot). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as non-idiomatic; could just as easily be run out of time, run out of battery, run out of energy, run out of composure etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 09:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Polomo47 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

break someone's neck

Sum of parts. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom – I will be honest, break has 43 verb senses and I am not reading them all, but it is indeed very common for someone to say "you're breaking my X" when a person is causing one's body part injury or discomfort (even if only mildly so); for instance, we could easily have entries for break someone's arm, hand, leg, fingers, shoulder, etc. Hence, this term is not idiomatic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. ScribeYearling (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. The likelihood is that this is just dumb. Fay Freak (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

long gone

SOP. PUC – 10:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Collocation to long#Adverb. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete and collocation per above; incidentally, this is what the OED does. long gone is indeed SoP; compare a word like long dead. I think people really like saying long gone since it (almost) fully rhymes. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Tomfoolery. Fay Freak (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

not that there's anything wrong with that

Does this really have any idiomatic meaning beyond saying you don't think there's anything wrong with the subject under question? Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. In the Seinfeld episode mentioned in the Etymology section, it's specifically about homosexuality, a way of saying "but I'm not homophobic" after saying something that might be perceived as homophobic. Of the two quotes currently on the page, only the 2012 quote shows it being used that way, while the 2003 doesn't have that connotation. Still, I think it's only a connotation, not anything lexical about the phrase, so I'm going to go with delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think any idiomatic meaning is just going to be in the reference to Seinfeld. ScribeYearling (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 12:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

flower crown

Sum of parts: a crown made of flowers. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Just checking @Surjection: do you mean the second sense ("a wreath or band for the head, especially one given as reward of victory or a mark of honor") makes this word SOP? Kindest regards, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as the sole definition in the entry ("A crown made of brightly colored flowers") is SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would keep but perhaps as a synonym for wreath: particularly in the context of festivals (like that Coachella thing) and marriages, the flower headdress one wears is never called a wreath, nor is it worn for "honour" or "victory" as the sense at crown suggests, so it might not be SOP? Err, mayB compare entries like diving mask (literally “mask for diving”), ski mask (“mask for skiing”) and tinfoil hat (“hat made of tinfoil”)? A flower crown is, similarly, not just a crown made out of flowers per se, but a type of wreath worn for decoration at weddings and festivals. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per LunaEatsTuna. Flower crowns are a special kind of crown. Is this WT:FRIEDEGG? Polomo47 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Religious Society of Friends

Not dictionary material. – Svārtava (tɕ) 06:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: "Not dictionary material" is not a specific enough reason for deletion; nominator needs greater detail as WHY this fails our inclusion criteria. Purplebackpack89 14:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as SoP: religious + society + of + Friends (“The Quakers; the Society of Friends”). — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't SOP only apply to common nouns? All the examples in the SOP section are common nouns Purplebackpack89 15:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware that it is limited in that way. It seems sensible that it applies to proper nouns as well, as I don't see why terms such as Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union or United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization deserve entries in the Wiktionary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Irrespective of whether it's dictionary material, it seems self-evidently not SOP to me, as it's not just any old society of friends. Theknightwho (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't seem to have any consistent policy on things like this; indeed the only(?) policy is inconsistency. We deleted e.g. Talk:United States Marine Corps—yes, even though it is not just any marine (e.g. biologists') corps in the US—which seems reasonable enough to me; I don't find the question of 'SOP or non-SOP?' as compelling as the question of whether it's dictionary material at all. We seem, probably reasonably, to be more permissive of older and (what Wikipedia would call) more 'notable' things; we have Cicero, not SZA; we have Iliad, not The Fault in Our Stars. We have Eastern Orthodox Church but (probably reasonably) not any of various churches I could name that were founded in 2019 (2020, etc). I'm on the fence. - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: I would really like to try drafting a policy on this for voting on at some stage. (Whether we would get consensus on it is another matter, of course.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: If we're talking inconsistency of policy, see also "March to the Sea" below. Events seem to usually get kept, but CFI doesn't address them. Purplebackpack89 19:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep — I don't see how this is SOP at all. The term doesn't denote any society of friends who are religious, it is the formal name for a specific religious tradition.

Vergencescattered (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vergencescattered: as indicated above, Friends is already defined as "the Quakers", so the term just means a society of Quakers which is SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You've got it bassackwards, @Sgconlaw "Friends" is a clipping of "Religious Society of Friends". Purplebackpack89 19:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a proper name of the Quakers, who are only informally referred to as just "Friends". It's a fairly important historical term, and unlike "United States Marine Corps", the meaning isn't transparent or obvious—a reader who doesn't already know what it refers to would likely need a definition when encountering it. Very much "dictionary material", IMO. P Aculeius (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per PBP. DonnanZ (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

March to the Sea

Not dictionary material. – Svārtava (tɕ) 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

In much the same way that Norman Conquest only ever refers to the Norman conquest of England, this phrase only ever refers the the march towards the sea by General Sherman, so Keep. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Overlord. Also, "not dictionary material" is not a specific enough reason for deletion; nominator needs greater detail as WHY this fails our inclusion criteria. Purplebackpack89 14:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. (Abstain for now.) I see we have World War II (which seems OK to me), while we don't have War of Jenkins' Ear (an absence which also seems OK to me); we have a generic definition at Gulf War, while we don't have Peloponnesian War or Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Bakhmut or Russian invasion of Ukraine (and I doubt we'd want to have all of those; certainly at least some of them are encyclopedic and not lexicographic material). As PBP pointed out in the section above, we're inconsistent. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that many terms of the form "Battle of BLANK" (generally the title of their Wikipedia articles) can be clipped to just "BLANK", for example, in the phrase "Richard Ewell lost a leg at Groveton", it refers to Richard Ewell losing a leg at the BATTLE of Groveton. While we don't have Battle of Stalingrad, we have a definition at Stalingrad that pertains to the battle, and same for many other battle locations. Purplebackpack89 17:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: although I imagine there might be other events described as a "March to the Sea", the allusion to Sherman's march (or any other) is not apparent from the words themselves, and the phrase is certainly used without context, making it dictionary material—at least for a dictionary that has unlimited space, such as Wiktionary. And while many dictionaries do have entries for events such as the redlinked ones above, which ones might benefit from entries might best be decided by historians—the first three perhaps, the last two maybe not—and there's another factor: the proper names of wars or battles make it transparent what they refer to, so that someone might think to look them up in an encyclopedia. It may not be apparent to readers that "March to the Sea" (or "march to the sea") alludes to a specific event. P Aculeius (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Spotify

Created by an IP back in 2020 and seems to fail WT:BRAND. We have a few trademarks and websites on Wikt, but those satisfy our policy on brand names. Not to mention, there is no entry for Apple Music, SoundCloud (verb sense only), Amazon Music, Bandcamp, etc. (nor should there be). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Deezer

Also just saw this one. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete both, per above. ScribeYearling (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

tight

Rfd-sense "of a woman's vagina or anus, intact due to not having sexual intercourse often".

Despite the really wordy definition, this is in fact just "tight" as in sense 1 - "firm, not loose". Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete – agreed. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge with the next definition. Justin the Just (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Leaning keep, but still intact due to her either still being a virgin or not having sexual intercourse often is poor wording that comes off really incel-y and seems to take as its premise the stupid myth that vaginas become "looser" when someone has more sex. I'm pretty sure it actually just refers to literally feeling tight during sex, which has nothing to do with being physically "firm, not loose" except figuratively, because human bodies don't really work like that unless you've got an injury or medical condition. Theknightwho (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Would "the feeling of intactness, typically seen as being from not being promiscuous" work? The incel-ness of the idea feels like an important part of the term, as seen with the Carlin quote. Could be wrong. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak I don't think that's what most people mean when they use it, but there might be two senses here: the standard, vulgar sexual one, and the weird, creepy incel one. Theknightwho (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely the impression I get. It should be split into two senses. ScribeYearling (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete the sense where tight modifies the body part, as that really is just sense 1 or 2. I'm leaning toward keep for the sense where tight modifies the person, but it should be made gender-neutral as men can also be described as tight in this sense. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, what Mahāgaja said and what Theknightwho said. Even with the said ideological rather than factual premise the word technically does not mean that. Fay Freak (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

male-friendly

Sum of parts. Also note that we don't have female-friendly or any other such "gender-friendly" entries AFAIK. MSG17 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ScribeYearling (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. However, let's also bring up how there are many other compounds ending in "friendly" [36] that are simply SoPs using senses 3 and 4 of friendly. Notable mentions: gay-friendly, dog-friendly, nature-friendly, girl-friendly, rat-friendly and the alternative forms of these. More controversially, environmentally friendly and nature-friendly may also fit the bill of SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

These need checking for COALMINE and THUB before any deletion. In particular, environmentally friendly is exactly the kind of entry the THUB policy was designed for.

In fact the definitions vary so much that I think they all need to be RFD'd separately (in which I'd support deletion). This, that and the other (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

gay agenda

SOP. PUC – 14:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP – this is a collocation. For instance, we do not have entries for woke agenda, liberal agenda, media agenda, conservative agenda etc., nor should we as there would be an endless amount of these, i.e. they are all, indeed, sum of parts (SOP). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, @PUC, let's throw in this word's synonyms as well—homosexual agenda, LGBT agenda and LGBTQ agenda. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, delete all. PUC – 14:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete all as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete all per above. ScribeYearling (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep. "Tax policy" would be SOP. The meaning is straightforward. Gay agenda is a set phrase referring to an entirely notional concept. It necessitates clear and accurate definition for the same reason that Loch Ness Monster and Pizzagate do. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, leaning towards keep. It feels like much more of an established and set phrase than the others, but I find it hard to justify exactly why this would be more includable than them. No other Onelook dictionary has an entry for this (only Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary). - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

To play Devil's advocate, maybe because “gay” is not explicitly an ideology whereas liberal, woke § noun (“a progressive ideology, in particular with regards to social justice”) and conservative etc. are? Though, as I pointed out, this combination applies to non-ideologies too, including (and these are attestable) media agenda, education agenda and green agenda, which is why I feel like, though popular, this is more SOP if anything (i.e. perhaps a collocation). We could also have socialist agenda, feminist agenda, globalist agenda, leftist agenda, communist agenda, capitalist agenda (less common) etc. which is why I would argue this is not a set phrase. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This term has a Wikipedia article detailing its history and usage. That can't be said for any of the redlink whataboutery in this thread. We have gender ideology. Gay agenda is similar but with a provenance stretching back at least 30 years. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"gender ideology" should probably also be assessed for SoP-ness. Doesn't it simply mean ideology related to gender? How is it different from "healthcare ideology", or "net zero ideology", or anything else? The fact that the term can be pejorative or slur shouldn't matter. "ideology", like "agenda", is routinely used pejoratively for all manner of subjects. Mihia (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all and improve the relevant definition at agenda as necessary. "gay agenda" can be an example there if desired. Per nomination, this is just one of endless SoP combinations of the form "X agenda" whose meaning can be derived from the parts. Mihia (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, after repeated consideration over the days. WordyAndNerdy’s argumentation seems non-sequitur to me. Being a set phrase, or anyhow repetitively implicative to Usonian native speakers, does not per se qualify a word combination as lexicalized enough to have an own dictionary heading, but depends on lots of demagoguery. In other words: People read “notions” into the terms that aren’t there, which is so easy to fall for that governments are toppled by it and their heads of states decided, by pure paralogism. We should not make the mistake of shoehorning mass psychology into a language’s semantics. Fay Freak (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Upon reading others’ analyses, it seems everything that could be used to set asidegay agenda as a special case is, rather, best attributed to the use of a pejorative sense of the word agenda. Same for ideology. Polomo47 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Xiaomi et al.

