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

Army of Northern Virginia
Kangleipak civilization
Kanglei civilization
Meetei civilization
Meitei civilisation
without prejudice
Victoria
Google
highering
tactical nuke

Oldest 100 tagged RFDs

let it crust
baby new potato
anti-homophobe
antihomophobe
Royal Mail
FedEx
chocolate chocolate chip
before GTA 6
my everything
further and further
literally 1984
dinner guest
just friends
Philippines
abstinence
vegetable
pronoun
put
run
screw
Nike
operator
penetrative sex
hat
reincarnation
Amazon
Sony
morel
freak
-t
aerophobia
Cockney rhyming slang
☾
orange blossom
Gretel
Peugeot
unrequited love
whoreson
nook
Boots
Fender
Hansel
Lulu
Mars
Poultry
Earth Summit
fourth estate
apple blossom
araneomorph funnel-web spider
foregoing
Australian rhyming slang
tomato juice
Sega
take its toll
♃
♄
ground beef
queen bee
even if
☉
printer buffer
renewable
Duesenberg
school-age
U-235
beryllium-9
boron-10
boron-11
aluminium-27
argon-36
argon-38
argon-40
calcium-40
calcium-45
apricot blossom
flatfooted
twelve hundred
Adidas
as a matter of law
I think, therefore I am
channel coal
occasional furniture
mixed nuts
-ximab
badak
caesium-137
do not want
quarter-
like ass
cellar door
leaf lard
neutron radiation
Homoousion
upspearing
co's
hobosexual
attack is the best form of defence
diamido-
Samsung
Skype

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)

• Keep in some form. As far as I can recall, I have heard this most frequently in the context of hard work taking a toll on health or relationships, which seems fairly well detached from collecting a toll or a price. bd2412 T 20:28, 11 February 2025 (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)

• Keep and send to RfV per the above. Words are included if they are attested. Who is to say what is really "jargon"? bd2412 T 20:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

August 2023

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)

I see agreement that something needs refining here, but no consensus for deletion of anything. Speak now. bd2412 T 05:23, 4 March 2025 (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)

I see no consensus for deletion of anything here. Thoughts? bd2412 T 05:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Closed Purplebackpack89 19:04, 4 March 2025 (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)
• If kept, we should list the standard-grammar sense too (which I have now added), otherwise it looks as if "be at" only has a slang or non-standard use. As far as the non-standard use is concerned, does it occur only with "where"? If so, this should be mentioned. Mihia (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2025 (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)

@Jberkel I would have thought it was an attributive noun, not an adjective. As one example, I tried looking for "lavalier(e) brooch" and found very little. This, that and the other (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2025 (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

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)

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)

They wouldn't be attestable unless three people actually had that name 83.151.229.56 11:20, 25 March 2025 (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)

• Keep - no reason to delete this abbreviation. Svartava2 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

DKC

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

• Keep - no reason to delete this abbreviation. Svartava2 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep even if the product fails COMPANY, a nickname, acronym or abbreviation still passes it Purplebackpack89 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

December 2023

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: [1] [2]) 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)

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)

Comment. On the face of it, could be anything: "do like", "do not like", "cannot compute", "am hungry", etc. etc., just a shorthand or telegraphese English with almost limitless variation and applicability. I would keep these only if genuinely they have become strongly idiomatic, which I wouldn't know. Mihia (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Equinox. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 07:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete "do want", keep "do not want". "Do want" seems to be sum-of-parts, even if an abnormal formation (in some cases these words can be said together grammatically). "Do not want" as an interjection, although clearly derived from the bootleg Star Wars mistranslation, is both recognizable and utilitarian enough that I'm pretty sure it's used out of context; that is, at least people hear it and understand the joke, using it as a general substitute for "no!", even if they don't connect it with Star Wars. P Aculeius (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2025 (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)

[3] [4] 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)

Comment. Telegraphese abbreviation with "because" could be anything: "because hungry", "because responsibilities", "because children", etc. Is "because reasons" enough of a distinct set phrase for us to list individually? I'm undecided. Mihia (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