Huawei, Adidas, Gucci, Peugeot

Nominating Xiaomi, Huawei, Adidas, Gucci (etymology 2, sense 2) and Peugeot (proper noun, sense 2) for deletion. All of these entries fail WT:COMPANY: company names are not permitted on Wikt, unless they are brands names or organisations (like IGOs, political parties, militaries etc.): "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." The noun senses of Adidas, Peugeot and Gucci can be kept, with the company names moved to the etymology section; compare how we handle Puma or SoundCloud. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Peugeot, no objection. The noun entry would remain, I used to work for a Peugeot dealer years ago. However, the translations may need checking against those for the car itself and merging if they are the same. Deletion of one part can cause problems. DonnanZ (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I don't know how most of these survived more than a week. And even Puma is questionable in my opinion. ScribeYearling (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

raw

Rfd-sense: Adverb: (slang, sex) Without a condom. Usages generally look adjectival. "did it unprotected", "go unprotected" seem to work similarly. Svartava2 (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

In the two examples already in the entry (one usage example, one quotation) I believe it's an adverb modifying whichever verb or verb phrase is used for sex, rather than an adjective describing sex as a noun: "we did it raw", not "we did it raw", "I'm about to go raw". If you substitute other words, it seems more clearly adverbial: "we did it quickly", "we did it safely", "I'm going to go directly". If you're describing the sex (noun), rather than the action of having sex (verb), making raw an adjective, then you'd phrase it differently: "we had raw sex", "we had great sex". I could almost see "raw" in "go raw" as a complement describing the noun subject rather than the verb, but I still think it describes the manner of going, making it an adverb. I think this could go to RfV if additional examples are needed, but I don't think this sense would be challenged (though I do wonder if the phrase isn't too new or trendy to have a lot of printed examples). P Aculeius (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep per P Aculeius. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

electric vehicle supply equipment

Unsure about this + neighborhood electric vehicle (POV defined, BTW). Looks like one of them NITWEWAs (nonidiomatic terms with entry-worth acronym) P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Brb creating an entry for NITWEWA. Anyways, delete as a pretty straightforward SOP entry per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. As for neighborhood electric vehicle, I fixed the bad def, but it really needs the eye of a US editor to decide whether the particular nuances of neighborhood specific to the US make this term SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I've never heard "neighborhood electric vehicle" in any context; it strikes me as industry jargon. We would just say "golf cart"... Ultimateria (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Outlook Drive

Rfd sense 2: "A road in Baguio, Benguet, Philippines". Fails CFI § Place names, which excludes roads and streets unless they have a figurative sense; there is no such sense for Outlook Drive. It lacks even a WP page, and there are presumably around a hundred thousand named streets in the Philippines and we do not need entries for every single one of them. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Change it to a usage note, which should get around the CFI problem. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As the creator of the entry, sure I accept the removal of that sense. — 🍕 Yivan000 ^view_talk 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted by Yivan000 on both the English and Tagalog sections. Polomo47 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

vegetable

Rfd-sense “Adjective”. This is, rather, a noun modifier, right? Polomo47 (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep, I think. I very nearly agreed with you, but my Oxford has it as an attributive adjective, while Collins treats it as a modifier. DonnanZ (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep sense "Of or relating to plants". I have added the example "This substance is vegetable not mineral" which I think stands up as adjectival. Abstain for now on the sense "Of or relating to vegetables", but we need convincing examples to justify keeping it. Presently there are no examples at all. Mihia (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, reading back now, it seems obvious that sense 1 is valid (I wonder what went on in my head at the time). I guess what I’m questioning is, rather, sense 2, yeah. Polomo47 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

carry the one

"one" can be replaced by any other single digit. This should be documented as a verb sense under carry. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to at least keep it as a THUB. German eins weiter, for instance, cannot easily be documented under carry; some German phrases correspond to the context of this phrase specifically, not to the verb more generally. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not fine to keep it as a THUB if those terms are also SOP in German. Is it really the case that they can only be used when carrying a one specifically? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Isn't this citable in a nonliteral sense? I'm sure I've heard people say "carry the one" when they're working out something complicated that has nothing to do with arithmetic. —Mahāgaja · talk 01:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Mahagaja You are right! TV Tropes makes it look like it can mean either I stand corrected / my bad or 'if my calculations are correct' / 'assuming I did not overlook something,' i.e. “This recipe is perfect! Unless I forgot to carry the one..” as an example of the latter. We can add a sense for this and delete the current one. LunaEatsTuna (talk)

I can think of one cite of it as a general "I'm thinking" phrase, but on checking it's actually "carry the two" in that case.

• 1998, Joshua Sternin, Jennifer Ventimilia, “Simpson Tide”, in The Simpsons, spoken by Homer Simpson (Dan Castalleneta):

  SAILOR: Captain, how are we supposed to get home without any equipment?
  HOMER SIMPSON: Don't worry, I've been working on it... Hmm, yes... Uh-huh... Carry the two... Alright, I can't waste any more time.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's rather suited to AP:English snowclones then, in the form "carry the X". —Mahāgaja · talk 20:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Would "carry X" also be possible (i.e. no "the")? Personally, I wonder whether this kind of usage can be handled under "carry" as an extension of the existing arithmetic sense there. Mihia (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

that

RFD sense:

• (Northern England, Manchester, Liverpool) Clipping of that is; used to reinforce the preceding assertion or statement.

  That's proper funny, that.

In my opinion, not a shortening of "that is", not a separate sense of "that", but just the subject of the sentence restated emphatically. Previously discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/November#that. Mihia (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the origin, the usage needs a definition. That used in this way is not universal to all accents and dialects of English, and an explanation of what it means would be helpful to anyone unfamiliar with it and encountering it for the very first time. Leasnam (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

My contention is that there is no separate definition. It is merely a usage of the ordinary demonstrative sense. If thought important, the usage can be explained in a "used to ~" line under the demonstrative sense, though unless someone can show otherwise, the existing "used to reinforce the preceding assertion or statement" is too general. We do not say "It's getting colder, that!" or "My head hurts, that!". It is only used when demonstrative "that" refers back to something already mentioned. Mihia (talk)

True. I reckon one might also say Those are really nice, those. Okay, I'm satisfied. Thank you Leasnam (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Leasnam (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes ... "Those are really nice, those" is a "really nice" example! Mihia (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Really nice argument, that. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above Polomo47 (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

motor

RFD adj sense:

• Relating to motor cars.

  Motor insurance is expensive for youngsters.

I am unconvinced that this example is truly adjectival, and I can't think of convincing examples. Previously discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/November#motor. Mihia (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete – I am inclined to agree with Hoary's rationale raised at the tea room. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Oxford includes this as an adjective with motor insurance as an example. A Gov.UK website says "You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads." It could be peculiarly British. DonnanZ (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody denies that "motor insurance" is a common and correct phrase. The fact that a government website uses this phrase is irrelevant. On your other point, yes, some other dictionaries do list this sense as adjectival. I happen to think that they are wrong. Mihia (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The phrase benefit of the doubt springs to mind. DonnanZ (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer this as a part of the noun sense “a motor car, or automobile, even a goods vehicle”, labelled “colloquial outside of compounds”, so yes, delete the adjective sense. Fay Freak (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The noun sense may be considered colloquial now, but not in the past, check out the quotes. DonnanZ (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Hoary at the tea room. This sense passes, like, a single one of the tests on Wiktionary:English_adjectives#Tests_of_whether_an_English_word_is_an_adjective Polomo47 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

For all the doubting Thomases, there is an entry for motor insurance, thank goodness. DonnanZ (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

When you say "doubting Thomases", you mean doubting what? Mihia (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, not an adjective. PUC – 12:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

elder (2)

1. A leader of a community, of great age or seniority.

We were presented to the village elder.

...

7. (Canada) An older Indigenous person respected as an authority figure, especially when in a counselling, consultative, or ceremonial role.

At the friendship centre, you can arrange to meet with a social worker or an elder.

RFD sense 7 as redundant. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that sense 1 is referring to? I would have thought so. Some of the wording from 7, "respected as an authority figure, especially when in a counselling, consultative, or ceremonial role", might be usefully added to 1, however. Or is there some special reason why this Canadian sense is distinct? Mihia (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Native Americans, not just in Canada but also the US, commonly use this term in roughly this sense, but I suspect we can indeed just fold this into sense 1: maybe, taking a cue from Dictionary.com, we could tweak "community" to "tribe or community", and perhaps also tweak "leader" to something like "leader or respected member" to highlight that there can sometimes be quite a few elders in a community, whereas "leader of a community" might often be read as suggesting the singular 'top' official. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree and would add that "leader of" a community should be "leader in" a community. In the Canadian indigenous context, the leader of the community would be a chief, whereas an elder would be one of several leaders within the community. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that sense 7 is really the same as sense 1, and that perhaps "leader" would mislead some readers, although it's not incorrectly used here. P Aculeius (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with all above. Polomo47 (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

election interference

As above, same IP in fact. Wikiuser815 (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as a clear case of SOP. Might even be speedy-deleted but I want my edit count to be higher so here we are. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Illegal? Trump had the temerity to criticise British MPs who went to the States to lend their support to Kamala Harris. DonnanZ (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. It's worth noting that, if this phrase is used consistently to refer specifically to foreign interference (as the entry says as of writing this), the word is definitely not SoP. I suspect that’s not the case, though. Polomo47 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 12:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. Graham11 (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, though it is cool as a hypernym for other terms listed on its Wikipedia page such as electoral fraud; encyclopedic content it is. Fay Freak (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Duesenberg

Fails WT:COMPANY: the names of companies are not allowed on Wikt. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I note that nearly all automobile brands have entries (or separate senses, in the case of words that have others) on Wiktionary, and seem to be exceptions to this rule, perhaps because automobiles are commonly referred to by the names of those brands, e.g. "I drive a Bentley", "I used to have an Oldsmobile", "she drives Lincolns or Fords", "you can get a used Honda". In these examples, the names refer to specific products frequently referred to by the name of the company or brand. Contrast this with service providers: nobody says "I have a potted Bank of America in the window" or "would you like some Liberty Mutual on your bagel?" We only mention them when referring to the company itself, instead of referring to items that we use in everyday life. P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