On the fence like Mihia, because while you could extend this use of "because" to almost anything, "because reasons" might be common enough to be recognizable as an idiom for inarticulate explanation. While I think it's transparent because I'm used to seeing it, I imagine a lot of people might be confused on seeing it for the first time, not recognizing it as a set phrase and thinking it to be a mistake, rather than a deliberately ungrammatical and vague collocation. This will only be more so if it fades from use; people will wonder why it was said, and an entry will help. So perhaps lean keep. P Aculeius (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2025 (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)

Keep for the ones in the 24 hour clock. John Cross (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete all The clock sense is already explained at hundred so these are all trivial SoP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• I accept that they are sum of parts and it is good that we have explained the clock sense at "hundred". People might not think to look at the hundred entry they could just as easily look at 12 or hours or try another dictionary or source. I note that we list eight o'clock which is also sum of parts. John Cross (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2025 (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)

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 use, 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. [5], [6], [7]. 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)

Keep. It has somehow left the world of grammar in this sense. (Perhaps it can be thought of as an ellipsis of "preferred pronoun"?) Jberkel 03:52, 7 March 2025 (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)

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 [8], 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)

Keep. Binarystep (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2025 (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)
• Keep the term per BD2412 - John Cross (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Could be "systematic" in "daily life", could be local, at an individual venue for instance -- it's still racial segregation. Mihia (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per no qualifying translations for WT:THUB and per Mihia. Polomo47 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2025 (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)

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)
• Keep Purplebackpack89 19:55, 13 January 2025 (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”‎^[9]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)

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)

Delete. Mirroring Korea (2), it just doesn't make sense to list this information as a definition to a modern term. In editing for Korea I gave examples that it wouldn't make sense to define "Armenia" as a (historical) Soviet Republic, or "Brazil" as a (historical) Portuguese Colony (though upon checking Armenia does get defined as the Ancient Kingdom of Armenia which is a sense I would also support the deletion of).

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Cam0mac (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2025 (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: [10]. 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)

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)

Is there any way of proving or disproving that the lemma is misdefined and should be "to be extremely angry ..."? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:08, 7 February 2025 (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”;^[11] “his eyes were fiery coals”;^[12] “my blood turned into ice”^[13]). 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”^[14][15] (or “stood still”^[16][17]), 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”,^[18][19] 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)

• Keep all per PUC and Luna Purplebackpack89 00:17, 24 February 2025 (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)

Delete all. Imetsia (talk (more)) 20:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

June 2024

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)

• Keep: Purplebackpack89 00:20, 24 February 2025 (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)

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)

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)

July 2024

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)

Delete per above. Also, shouldn't these be translingual? 172.97.141.219 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Move to -u-, -xi-, -zu- and convert to Translingual entries, if this reasoning is right. But the revision history at -xi-, which redirects to -ximab (the former was moved to the latter by @JoeyChen), says “xi- is not used without the suffix -mab.” Is this true, and can Joey join this discussion and elaborate? — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:94C1:89B:DC72:27DA 02:11, 17 January 2025 (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)

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)

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)

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)

No consensus to delete Calling it now. If people really wanted this deleted, we'd have seen more than two delete opinions (one being the nominator) in seven months. Also stale for five and half months. Should've been closed months ago. Purplebackpack89 02:45, 20 March 2025 (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)
• Keep per bd2412 - John Cross (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2025 (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)

• Keep in the elevators I ride in, it is not really a door close button, but more like a push for nothing button. Fish567 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2025 (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)

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)

Delete. These terms such as for nook are not commonly used throughout the English speaking world or even commonly in one nation's culture. They are obscure and likely highly ephemeral fan fiction references that have no place in a dictionary. Parsa (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep; we have many words that are not commonly used. The standard is three cites.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2025 (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)

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)

Redirect totes appropes to appropes and totes inappropes to inappropes. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:55, 19 January 2025 (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)