When a person says "I am driving a Honda", they do not mean they are somehow driving the Honda Motor Co., Ltd., but rather that they are driving a car (or vehicle) made by the Honda Motor Company. The company itself does not need an entry, but we can have one listed for their products and brands. For instance, Honda has two other senses: "A brand of car manufactured by Honda, or a car of this brand" and "A motorbike manufactured by Honda." We can keep these two but get rid of the first sense for the company. Another example is Pepsi: we have no entry for the company Pepsi Co. itself but we do have one for their drink. The same applies here. :) LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Rather than scrap it, change it to a noun. "I can't afford to run a Duesenberg." I imagine there's a pretty picture or two available on Commons. DonnanZ (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz I suggested converting it on the Discord (there are several other entries like this one) but was told that in order to remove a sense it was better to take it to RfD. But yeah, I added a noun sense, tons of hits for it on Gbooks. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, fine. Adding the full name of the manufacturer would be in order, I think. We can now delete the proper noun. DonnanZ (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hershey

Rfd sense: “A company which manufactures food products, most known for its chocolate.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: we do not allow entries for the names of companies on Wiktionary. If a brand entry for the chocolate bar (is it a bar?) itself can be attested, than mayB it can be added as a separate/new entry (like Pepsi or Coca-Cola). The company that makes the products itself does not need an entry, however. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The etymology of the company towns is dependent on the company. Purplebackpack89 21:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• That can go in the etymology section. See SoundCloud for example. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

high-fat diet

+other diets: high-fat diet|high-protein diet|hypoglycemic diet|keto diet|ketogenic diet|low-caloric diet|low-calorie diet|low-carb diet|low-carbohydrate diet|low-fat diet|low-glycemic diet|low-sugar diet|modified low-carb diet|modified low-carbohydrate diet|weight-loss diet Rowjanes (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Said to be "A diet consisting of at least 35% of total calories that are consumed from saturated and unsaturated fats". You wouldn't specifically know that it was 35% from high-fat ... UNLESS this information is added to high-fat, of course. Mihia (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I would expect different sources to have different definitions—or no fixed definition at all—of what constitutes "high-fat", and even if there were a standard or typical medical definition, it's likely that most people who use the term wouldn't know what that definition is, but use the phrase vaguely, in which case "high-fat diet" is sum-of-parts: any diet that's high in fat. P Aculeius (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You may be right. The present entry implies a standard medical or nutritional definition, echoing e.g. [37], yet other apparently "scientific" or regulatory sources give different values or wide ranges. Mihia (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

modified low-carb diet and modified low-carbohydrate diet need to be considered independently, because they appear to be a specific type of diet. keto diet and ketogenic diet need to be considered independently because 1) we do not have corresponding senses at ketogenic that could be used to argue SoP and 2) even if we did, there's the case of WT:JIFFY (the same applies to keto).

I do agree with delete for the other ones, especially for the title's high-fat diet. Polomo47 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete any not singled out above - the definition as given is wrong and the true meaning is SOP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hudson

Rfd sense 4: “Hudson Motor Car Company, a defunct American automobile company.”

Fails WT:COMPANY. We can keep the noun sense (“an automobile manufactured by the Hudson Motor Company”) per WT:BRAND. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete the company. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Nike

Rfd sense: “An American brand of sports shoes, equipment and clothing.”

Fails WT:COMPANY, which disallows company/corporation names on Wikt. We can keep the noun sense for the shoe itself (which is a plural anyways) per WT:BRAND. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that the sole remaining definition, "singular of Nikes", is lacking. I may try to fix that, but will probably need help formulating a better definition. Also that separating it from all other uses by distinguishing "noun" from "proper noun" is probably confusing, but that may be a policy issue, and is perhaps unavoidable. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: We already have a definition: “Sports shoes of the brand Nike.” We do not restate definitions for singulars/plurals; cf. Doc Marten. J3133 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems odd not to have an actual definition under the singular form, which is where readers would be expected to look for it: even though the word might be more commonly encountered in the plural, readers would normally recognize it as plural whether or not they know the definition. If one form has a definition, and the other does not it should be the singular, and this is done for other athletic shoes (or apparel). Planning to copy and modify the entry from another such instance. P Aculeius (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: As stated at Talk:running shoe, there are more such entries in Category:en:Footwear (e.g., bobby socks, oversocks, Wellington boots). J3133 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

However, there are other instances—some mentioned in a discussion above—where a proper definition is given under the singular form. Here the singular form has other definitions; the plural does not, and is hardly more elucidating; since the shoe/athletic gear name is derived from the other meanings, it makes sense to find the definition with those from which it's derived, instead of a stand-alone entry just for being plural. There are no different meanings for "bobby socks", "oversocks", or "Wellington boots", and while I can imagine just one oversock or Wellington boot, I don't recall ever hearing of just one bobby sock. I presume one could refer to just one, but that would be highly unusual. P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

schleem

One 'citation' from Rick and Morty (where it's almost definitely used as gibberish). -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 22:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. As a made-up word for the series it would have to satisfy WT:FICTION; a few quick searches on Google, X (formerly Twitter) and Reddit showed only in-universe references for schleem, meaning it fails our criteria for entries originating from fictional works. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I would extend that to the Yiddish term too. The person who created the entry doesn't know what they're doing. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep as creator. I don't know on what basis anyone can suggest that the term does not exist in Yiddish, given the three quotations. I admit that I'm not very familiar with Rick and Morty, it just came up in my search for the Yiddish term so I assumed it was related. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The citations don't use the word! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7D11:FDAF:E251:2C46 23:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

What does this mean? GordonGlottal (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal Those quotations you added are in the Hebrew script. But in order for us to keep this entry, schleem itself (in the Latin English alphabet) would have to be attested in the English language. If you want it to have a Yiddish entry then you would have to create an entry here on Wikt in the Hebrew script—which Yiddish uses. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the relevant policy? GordonGlottal (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal Wiktionary:About Yiddish#Script This, that and the other (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I proposed allowing Latin-script entries for Yiddish to point people to the Hebrew script lemmas, Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/April#Latin-script_Yiddish, since Yiddish does also use Latin script... the real problem with the citations currently in the entry is that two don't use or even mention schleem, they mention schleimel, and the third cite is largely in English... what we need are uses of schleem in running Yiddish text (or audio). - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Samsung

Rfd proper noun sense: “A South Korean conglomerate company which manufactures electronics and ships.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: the names of corporations are not allowed on Wikt. We can, however, keep the two noun senses per WT:BRAND and incorporate this company name into the Etymology section (which I will do if this sense gets RfD'd). Compare what we already do for Motorola, Nokia, Android etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep. The quotations there show a figurative usage: "[Some of] them, potentially, are the Sonys and Samsungs of tomorrow". That shows that it has entered the lexicon outside of solely its trademark. AG202 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sony

Rfd proper noun sense: “An international electronics and media company based in Tokyo, Japan.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: the names of corporations/companies are not allowed on Wiktionary. However, we are keeping the attested noun sense per WT:BRAND; see, for example, what we already do for entries like Motorola, Android, Hot Wheels, SoundCloud, Nokia, etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Whoever closes this needs to be aware of WT:Grease pit/2024/November#Template:transclude and Template:rfd-sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep. Same reason as in WT:RFD/English#Samsung. It's entered the lexicon per the quote at Samsung: "[Some of] them, potentially, are the Sonys and Samsungs of tomorrow". AG202 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sega

RfD proper noun sense: “A Japanese video game developer and publisher and manufacturer of arcade games and formerly of video game consoles.”

Another one that fails WT:COMPANY. We do not have Blizzard (surname only), Ubisoft, Tencent, Take-Two Interactive, Playtika or Microsoft Gaming etc., nor should we, and we do not need an entry for Sega either. Of course, we are keeping the attested noun sense per WT:BRAND, as we do for many entries like Hot Wheels, Motorola or Nokia. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

☉

♄

Symbol, RfD-redundant: senses are “the sun” and “(alchemy) gold”; redundant to Translingual symbol entry, senses 1 (“(astronomy, astrology) Sol, the Sun.”) and 4 (“(alchemy) gold.”). J3133 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@J3133 Should we bundle the redundant English senses of 🝥, 🜂, ☾, ☿, ♃ and ♄ here as well? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: I suppose as they are redundant you support their deletion. J3133 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I do – yes! Thus, delete all per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: I have added all but removed ☿ because we have it is as a noun (with plural ☿es) instead of a symbol. J3133 (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete all, if possible. Regardless, I definitely support deletion of ☉. Polomo47 (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. CitationsFreak (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

compliment fishing

As fish for compliments was (wrongly, IMO) deleted. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait, why was fish for compliments deleted? 😭 It cannot be SOP if the sense is “to degrade oneself” can it? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's request undeletion instead! It's been a year. Polomo47 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:fish for compliments. I don't see how it means "to degrade oneself"? PUC – 12:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say that's exactly what it means. "Do you like my haircut?" isn't fishing for compliments even if the speaker is hoping the listener will say yes. "I'm so ugly and my hair always looks so stupid" is fishing for compliments. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

the definition at compliment fishing mentions degrading Polomo47 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure whether it should be at fish for compliments, as it's nearly always phrased as fishing for compliments, just because fishing is a gerund. But that's a policy issue—it's definitely not "sum of parts" and compliment fishing is not a typical way of phrasing it, so should redirect to fish(ing) for compliments. The definition could also use some work, as it seems hypercritical; this can be fixed by minor rewording. P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that "fishing for compliments" is already an example at "fish". I wouldn't say that the example there is the greatest or clearest ever, though. Mihia (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, and bring back fishing for compliments. MedK1 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Olympic record

SOP. One can also say national record, international record, world record, World Cup record, tournament record, etc. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 12:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 21:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Funny how all translations are just word-for-word — that's SoP for you. Polomo47 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep as more specific than "sum of parts" suggests. My first thought when I saw this was "a record of events occurring at the Olympic Games" or "a record of an athlete's participation in the Olympics". Of course I already knew the correct (or at least usual) definition, but for whatever reason that wasn't in my head when I glanced at this, and the fact that the phrase doesn't usually mean those things, but only one particular sense of "record" seems to justify its existence. Readers encountering the phrase without any prior knowledge of what it refers to might wonder if it means one of those other possibilities, and having a definition tells them which one it normally means. While it's possible that a litany of other similar entries could be created, most of them haven't been, and it's unclear that they all have as restricted a meaning as "Olympic record" normally does; most of them (apart from "world record", which I don't see anyone clamouring to delete as "sum of parts") may well be "sum of parts", but "Olympic record" is not, because only one of several possible meanings is normally meant. P Aculeius (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This issue has come up before. At what point does it become unreasonable to expect readers to put together the correct definitions of the parts to arrive at the usual "set" meaning? I think in the past I have argued to keep certain strictly SoP phrases on these grounds. For me, however, "Olympic record" is just not quite difficult enough to qualify. I think if we set the bar this low we might open the floodgates. Mihia (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. MedK1 (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Baidu

Rfd sense: “A Chinese multinational technology company specializing in Internet-related services and products.”

Google

Rfd sense: “A particular Internet company.”

Yandex

Rfd sense: “A Russian Internet company which operates the largest search engine in Russia.”

---

Each of these senses fail WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. We will, however, keep the senses for the search engines (the websites) themselves, as permitted by WT:BRAND. We already do this for other search engine entries like Yahoo!, DuckDuckGo etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete all, per nom. Let's pay attention, however, to the translation boxes in those pages. They may need to be renamed? (Although, those are all but useless anyway!) Polomo47 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Google is a difficult one. I'm most concerned about ensuring the derived terms box is kept (see my comments about a "derived terms hub" under #Apple). Most of the derived terms are based on the name of the search engine, but many come from the company name itself (de-Google(d), Google tax, Googleplex, Googlephone, Googler etc, and even Gmail and Go). Where do we put these if sense 1 is deleted? It's misleading to imply that they derive from sense 2 (which would be the only sense remaining in the entry), but at the same time we would be doing our readers a disservice to selectively remove them from the list. The issue is circumvented if we keep the company name sense. Moreover, if the company name and the search engine were different, but the company name had still given rise to such a varied palette of derived terms, I would unhesitatingly vote to keep the company entry. So keep Google on that basis.

Delete the others - there is no special lexicographic value there. Etymologies of company names can be dealt with by Wikipedia. This, that and the other (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Dole

RfD sense two: “Dole Food Company, a U.S. agricultural multinational corporation.”

Fails WT:COMPANY. Also, it is not a nickname or clipping (which might have made it allowed as an entry?) because the company was renamed to Dole plc, so Dole is the full company name. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Apple

RfD sense 2 both subsenses: “The company Apple Inc., formerly Apple Computer, that produces computers and other digital devices, and sells and produces multimedia content” and “A multimedia corporation (Apple Corps) and record company (Apple Records) founded by the Beatles”.

Both fail WT:COMPANY: the names of companies/corporations are not allowed on Wiktionary. Obviously, we would keep the noun sense as a non-trademarked nickname. If this RfD was to pass, the derived terms parameter (which only contains Apple scruff (“one of a group of devoted Beatles fans who congregated outside the Apple Corps building and at the gates of Abbey Road Studios in London during the late 1960s, in the hope of seeing or interacting with one of the band members”)) would be removed with the Apple Records sense gone. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. It is totally nuts that we include every tiny place name on Earth, and every obscure personal name in existence, and yet not the names of super-important companies. Our policy on proper names is incoherent. Mihia (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• I totally agree with you on the small place names one! Wiktionary be crazy sometimes. Though, company names are a lot different and, dare I say, hardly even “words” TBH as they are business trademarks and not fit for a dictionary. The majority of dictionaries do not list businesses; they are more fit for an encyclopaedia or company registration index. Also, popularity should not be a factor for word inclusion: Wiktionary has no notability policy (unlike Wikipedia) beyond our three cites requirement at CFI. This means that if we allow businesses/corporations in general as entries we would allow all companies that have at least three attests to have entries, which would probably number into the tens of thousands. Not to mention that we do not have (nor should we) any non-idiomatic film titles, individual books or TV series, despite there being some super famous and important ones like Citizen Kane. But, just like corporations, we do not need them in a dictionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, company names are "words" as much as anything else. Yes, presently we have a "three cites" policy for everything eligible, but that doesn't mean it always has to be that way for everything. We can make the rules what we like. We could have different rules, stronger notability criteria, for companies and others if we wanted. You could equally say that place names should be in a gazetteer (do people still use that word?), or a map or atlas, and also "not fit for a dictionary", yet we include them. And "tens of thousands" doesn't seem to be a problem for place names. Personally, I think if we are to allow ANY, then we should allow ALL proper names of sufficient notability, with enough safeguards to prevent floods of trivia and items of extreme limited or localised interest. Mihia (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete in the absence of anything that makes this company name of special lexicographic interest, namely derived terms. I would vote to keep those few company names for which a range of common nouns, adjectives etc exist that are derived from the company name - a kind of "derived terms hub" criterion, if you will. Microsoft is a great example of this. However, Apple doesn't fit the bill - there is only one derived term. This, that and the other (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Capcom

RfD proper noun sense (Etymology 2): “A Japanese video game developer and publisher.”

Fails WT:COMPANY, not to mention, we do not have entries for Ubisoft, Tencent, Take-Two Interactive, Playtika or Microsoft Gaming etc., nor should we as a dictionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Binarystep (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Juniper

RfD sense: “Juniper Networks, Inc., a manufacturer of routers, switches, and other networking and communications equipment.”

Fails WT:COMPANY. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Binarystep (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

groomer

Rfd-sense (alt-right, derogatory, offensive, anti-LGBTQ slur) An individual, particularly an LGBT person or drag queen, framed as a predator or threat to children; in particular, someone who makes children aware of LGBT people or drag, from the perspective of those who consider this to be sexual. [from 2020s].

I've read the RFV discussion and find myself agreeing completely with -sche's position. What I also want to say about this RFV is that I strongly disagree with discussing the inclusion of words on the basis of whose hand we (as a dictionary) are playing into by including / not including them. We should only be concerned with lexicography. Even if this was a concern, we still have the usage note.

In Talk:специальная военная операция, Lambiam said: The meaning of an utterance is what the speaker intends it to mean to their audience, also when they are lying. I fully agree with this and I actually think we need to write something to this effect into Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Conveying meaning. (Tangentially related: Talk:shocked Pikachu and Talk:zuordnen.)

When I read through the citations, it is very clear to me that the speakers in these quotes intend to convey sense 5: One who attempts to gain the trust of a minor in order to exploit them, especially sexually. This is the allegation they're trying to make by referring to LGBT people or drag queens as groomers. They're not merely trying to allege that LGBT people or drag queens are someone who makes children aware of LGBT people or drag.

Also, the first part of the definition is currently written like "Individual, particularly X, framed as a groomer (sense 5)." Apart from the "particularly X" part, this is completely vacuous and, by the same logic, such senses could be added to basically any word that has been used as part of insults or allegations. The only non-vacuous part "particularly an LGBT person or drag queen" is valid but belongs to the usage notes and should describe sense 5 (what they're actually alleging). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete both this sense and the completely useless usage note. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

In the RFV discussion, the conviction of those arguing that this is lexical persuaded me to abstain, and I abstain here for now and wait to hear what other people think, but I will say as I said at RFV: to me, the clearest sign that people are not lexically using "groomer" to mean "LGBT/friendly person" (but are just using it in the usual sense, as Fytcha says) is that it's not limited to that or any other particular word. They also say that a picture of a gay couple of sexual but a picture of a straight couple isn't; they say trans people are pornography; they say providing healthcare to 21-year-olds is child abuse... as I said in the 2021 discussion about whether Trump referring to real information as "fake news" meant that "fake news" should be defined as "real information", sometimes people use words to be dishonest or otherwise wrong, and that doesn't normally change the dictionary definitions of the words. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

However, I think the usage note (perhaps with improved wording) is probably useful, here and more generally anywhere that a word has acquired particular usage/connotations for a particular group which are of note, like we also have usage notes at globalist and uppity, and we have a stubby usage note at fake news which could be improved. - -sche (discuss) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. and comments above. I also think the usage note is questionable — I think the “further reading” links and the quotation are good and suffice for context. Polomo47 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete sense per nom and -sche. Graham11 (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No usage note is necessary yet IMO; for instance, when humans call something fake they genuinely believe it to be fake; some unintelligent individuals actually seem to think that all transgenders are groomers (?!) and are thus referencing sense 5 as Fytcha points out. Also, @-sche: Unless I am missing some context, I feel like adding a usage note for this entry would sorta be like adding a usage note to our entries for bad, false or inaccurate and saying something like “sometimes people call something false when it is actually true”. The globalist note is okay IMO because it is very different from the wording of the hypothetical examples I just gave. But, I do not think we need to add a “sometimes used with anti-LGBTQ+ connotations” usage note either just yet unless that particular sense of the entry completely trumps the original meaning, like fake news which was undeniably popularised by Trump in 2016 and is very clearly associated with him. Groomer (sense 5) is indeed a very common word though so IDK if that would happen. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Binarystep (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Arceism

Pokemon term; this fails CFI per WT:FICTION. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 21:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Should this be in RFV, just in case someone can find 3 citations independent of reference. If this doesn't get sent over, though, my vote is delete. Polomo47 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom – I presume that the page creator simply did not know about our policy on words originating from fiction. Otherwise send to RfV I suppose but eh, I really doubt that this type of entry would have any figurative uses: I did some searches on Gbooks, Twitter and Reddit but could not find any such uses outside of a fiction (Pokémon) context. P.S. I was going to try and throw an “Oh my Arceus!” (which ironically might be entry-worthy since it was invented by Pokénerds and not the show itself) somewhere in this text to be humorous but I could not find where so just pretend I placed it somewhere very clever and that everyone clapped and laughed at how funny I am. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Question: Did the word "Arceism" actually originate in the Pokémon universe, or was it invented by fans? I've never heard the word before, and I'm still not too clear on this question after googling the word. The linked Bulbapedia article doesn't contain the word. Khemehekis (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Send to RfV. This is a fan-coined term for a fanon concept, and has been in use for over a decade. Compare Jediism or Snapeism. Arceus is basically a creator deity in Pokémon canon – the first-ever Pokémon, said to have "shaped the world" – but this religion doesn't exist in the games. I wish people would spend five minutes doing research instead of spouting off erroneous assumptions based on a flawed interpretation of WT:FICTION. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question, WordyAndNerdy. I was suspecting that. Khemehekis (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

printer buffer

Seems SOP to me. You can create buffers for all sorts of devices or processes which could all be aptly named "X buffer". — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. Although this meaning of buffer is covered at Etymology 2 senses 1.3 + 1.7, I wonder if it’s immediately clear from reading the compound that the buffer comes pre-printer, not post-printer? I don’t think this nuance can be easily explained syntactically, because I can imagine the syntactically identical outflow buffer and inflow buffer. Polomo47 (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like this term refers specifically to a physical device - a standalone box that would sit there and do the buffering - as opposed to a simple memory buffer belonging to the computer (or printer). I'm not even quite sure that sense 1.3 at buffer captures this (it only says "storage medium"). Perhaps sense 1.3 and/or 1.7 need expanding, and they should almost certainly be moved together in the entry. This, that and the other (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