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)

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)

Delete. I am surprised that Collins English Dictionary has an entry for this, but even so I still think that the meaning is too obvious. We could demote it to an example in novelty or value, though. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Yes, okay. In an effort to disprove this, I found a Chinese Wikipedia article 黑軀兵鯰 (literally “black-body soldier catfish”) for a certain species of fish, but presumably 軀 is referring to the body of the soldier, not the fish. So keep as THUB (but only barely). This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 28 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)

I think we should keep both senses or neither. It would be unhelpful, I believe, to list one but not the other. Despite my earlier comment, I am now thinking keep both as helpful for clearly setting out the difference. (I say "clearly", but I think that sense 2 could be made clearer, which I intend to do.) Mihia (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

November 2024

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)

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)

Redirect to company. Doing a search on Google Books, it looks like ‘getting company’ is not excluded to this phrase. (Example.) The only problem is that our entry for company wants this particular sense, so somebody has to expand that. This would be fine as an example sentence and a redirect, but it does not need a proper entry. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:14, 19 January 2025 (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)

@LunaEatsTuna If we can ascertain what countries, genres, or forms of media they appear in, I'm inclined to add "used as a stock character in WHEREVER" to the definition. Purplebackpack89 00:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep oxymoronic so not SOP Purplebackpack89 21:19, 17 March 2025 (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)

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)

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)

• Keep, and add a sense "having a tight vagina/anus" if not already there P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete for the nominator’s reason. It’s not a distinct sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:00, 26 December 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" [20] 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)

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)

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)

As someone living in the US, and who generally has a much broader than consensus idea of what is SoP, neighborhood electric vehicle does not seem SoP to me - I would have expected it to mean an electric vehicle that the whole neighborhood shares. This term does, though, so delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:32, 28 February 2025 (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)

• Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This only got one delete vote. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2025 (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)

I have added a noun sense. J3133 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

In which case delete but keep your newly added/created sense. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

high-fat diet

+other diets: high-fat diet|high-protein 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. [21], 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)

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)

Do we want to include every single successful tech company because its name can be used in a comparative manner? The Apples, the Googles, the Microsofts, the Huaweis, the Xiaomis, the Intels, the Nvidias, the Qualcomms, the Dells, the HPs. Or even the Nestlés, the Procter & Gambles. If we do, I could see it. But as the policy is written now, I'm voting Delete.

And is the usage in the quote AG202 mentioned even really a proper noun? I mean, it's pluralized (which is not conclusive, but one good pointer). Polomo47 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2025 (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)

Keep per AG202. Svartava (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Svartava, AG202 That is arguably a separate noun use derived from the proper noun; see Duolingo (senses 1 and 2) and Pornhub's noun sense (quote 1) for instance. Samsung is a single company, thus, presumably, "Samsungs" cannot refer to the company (proper noun), for there is only one Samsung: rather, we can add a noun sense for it instead that means “a large tech company” or similar, just like what Duolingo and Pornhub have. The company name can remain in the etymology. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: In general, I am still inclined to keep the proper noun sense since this is a single closed word and a major brand, which contributes to it's productivity: Samsungite, Samsunger, etc. seem potentially attestable (despite their inconvenient structures or pronunciations as compared to e.g. Minecrafter) and I believe that is a pretty solid indication of the word being lexicalized. Svārtava (tɕ) 05:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Svartava Are you opining that disallowed entries that have derived terms (or, say, synonyms) should be allowed as entries on that basis? (Asking for clarification since that is how I interpret it!) :) LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: Not sure about disallowed, to be honest. WT:COMPANY says: 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 which I feel is aptly fulfilled by the existence of inclusion-worthy derived terms. See also the deletion debate for Minecraft at Talk:Plants vs. Zombies. Svārtava (tɕ) 06:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I always interpreted this as meaning that genericized trademarks are allowed but the proper noun corporation names themselves are not. Am I mistaken? 😮 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2025 (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

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)

Keep Google per the above comment. AG202 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2025 (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)