have a wake

SOP: have (“to undertake or perform”) + a + wake (“period after a person's death before or after the body is buried, cremated, etc., in some cultures accompanied by a party [… etc.]”). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom: clear case of SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: agreed, sum of parts. P Aculeius (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Clearest SoP I’ve seen yet. Polomo47 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• I thought I'd have a go at this question, so I've had a look and I think that the nominator does have a point. Although I do have a mind of my own, I also had a word with another English speaker to let them have a say, but they didn't have a clue and in fact seemed to have a thing about it. I said to them OK, don't have a cow, it'll be Christmas soon, have a good one! Mihia (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

iced coffee

Sum of parts iced (sense 2) + coffee. I wanted to propose changing this to a THUB, but all translations seem to be word-for-word SoPs. If there are non-SoP translations, please point them out; also, if the English entry gets deleted, so should all SoP translations. Polomo47 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, many of the Germanic closed compounds actually correspond to "ice coffee" rather than "iced coffee". Plus we also have Italian caffè freddo (literally “cold coffee”) instead of *caffè gelato. Some interesting things are also going on with the Catalan and Hebrew translations if they are to be believed. This, that and the other (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I see... The Germanic translations probably make it qualify, yeah. If (when) this gets closed as ‘RFD-kept’, then we can place the THUB tag. And then opening RfDs for the individual translations is probably due. Polomo47 (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Lots of qualifying translations. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep. Our definition is rather mediocre, otherwise this would pass WT:FRIED by default. It doesn't just refer to coffee with ice or chilled coffee, as this r/barista thread illustrates. Ex: "In Australia, ordering an iced coffee will get you an iced latte with ice cream and whipped cream." The explanations + images for English-speaking countries at w:Iced coffee also illustrate this. Unless we expand our definition of "iced" to include "made with ice cream" or any of the other variations of "iced coffee", I don't think that we can hand-wave it away as SOP. I'd also say that WT:LEMMING would apply here as it is in the OED. AG202 (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Per your definition, most of the translations listed there are bad. I can say for a fact that café gelado does not have the same specificity as English iced coffee... However, I guess frapê does and also serves to support the THUB. Lol! Polomo47 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately that's a symptom of how we currently deal with translations, hence why I'm not pushing the THUB argument at the moment. AG202 (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep. A lot of my foreign language dictionaries have iced coffee as an entry (an unindented entry at its own line in the dictionary, not just one of the phrases listed under the ice or coffee entry). So there are definitely a lot of lemmings there. Khemehekis (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

hyperphysical retail

Appears to be the sum of its parts. The word hyperphysical is used, on its own or in various colocations, in business and marketing with essentially the same sense as this phrase. Other colocations include hyperphysical store, hyperphysical shops, hyperphysical retailing, hyperphysical spaces and hyperphysical experience. Cnilep (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom; definitely SOP. I see the referenced sense at hyperphysical mentions being a neologism, ostensibly popularised by this 2022 article; if hyperphysical retail had been coined first I would have voted keep (based on the logic of hyperphysical thus being a derived term from it), but the '22 article already uses hyperphysical a ton on its own as an adjective, once each in hyperphysical shops, retailing, stores and experience. Thus, it is evidently a clear case of SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Full disclosure: The original version, created an an anon, said that hyperphysical retail "emerged around 2018", but I couldn't find any use in print before 2022. Cnilep (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. and LunaEatsTuna. Polomo47 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

WiTricity

An IP pointed out on the talk page that this appears to just be a trademark - I looked at the entry and am inclined to agree that it's not dictionary material. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, or probably send to RfV as a more appropriate venue. Either way, I searched around for a bit on Google Search as well as Gbooks, Google Scholar and Google's “News” tab and all of the sources I could locate appear to be referring to a specific product created by the WiTricity Corporation or the corporation itself; thus not a (popular, at least) genericised trademark. I tried a few keywords, such as “a WiTricity” (compare a YouTube) but found only a single source. The entry calling it uncountable does not give me much confidence in it being genericised either. Additionally, assuming this is not a generic trademark, it should probably not have a proper noun entry either unless it can satisfy WT:BRAND. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Skype

RfD second sense: “The company Skype Technologies that develops telecommunications software.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. We are, however, keeping the first proper noun sense per WT:BRAND. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Gatorade

RfD sense: “The Gatorade Company, Inc., a company that sells sports drinks.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. We can keep the noun senses per WT:BRAND, like we do for Coca-Cola and Pepsi; at both of these entries, we do not have the company name senses for either. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

upspearing

False adjective? — This unsigned comment was added by 84.78.26.46 (talk) at 21:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC).

Send to RFV Polomo47 (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

round number bias

WT:SOP Mach61 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. We do have articles like confirmation bias, normalcy bias and selection bias but these are fine (not SOP) as their meanings cannot be ascertained simply by their names alone. “Round number bias” is bias in favour of round numbers, just like “cat bias” would be bias in favour of felines or “example bias” would be bias in favour of examples (some meta humour for you); this word formation is not present in the other aforementioned examples (i.e. normalcy bias is not bias in favour of things or people that are normal). Thus, a clear case of SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Army of Northern Virginia

Old armies? I might support it if it was called sth idiomatic, like NV superarmy. P. Sovjunk (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether armies with distinctive names likely to be encountered by readers should have their own entries (I'm sure the more notable ones have entries at Wikipedia), I will note that during the American Civil War, northern armies tended to be named after rivers (perhaps the river valleys in which they were based, or which they were assigned to protect, or from which their soldiers were largely drawn), e.g. the Army of the Potomac, while southern armies were named after regions, as in this case. If there's a case for keeping some of them, it would be that they involve a specific context that cannot be intuited from their names alone: the Army of Northern Virginia was not whatever armed force happened to relate to northern Virginia, but was Lee's army, and the most important Confederate force during the Civil War.

I do not know whether the slippery slope argument works against such entries; there are a limited number of such names relating to the American Civil War, and as far as I know such names, if they existed at other places and times, are not widely known. Though there are probably some similar names from other places and times, many are obviously things one would look for in an encyclopedia, e.g. the Lord's Resistance Army or the Symbionese Liberation Army. The Army of Northern Virginia seems less obvious. That the name is "old" does not seem relevant. P Aculeius (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I know some houndreds such armies from the Russian Civil War too! Some of them haven't even existed. But isn’t it more suitable material for Wikipedia? I mean, it may be really hard to find out for somebody why a rebel anti-communist soldier from Moldovan front is called a thrush, or how could a white-green ferret rob a bank, but the name of their division/army/group is not really confusing and can be easily found in Wikipedia. That seems weird to me to include such stuff here to Wiktionary. Was it never a vote about it? Tollef Salemann (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Seems like a question for the Beer Parlour. Some armies fail while others pass. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk am too think to maybe it is better to move this one to Beer Parlour? Armies and parties and churches. Tollef Salemann (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

moss-covered

SOP? P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say so, although "moss-grown" implies that the moss grew on whatever it is, while "moss-covered" technically does not indicate how the moss got there, even though it probably grew in situ. P Aculeius (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

mind over matter

RFD "proverb" sense.

Do we need a "proverb" sense in addition to the "noun" sense? Is "mind over matter" a "proverb" anyway? It appears to function grammatically as a noun, but if thought desirable the existing "noun" sense could be changed to "phrase" - but in any case we wouldn't also need "proverb". Mihia (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is a proverb, so delete. Though I think the main definition is incorrect; willpower may be one understanding, but I would suggest intellect is just as reasonable, and neither of them must act alone. I think it is a metaphor for strategy prevailing over brute force, though perhaps that's just my interpretation. P Aculeius (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You could be right. I've changed the noun sense to read "The application of willpower or mental effort to overcome a physical problem". Mihia (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete over keep per nom. Good argument. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

magnanimity

1. The quality of being magnanimous; greatness of mind; elevation or dignity of soul.
2. That quality or combination of qualities, in character, which enables one to encounter danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness, to disdain injustice, meanness and revenge, and to act and sacrifice for noble objectives.

RFD second sense as redundant to first. Don't see any distinction: the second is just a more elaborate/detailed way of describing the same thing. Some of the content of the second sense could be moved to the first if felt beneficial. Mihia (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it is redundant. I don't see anything that needs to be merged into the first definition. It looks more like someone's description of what magnanimity means to them. P Aculeius (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, it can be changed. CheeseyHead (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I can see why someone would add it but it is indeed just a more detailed version of the first sense; the second sense is not necessary since the first sense totally covers it. This would be like elaborating on every emotion, i.e. happiness to say “That quality or combination of qualities, in character, which enables one to treat others kindly, assume good faith and mercy when presented with qualms, smile, hum, whistle or sing joyfully” etc. Simply no need. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Visa card

I do not see how this entry, created back in 2009, is anything but SOP; it does not satisfy WT:THUB either. In any case, Visa (without the “card”) is a far more common name for their credit card. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It is?? I think I would hardly understand "Visa" alone to mean the card in most contexts, unless it was really spelled out that that's what it must be. I would always think first of the "permit" sense. Perhaps I'm just not up (or do I mean down) with the latest lingo. Mihia (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"Do you accept Visa", "we take Visa, Mastercard, AmEx", "I lost my Visa" etc. are fairly common expressions. Regardless of that, this term is SOP so if Visa was a rare term it would not warrant an entry anyways. We do not have American Express card, UnionPay card, Simpay card etc. because they are all SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"Do you accept Visa", "we take Visa" etc., I would say cannot truly refer to the card because the use is uncountable. I see these as referring more nebulously to "the payment method". If you say that uses such as "I lost my Visa", referring to the Visa card, are common, then I take your word for it, although this is unfamiliar to me. Mihia (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I should say that I am not particularly arguing that we should keep this entry. I am more or less trying to stop commenting on any proper-name RFDs because our policy, whereby we keep highly obscure entries and exclude things about a million times more useful to readers, is nonsensical. I was just curious about your comment that "Visa" without the "card" was a far more common name for the card. Mihia (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Fairs! Everyone in my family uses debit cards so I would probably not know what most people actually call it lol. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is SOP as Visa + card. Gelasin (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My debit card (issued by Barclays) has "VISA Debit" written on it. DonnanZ (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna. Polomo47 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Amazon

All of these fail WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. FYI I have purposefully excluded organisations (like airlines or councils), companies with three or more derived terms, and brands (which are allowed per WT:BRAND) from this RfD. The former two rationales are rather arbitrary, but I will nominate such corporations separately in the anticipation of possible discussions/refutations.

Amazon (etymology 3, proper noun sense); Armani (etymology 1, sense 2); Bayer (sense 2); Boeing (sense 2); Burberry (sense 2); BuzzFeed (proper noun, subsense 1); Chanel (sense 3); Exxon (sense 2); Grab (proper noun, sense 1); Meta (both proper noun senses); Revlon; Versace (sense 2); Viacom; Visa (proper noun, sense 1).

If deleted I'll add the company names to the etymology sections where relevant, such as for Grab. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Oh, but consider that definition-line explanations may be more useful sometimes. For example, BuzzFeed could say A news and entertainment website run by BuzzFeed, Inc.. Polomo47 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

off

8. Temporarily not attending a usual place, such as work or school, especially owing to illness or holiday.

John's off today. He's back on Wednesday.

1. (informal, predicative only) Unavailable; unable to stay in a band or come to a club due to being busy with activities or schedules.

The singer is off. He can't come today.

RFD sense 8.1 about staying in a band or coming to a club. Thought to be not a distinct sense, or even subsense, but an arbitrary very specific instance of the main sense. Previously raised at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/December#off. Mihia (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The lb notes give us some clues on why it was added as a subsense: the editor in question perhaps assumed that the sense was distinct enough because it was informal, i.e. the parent sense hints that it requires permission to be off (in some countries government indoctrination is mandatory and work always requires vacation time or sick leave), hence "such as work or school" and "illness or holiday". The second sense hints at it being entirely up to the person themselves, hence "Unavailable" and ”due to being busy with activities or schedules"; compare do not disturb. Could not say why they mention bands and clubs, but I reckon this is because this particular subsense is used chiefly by musicians. The logic is there but IMO it is flawed and this is not a noteworthy-enough distinction for its own sense: the "Temporarily not attending a usual place" absolutely encompasses the subsense and distinguishing by occupation or whether being away from said location is done independently or with permission bears no relevance. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

ageism

Rfd-sense "Bias against older adults (typically those in their sixties or older, but other times even younger if not even before middle-age)." Sounds too specific. PUC – 19:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It was originally a subsense as "Bias against older adults (typically those in their sixties or older)." before a crosswiki troll "improved" it. Even in that sense it's probably unnecessary, so delete. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Surjection. This would be like adding a sense to sexism that says “Bias against woman; misogyny”; it is simply not necessary (in most cases) to state such things when the first sense already covers everything, i.e. is all-encompassing. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've almost always heard this used to mean bias against older people, not younger people. Other dictionaries say things like "especially the elderly", and one defines it only as this. The other sense, sense 1, presently refers to "especially youth or seniors". If we keep only this, we will lose the information that it is in practice much more commonly, even almost always, I would suggest, the latter. Mihia (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Then it can be merged into the first.. but “especially youth or seniors” seems fine IMO, or we could remove youth if we find sources that specifically define it as such. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I would support removing "youth" from sense 1. (I certainly don't think we need the verbosity of sense 2.) Mihia (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have done this. I have also changed "seniors" to "old people" to make it less specifically AmE in tone. Mihia (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I also believe that we should mention "especially women" at sexism. I just checked other dictionaries, and every one that I looked at mentioned this, as I would expect. (By the way, do we really need three definitions of "sexism"?) Mihia (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete sense 2; it doesn't say anything that isn't implied by sense 1. I have no doubt that young people are also vulnerable to age-based discrimination, though the word is probably invoked and associated primarily with discrimination against the elderly. An "especially" clause seems appropriate for the elderly, but we probably don't want to get too specific about ages, since ageism could take different forms depending on the field. For instance, in some fields anyone over forty might face discrimination; in others even younger persons might be viewed as "over the hill". Modeling, athletics, certain positions involving customer interactions where the business or industry uses youth and beauty to attract business come to mind. P Aculeius (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Now that sense 1 indicates that this word is used especially in reference to old people, delete sense 2. Mihia (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

fruit market

A market that sells fruit. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• One of the definitions is "Synonym of fruitshop". If this is actually true, it isn't strictly obvious from "fruit" + "market" because a "market" isn't the same as a "shop" (not where I'm from anyway). It seems a slightly feeble reason to have the entry, but anyway ... Mihia (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Mihia Sense 3 of market does say “a grocery store”, so this definition is SOP too. Despite only being .. Commonwealth English I believe? .. it would not satisfy WT:HOSPITAL either because then we could have bread market, vegetable market and just go endlessly. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have never heard of that "grocery store" sense here in England. I wonder whether it should have a label of some sorts. "Supermarket", of course, "minimarket" even, and possibly other compounds, but never "market" alone, not in the sense of an ordinary single-entity shop or store. I wonder where, or by whom, it is used like that. But, as you say, if it can be combined with anything in that sense, which also I have never heard of, then "fruit market" is not special. Mihia (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, clearly SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, weak definitions, that’s why it is defined as synonym of fruit shop in the first place. Fay Freak (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

3 Musketeer

Brand name that has not entered the general lexicon, does not pass CFI as per WT:BRAND — This unsigned comment was added by Lunabunn (talk • contribs) at 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC).

Delete per nom. Surprised to see we have this but not Butterfinger, 100 Grand Bar, Boost, Yorkie, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.. nor do I really think we need such entries in a dictionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that this is not a brand, but I still vote delete. Alternatively, this could be sent to RFV to try and find something that matches the rule for products/services. Don't think that'll happen, though. Polomo47 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Mars

Etymology 2: brand name that has not entered the general lexicon; does not pass CFI as per WT:BRAND — This unsigned comment was added by Lunabunn (talk • contribs) at 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC).

There is a danger in removing every brand. I think it is wrongly classified as a proper noun; it should be a common noun, as you could say: "Can you buy me a Mars when you're at the shop? Here's the money." Personally I call them Mars bars, but anyway, apart from the vast difference in price, it's no different from buying a Bentley, Porsche, or even a Toyota. A Mars (bar) is different from other chocolate bars, in the same way as a Porsche is unlike a Toyota. DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The definition should be listed as noun instead. Other than that, seems reasonable to me. Polomo47 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

sexism

1. The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to others.

   The notion that either gender is superior is sexism.

2. Discrimination or different treatment based on sex or gender, especially discrimination against women.

   The fact that there is only one woman in a management position in that company makes it easy to believe that sexism runs rampant there.

3. Attitudes or actions that are based on or promote the expectation that people adhere to stereotypical social roles (gender roles) based on sex.

   The sexism of making and promoting violent films for men and romantic comedies for women.

RFD sense 3. I don't understand why we need three definitions for one thing, but for now let's just check whether we really need sense 3 as well as sense 2. Isn't the sense 3 example a case of "different treatment based on sex or gender", i.e. what it says in sense 2? Mihia (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Senses 1 and 2 would be difficult to combine; the belief in the superiority (or inferiority?) of one sex and discrimination in favour of or against persons on the basis of sex should probably be distinguished. Sense 3, however, seems to be a specific subset of both of the first two senses, though the example sentence (fragment) falls more clearly under Sense 2. I'd say that Sense 3 can be deleted, though one could make a case for keeping the example. P Aculeius (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the difference between (1) and (2) is probably that (1) refers to a belief system, while (2) refers to an application of this belief. I agree that there is technically a distinction. On the other hand, we don't distinguish this in, let's say, ageism, which was under discussion earlier, and you could argue indeed that the sense 1 example also fits the sense 2 definition. I'm also not certain myself whether "sexism", as a belief system, refers always to a belief in the superiority of one sex, or could also refer to a belief that the different sexes should be treated or expected of differently. Mihia (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that ageism has ever been treated as a belief or philosophy as opposed to a practice, perhaps because everyone knows everyone will all experience each age if they live long enough. Sure, we have people opining about old fogeys or young whippersnappers, but that doesn't really translate into a philosophy the way that say, male chauvinism can exist entirely as an abstract or attitude with no action or power to discriminate on the basis of sex. Many more people believe in the superiority or inferiority of a particular sex than actually have the opportunity to act in accordance with that belief, or affect others meaningfully in the process.

So in the context of sexism, like racism, there are pervasive beliefs entirely separate from discriminatory actions that may or may not consciously arise from them. For instance, people who believe that women need to be protected or patronized, or that women are the natural caretakers of children or the home, may not believe that acting in accordance with such beliefs would be discriminatory, at least in the sense of holding men to be superior to women. I think that's what you're getting at with your last sentence—but formulating that into a definition could be tricky.

I agree that it can be regarded as sexism, though it might be hard to distinguish from the acknowledgement or accommodation of actual physical differences between the sexes. I suspect that the sharper the distinction is drawn, the more politicized it might become, because people have a wide range of opinions on every minute detail—and most people don't want to be labeled sexist! P Aculeius (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to find references to "ageism" as a "belief", e.g. https://bchumanrights.ca/glossary/ageism/ to give one example. Then again, at anti-Semitism, for example, which I would say also could be either a "belief" or a "practice", if we wanted to split hairs, we only have one sense (in the way relevant to this discussion). Mihia (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem with combining the first two senses—which would make sense 3 redundant, if it isn't already—is that while it's often hard to distinguish between belief and practice, as both example sentences 2 and 3 illustrate, IMO, we often do so in real life. We refer to people as "sexists" because of their attitudes, divorced from any specific actions they might take in conformity with their beliefs, and we refer to certain practices as "sexism" because of their effects and implied motivations, even in the absence of any philosophical basis for them. The two are frequently blended, which argues for consolidating the definitions, but also frequently distinguished, and the distinction is important. If the senses are consolidated, the definition should be worded carefully, and it may be difficult to do so without making such a definition convoluted. P Aculeius (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Sense 3 is for manifestations of sexism which are not explicitly discriminatory in intent or outcome (as in sense 2), nor underpinned by the belief that one sex/gender is inherently superior to another (as in sense 1). It's for cultural stereotypes and "microaggressions", like jokes about women being unfunny, bad drivers, or inordinately fond of shoes. This term has the same range of expressions as racism. If I wanted to map expressions of racism onto the current definitions of sexism, white supremacy reflects sense 1, racial segregation reflects sense 2, and the debate about appropriate Halloween costumes reflects sense 3. These phenomena are obviously different in terms of their scope, impact, and history. We'd be doing a major disservice if we tried to consolidate them all into a single muddled definition. Nuance is a necessity in this case. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Tesla

RfD sense 3: “Tesla, Inc.: a battery electric vehicle (BEV) automaker founded in 2003.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: I have added a noun sense. J3133 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@J3133 Looks good—thanks! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete proper noun sense 3 per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, delete the nominated proper noun. DonnanZ (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Fender

Rfd sense: “A manufacturer of electric guitars”.

Fails WT:COMPANY. We can, however, keep the noun sense per WT:BRAND and mention this company name in the etymology section for the noun (which I could add myself). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

you had me at

SoP with have sense 32 (lots of senses). Deleted in 2007 but recreated a month ago by @LOOKSQUARE. Polomo47 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom but move the page to Appendix:Snowclones/you had me at X (or tell the page creator to do it so they can get the page creation credit in the edit history ig). Given that this appendix is not in the mainspace I reckon they did not realise it existed. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ideally we should keep this expression somehow because it's hard to figure out the meaning when faced with have. In practice, however, I'm not sure how we list it, The subject doesn't even have to be "you", so the entry would need to be "to have me at something", or even "to have someone at something", which seems very unappealing. Perhaps we can explicitly point out this expression at the relevant definition of "have". Mihia (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this expression definitely should be listed as something like an Usage example at have. There’s another thing that gets displayed the same way as an UX... what was it called... Polomo47 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:Snowclones/you had me at X, per the above. bd2412 T 16:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with LunaEatsTuna and BD2412: move to Appendix:Snowclones/you had me at X. Khemehekis (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

European Communist Action

Encyclopedic; not dictionary material. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to say delete even though these are not ‘SOP-esque’ (like individual political party names) because I do not see any benefit in having the names of various political alliances here. Very encyclopaedic, very Wikipedia. What benefit does Wikt really have with hypothetical entries like “Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party” and “Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties”? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

tram driver

Turn to translation hub; textbook example. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep beyond WT:THUB, it has been voted upon and kept in 2008. As for more recent reasons, deletion is inconsistent with the presence of bus driver and taxi driver and truck driver and other entered terms and deleting some glosses here only makes Wiktionary look more mechanical. Fay Freak (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why we would have this above almost limitless other compound "-er" examples. There was mention in the previous discussion about "tram driver" implying a paid occupation, but this is a general implication of certain types of wording such as "he's a ~". You could say "he's a pothole repairer" or "he's a picture hanger" or "he's a pew polisher" -- literally almost anything, with the same likely implication. Let's say that someone wasn't a professional tram driver, but just happened to have a tram layout in his garden, and was driving around it with some friends. One says "How fast are we going?" and the other says, "Ask him, he's the tram driver". So, "tram driver" means "person driving a tram", exactly as we would expect. The "urban tramway system" thing in the present definition is also a red herring. To the extent that trams do or (probably) do not exist only on "urban tramway systems" this is true or false, but it has nothing to do with "tram driver" per se, just a property of what (or where) a "tram" is. Moreover, let's imagine that someone's role is to drive trams empty to and from the depot. Let's say this person has a big crash, and the news reports tell us that "the tram driver was at fault". Perfectly normal thing to say. So, the "to transport passengers" part of the present definition is also a red herring. Mihia (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be better and more accurate to define it as "A person who drives a tram, especially to transport passengers on a tramway system", or something to that basic effect, maybe someone can think of a slightly better way to word it, but still you can ask why not also "pothole repairer: a person who repairs potholes, especially one employed by a highways agency to repair potholes on public roads". Mihia (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is a classic case of WT:TENNIS. Khemehekis (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

What does Wiktionary have against train drivers?  --Lambiam 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

operator

• Sense: A thief or charlatan,
• Sense: A major criminal, and
• Sense: Someone who is successful at pursuing women; a player

all seem to be variations of sense 5: "A person who is adept at making deals or getting results, especially one who uses questionable methods." I think the first two are more obvious than the third, but the sense of "operator" as someone who schemes, connives, convinces, games the system, etc. covers all of them—it's just a specific example, if you look at the quotations—they don't really seem to imply that the successful pursuit of women is the meaning of "operator", but rather that an operator ought to be good at pursuing women. And that's the same as sense 5, IMO. The definition could use some work, and maybe the example sentences could be saved, but I don't think there's a separate meaning here. P Aculeius (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge senses 11–12 with 5 (and keep some of the quotations). I am on the fence about sense 13; the 1974 attest is clearly sense 5 (“great operators ... with the girls”) but I am not really sure of the other two.. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the other two #13 examples as just the same. The context shows that pursuing girls/women is the activity being referred to. Mihia (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I am what I am

Phrase doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, nonsensical definition. クフィ (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that we also have it is what it is (and seem to make rather a meal out of defining it). Mihia (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Had a go at making the definition clearer—also provided several quotes and cited some references. Possesses considerable cultural significance as a phrase uttered by God as an explanation for who He is—and by Popeye for similar reasons. P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• “I Am that I Am” goes so hard. Non-ironically it might be the greatest sentence ever uttered. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed but wondering why I Am that I Am itself is not an entry クフィ (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  It probably should be—if nothing else, it could redirect to "I am what I am", but I think it's the more common form, and you shouldn't have any trouble finding quotes. As long as they're not just all straight quotations from Exodus, that should be enough to support an entry. "I am who am" is another formulation, though perhaps a redirect would be appropriate for that. P Aculeius (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the altered definition and new quotations added by P Aculeius—thanks and nice work! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The RFD submitter removed the RFD template, so withdrawn. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

black-hat hacking

also both senses of black-hat hacker.

SoP - the root, and idiomatic, term is black hat, these are trivial extensions that convey no new information not found at the root term. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete all per nom—valid rationale; certainly SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete them. Fay Freak (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Gouvernement du Québec

Tagged by Vergencescattered (talk • contribs) but unlisted (for two weeks). Rationale: 'Both SOP and not in English.' (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete—we could have a government of X entry for every country and subdivision on Earth. Unnecessary for Wikt TBH. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but this isn't a 'government of X' entry. This is a French proper noun that people are applying in English, because that is what the government recommends... and we don't delete foreign expressions just because they're sum-of-parts in another language. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point! Though in general, I do not think Wiktionary needs governments/cabinets as a category to begin with; I do not see why a dictionary needs to list these TBH, even if we are online with infinite server space. They really add very little IMO and having this would also allow us to have entries for Gouvernement du Canada, Gouvernement de l'Ontario, gouvernement français etc.

I think the main thing here, for me, is that, despite their etymology, these are indeed their official (or at least government-preferred) names in English; thus, keeping this would essentially be like keeping government of Canada etc. since SOP does not technically apply to proper nouns anyways. I am okay with us allowing unofficial/informal nicknames, however, and this does apply to any unofficial non-English names that people use to refer to foreign governments. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this is used in English without italics, just as if it were an English; if so, probably keep, although Canada is a special context and it wouldn't surprise me if the use of French terms in English running text without italics is relatively widespread. This, that and the other (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per my initial reasoning Vergencescattered (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

London City

What is the benefit of such an entry? Nobody calls London "London City" as far as I know. I've been there often. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:93E:A84E:6BB:94C 20:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Since "London" can refer to either the city proper or to Greater London, "London City" helps readers identify which is intended, even though it isn't a common way of doing so. The phrase also turns up in collocations such as "London City Airport", where again it distinguishes the city from the larger metropolitan area. The entry's usefulness comes in helping readers who might wonder whether "London City" is synonymous with one of these, or another place called "London", or whether it has some other specific meaning, such as "London Town". P Aculeius (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not parse "London City Airport" as "the airport of London City". I parse it as "the city airport of London" (as opposed to a suburb airport, or whatever). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A4:1965:C286:A290 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Some fun things that crossed my mind: reading about this (not your reply specifically) got the Wings album London Town on my mind. And it's great we have the entry. This line of thought was also how I figured out Kansas City, which I know from Kansas City / Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey, is the actual name for the city — which should've been obvious, since Kansas is a state, lol. Polomo47 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have never heard of "London City" either, not as a thing that people refer to in any significant way, and I lived there for a number of years. "London City Airport" I parse as the "City" airport in London, i.e. serving the City of London, not the airport in "London City". Mihia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Remarkably I just wrote almost exactly the same thing (down to the word "parse"), without having read your comment. So, yes, agreed, very much! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A4:1965:C286:A290 01:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve always parsed it as ‘the airport of the ‘City of London’’, rather than ‘the airport of London, the alleged city’ (unlike the two editors above) but then I do enjoy winding up Cockneys by telling them the fact that London isn’t even a city and Birmingham is the largest city in the UK. There is one Google Books hit which uses ‘London City’ twice in quick succession[38], though it’s not altogether clear which meaning is being referred to. A weak keep from me btw. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The pronunciations I hear on YouGlish YouGlish I support the "London city-airport" argument: they sound as if they're saying London | City Airport. I think you misunderstood what the others said. They haven't said anything about an alleged city: they're talking about parsing the name with a "city-airport" grouping as opposed to a "London City" one. Polomo47 (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, London City only applies to the airport, City of London is the correct title for the city, alias the Square Mile. You could add Category:en:Airports to this one. It's not an important airport, as it has a short runway, and only STOL aircraft can use it. DonnanZ (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right that "London City" could be used as an abbreviation for "London City Airport" (but with a meaning like "London - City" or "London (City)", so still doesn't alter the fact that, in my opinion, "London City Airport" is "City airport of London" not "airport of London City"). Mihia (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A Google search—unfiltered—suggests that "London City Centre" is used by travel and some financial sites to describe central London. There are also the London City Lionesses, a women's soccer team. "London City" also seems to be used to describe things associated with at least two other places called "London": London, Ontario (London City Soccer Club), and London, Ohio (London City Schools). These are probably not the only instances of "London City"; they're just the first ones that turned up in fairly general searches. So clearly there is some use of the phrase, and it is sometimes used to distinguish the City of London from Greater London (I'm not arguing that it's "correct" or the proper name of the corporation), and sometimes used of completely different places. These uses may be a weak argument to keep the entry, but is there a stronger argument to delete than "I haven't heard this used" or "that's not how I personally parse it"? P Aculeius (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

"London City Centre" means the city centre of London, not the centre of "London City". Yes, you can find "London City" used as part of proper names. This does not prove that "London City" exists by itself (I mean, in the case of London, England - I have no idea about other Londons). If you ask "London City Lionesses" where they are located, or originated, would they say "London City"? Mihia (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the IATA code for the airport is LCY, for Heathrow LHR, and Gatwick LGW. DonnanZ (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not contending that "London City" is the correct name of the City of London—I'm saying it's one way that the city can and is referred to in some instances, and therefore readers benefit from having an entry: they may run across the phrase "London City" with or without another word (airport, centre, schools, theatre, football club, etc.), and wonder whether it means the City of London, or just part of London, or some separate entity that may or may not overlap with London—just as Greater London or the Diocese of London do. The entry tells them that the phrase is synonymous with the City of London, and not with some other entity—although if it were also used of another entity, then the entry would also aid readers by informing them of which ones are sometimes referred to this way. Without an entry, someone running across "London City" would be left wondering whether it is or isn't the same entity as the "City of London". P Aculeius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete – Regardless of the above arguments, is “London City” a generally valid entry for us? This might be SOP, just London + City.. we do not have Tokyo City, Los Angeles City, Mumbai City, São Paulo City, Shanghai City, Istanbul City etc, and a lot of these have their own metropolitan areas that could be confused for the city proper or centre or CBD whatever, i.e. Los Angeles County (colloquially Los Angeles) or the Greater Tokyo Area (colloquially Tokyo). London should not get special treatment nor should we create the aforementioned red-linked entries as city is used as a descriptor; by that same logic we might have Kingston City (which can have several senses) and hundreds of others that are not really helpful to readers. Instead, we can just—and indeed, we do—list the various senses at Kingston or London etc. That said, I would not oppose a redirect either. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Most Londoners, if they call themselves that (I don't), live within Greater London, often a long way from the city. DonnanZ (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that this should have been at WT:RFVE.  --Lambiam 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

hat

Rfd-sense "(Internet slang) User rights on a website, such as the right to edit pages others cannot."

How is this different from "A particular role or capacity that a person might fill."? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom—essentially the same sense, just in a different context. Having this distinction is not necessary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same, because the generic role sense suggests that the hats are something one can exchange at will (rather like Edward de Bono's "Six Thinking Hats", or the idea of "putting on one's thinking cap"). The Internet thing is different because this is an actual measurable privilege granted only to selected users (administrators, etc.) and not a figurative "mode" that anybody can choose to switch into. (I remember in old IRC days I used to refer to the chanop's distinguishing @ symbol as the "at-hat". But I probably made that up.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A4:1965:C286:A290 01:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, does hat never refer to a physical job/formal position? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per IP. – Svārtava (tɕ) 04:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep or merge the two senses. ScribeYearling (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

fourth estate

Rfd-sense "A hypothetical fourth class of civic subjects, or fourth body (in Britain, after the Crown, and the two Houses of Parliament) which governed legislation." This doesn't seem idiomatic to me. These historical 'estates' are covered by the etymology, so we wouldn't be removing any information from the entry. The quote could be moved under 'used other than idiomatically'. Wikiuser815 (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

imaginary friend

The phrase refers to a friend who is imaginary, as such this is SoP. It could be made to redirect to "imaginary", where I've already added this as a collocation. Wikiuser815 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Indeed, a very common collocation but still SOP at that. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless we create social relationship. Fay Freak (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. An "imaginary friend" isn't merely a friend who is imaginary, but a specific psychological concept (I'm going to refrain from doing as the entry does, quoting from the lead of the Wikipedia article of this title) with a considerable amount of literature devoted to it—including a lengthy article on Wikipedia. I admit I'm only familiar with the concept as applied to children who develop artificial personas with whom they can interact—but on that basis alone I would consider this term to be more than sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur since by necessity psychological concepts, as the mental reflection and preconception of the world, can be sums of parts. So man, as he designs himself to interact with others, typically maintains such a concept, and for greater effect vividly replays it when having the opportunity, as it is case at the relevant age. If I study medicine I also am an imaginary medical doctor in an imaginary hospital, if I study law I am an imaginary attorney or judge in an imaginary courtroom, and so on, but nothing similar is being verbalized in psychologese given that psychological researchers would have to have intersections with occupational professions as particular subsections of the population, which increases expense in study design but decreases interest in their research. Fay Freak (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Our definition seems wrong to me anyway. Is an "imaginary friend" really a "phenomenon where a friendship [...] takes place [...]" as we presently say? I understand it as actually referring to the (imaginary) person in that relationship. Mihia (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  But it is not a thing-in-itself which one talks about, only phenomena. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. One says "she has an imaginary friend", "I'm talking to my imaginary friend", etc.. You do not talk to a "phenomenon where a friendship takes place". The "imaginary friend" actually is the imaginary person. Google AI-generated definition is correct: "An imaginary friend is a character or personality that someone creates in their mind, often as a child." Mihia (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that our definition is poor. I think it was taken verbatim from the lead of the Wikipedia article on the topic—which also needs work, IMO—or possibly vice-versa. But either way, it's certainly more than sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP, and if we really must keep it then fix the definition. PUC – 19:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• The acid test, as always, will be whether the (corrected) definition, when any dressing is removed, really means anything more than "a friend that is imaginary". It seems to me that a distinguishing feature of the non-purely-SoP "imaginary friend" could be that the imaginer actually interacts with the friend in some way (as, in fact, P Aculeius mentions above). For example, most likely the following isn't referring to "our type" of imaginary friend: "I think he made up that whole story about going there to meet a friend just to throw us off the scent. I think the meeting was imaginary, and the friend was an imaginary friend." The distinction does seem a little flimsy, however. I abstain. Mihia (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Compare imaginary illness, which in most cases means an illness thought to exist purely in the imagination of a hypochondriac, but can also refer to an illness imagined by someone else.^[39] The very fact that it can mean both these things makes it obvious, IMO, that the term is a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think what I was trying to say, not very clearly now that I look again, is that someone could make a case for an "especially" entry; in other words, yes, it could mean any "imaginary" + "friend", but in particular it means the sort that you have a chat with. This is the sort of "especially" argument that we might see for "tram driver" and the like. Yes, obviously "tram driver" means "person who drives a tram", but in particular it means one who drives as an occupation and carries passengers on a public service. But, as I say, I am not personally arguing strongly for this. Mihia (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

ankle-high

SOP: high sense 2. – Svārtava (tɕ) 03:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete—I love these types of entries! Now someone should create ankle-based, ankle-centric, ankle-esque, ankle-like, ankle-related and ankle-specific. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, apparently it was requested. Often used for short socks; ankle-deep often refers to water. DonnanZ (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Created because it was at WT:REE and people sometimes argue if you remove their requests, but they can't fight an RFD. Heh-heh. We do have knee-high with the same SoP adjective sense. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:EC72:8E86:E5FA:38C 13:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the same old hoary SoP argument. This looks like Equinox speaking, while Luna has the characteristics of WF. DonnanZ (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I will sue you for libel. /not s LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I wonder if a "noun" sense could be made, like with knee-high? That'd be worth including, if it exists. Polomo47 (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does occur; ankle-highs. DonnanZ (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-resolved. – Svārtava (tɕ) 03:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  How was this resolved? Though a noun sense was added, the deletion of the adjective sense is an independent matter. I’m not sure if we list knee-high’s &lit adjective sense to explain the existence of the noun, or because there’s a figurative adjective sense. If it’s the latter, there's still reason to delete ankle-high as an adjective. Polomo47 (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Since the non-SOP noun sense saves the entry page from being deleted, it is common practice to mention {{&lit}} for the more common SOP sense too. – Svārtava (tɕ) 04:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of muddled thinking has been going on though, to reach the right conclusion. DonnanZ (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

agriculture minister

+other ministers. SOP? TypeO889 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it unless we can satisfy WT:THUB. I would say we keep cabinet minister and foreign minister as not SOP, and minister of justice and interior minister as translation hubs. Definitely delete the rest. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, marking one's own homework. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz What does that mean? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: For your sanity, I would advise you to not take Donnanz seriously, or even ignore his comments entirely, especially those made here at RFD. They're teeming with pointless trivia, passive-aggressive jabs, personal attacks and weird non sequitur. PUC – 14:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a user account for TypeO889 created around the time (1506, 19 December) when Luna threatened to sue me for libel in ankle-high. It has now been mysteriously deleted. This is not pointless trivia etc. DonnanZ (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Correction: The account was created without creating a user page. DonnanZ (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the "/not s" placed in that comment was meant to indicate "not serious", although you did accuse two people of commenting under made-up identities. It sounds like this comment is also aimed at Luna, although it's a legitimate argument for deletion (I'm not saying I agree with it; I'm not sure), and the comment below under "baby cake" also seems to refer to this one. If you want to accuse someone—or multiple someones—of sockpuppetry, I believe there's a better way of doing it. P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sino-Indian

• Delete: SOP. – Svārtava (tɕ) 13:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

baby cake

Just a small cake? Excrement Voider (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This account has also mysteriously disappeared. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Although I found 74 edits in User contributions for Excrement Voider. DonnanZ (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Help

@Donnanz: What do you mean “disappeared”? This is a Wonderfool account without a user page. (Also, what is the “Help” for?) J3133 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@J3133: I thought so. Someone else added "Help". DonnanZ (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: But you added it. J3133 (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@J3133: Oh, that was unintentional. Let's call it a gremlin. Now struck. DonnanZ (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of this used literally—or in the singular—but I've heard "baby cakes" used as a pet name or nickname—perhaps with a deliberately patronizing tone—many times. I'm not sure what it actually means, other than perhaps an elaboration of "baby" used as a pet name; at least that's how I've always understood it. If there are actual baby cakes at the root of this, I can't remember hearing of them. The entry should probably stay, but the definition may be wrong. Possibly the main entry should be plural. P Aculeius (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete the literal sense as SoP, unless there is evidence it is used as a term of endearment. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have created an additional definition, concerning king cakes, and have converted the RfD to an RfD-sense Purplebackpack89 22:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you kindly for your contribution. FWIW, OED has an entry for baby cake, attested since c. 1637:

  https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=baby+cake&tl=true mysteryroom (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete the first sense per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

cow urine

None of the translation serve to support the THUB. Also, it's a rare term. Polomo47 (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

consecrate a Buddha image

Rare term, and I guess no translations serve to support it, because of all the ones that have pages, all are SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

開光 is SoP? Novel username (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You can consecrate anything, especially things with religious significance, so this appears to be sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed very oddly-specific. Delete per nom due to a lack of translations to satisfy WT:THUB. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna can you elaborate on this? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong but there are some idiomatic-looking translations there, such as Chinese and Vietnamese. This, that and the other (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW

Second sense, which is an initialism of folga wooga imoga womp --- not exactly sure how to define it, or if it's even attestable. mysteryroom (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I was about to say, "obvious nonsense by someone with no other contributions", but there are a surprising number of hits for this phrase when I do a Google search. Nearly all are from social media (the only one I noticed that wasn't is "Urban Dictionary", not exactly a reliable source). If there are any legitimate uses with intelligible meaning, I'm not sure what they are, or where. P Aculeius (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not spot uses that appeared to carry meaning. It is also hard to find uses with a verifiable date. Some kind of skibidi?  --Lambiam 23:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

patch file

SOP: a file whose content is a patch. Also, there is no distinction in meaning between the two definitions. Furthermore, patch is only very loosely a synonym, just like salt can be used when you mean salt shaker (“Would you pass me the salt, please?”) but is not really a synonym. And “Troponyms”? Really?  --Lambiam 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• The entry does need tidying up, but leaning keep because of the difficulty of understanding this from the parts for someone who has no idea what is being referred to and might wish to look it up in the dictionary. Numerous meanings of "patch" multiplied by numerous meanings of "file", spread across multiple etymologies, seems daunting. Mihia (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Might a reader wonder if it is like a nail file but for tidying up a pumpkin patch? I challenge anyone to give even one attested use of the term in the sense defined here for which it is not immediately clear from the context the sense is related to computing and thus to the computing senses of patch and file.  --Lambiam 15:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, let it be known herewith that if we keep "tram driver" (above), which is about the most blatantly obvious SoP imaginable, yet delete "patch file", then I will be terminating my subscription to Wiktionary forthwith. Mihia (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

like ass

SoP with ass Etymology 2 Sense 4. Polomo47 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)