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)

• In light of the information revealed by WordyAndNerdy, does everyone agree that this should be sent over to RfV? Khemehekis (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2025 (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)

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)

That the name is "old" is not relevant. I agree. We still use names for things from even longer ago than the American Civil War. And the term is still used, and should have more than enuf attestations to justify having a Wiktionary article on it. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (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)

Keep. Wiktionary has a number of articles for the names of specific military units and formations, such as Red Army or Royal Air Force. Also, if Wiktionary has an article "Grand Army of the Republic", then why not "Army of Northern Virginia"?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Solomon Purplebackpack89 04:06, 24 January 2025 (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)

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)

Unbundle. I think these need to be taken individually. For example, "Versace" is a shortcut for referencing expensive style, e.g., Simon Sebag Montefiore, Sashenka: A Novel (2008), p. 432: " She was met by a beautiful black-haired secretary, a Russian girl not much older than she, in a little black suit with a tiny skirt and colossal high heels, all set off by a clinking gold belt. Katinka knew at once, just from the girls proprietary slink, that this "Versace girl" was not exclusively Pasha's typist". bd2412 T 18:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 You can create a noun sense for it! Something like, e.g. Temu. In this context, Versace (and I reckon Gucci) could be listed as a noun or perhaps an adjective for something expensive/flashy. In such contexts, it is not a proper noun. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: It is better to create the sense first and then debate the deletion of the proper noun referencing the company, the definition of which might then become the etymology for the new sense. bd2412 T 22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 If I made my aforementioned planned changes now (such as adding the company names to the ety) would you consider changing your vote? Bundling all of these entries, which are being nominated for deletion under the same policy, just saves time. I would have to edit them all twice if we decide to delete the proper noun senses, i.e. describe what the company is/does in the ety section instead of just mentioning the company name now (which would make the definition redundant/unnecessary). But I can do this if you would like, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: Yes, if you added appropriate senses where they apply, which I would guess to be the case for Armani, Chanel, Meta, Revlon, Versace, and Visa. bd2412 T 02:09, 29 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)

It's reasonably common in Australia to see shops calling themselves "fruit markets" which are really just ordinary fruit and vegetable shops, not "markets". This usage is specific to fruit markets; there are no butchers calling themselves "meat markets". @LunaEatsTuna it sounds like sense 3 at market is referring to grocery stores that sell a broad range of products - it's not really clear to me. Perhaps that is a regional usage.

So I would keep sense 3 (but reword to give it its own definition, not define it as a synonym of a dated term) and replace the others with an &lit-style definition ("a market that sells fruit"). This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I don't find Mihia's counterarguments persuasive by the same reasons LunaEatsTuna mentioned. MedK1 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2025 (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)

My initial reaction is that we should improve the definition of sense 1 (to incorporate what sense 3 is getting at, i.e. merge 3 into 1 and 2), in line with how racism does not split "race A is superior to race B"-type racism and "race A inherently likes X, race B inherently likes Y"-type racism into separate definitions but covers both in the same definition(s). At least on first consideration, I'm not seeing why trying to split 'hardcore' discrimination / supremacist attitudes or actions and more microaggressive attitudes or actions into separate senses would be the best way of handling things (we don't seem to split racism, homophobia or other discriminations that way). This does make me notice that some of our other entries' definitions are lacking, though (for example, I've just tweaked transphobia to have a fuller definition like homophobia). - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 26 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)

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)

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[22], 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)

We have New York City, though. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I always thought that "New York City" had a particular explanation, i.e. to distinguish the city from the state, which, indeed, our entry does mention. Mihia (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna This specifically refers to the City of London, not London. The former is only a tiny part of London, so it's not like the other examples you give, and it's not giving London special treatment. Theknightwho (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that this should have been at WT:RFVE.  --Lambiam 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep - this is obviously a matter for WT:RFVE. It's clearly not SOP, since it refers specifically to the City of London, which is not the same as London, which means it cannot simply be London + city. Theknightwho (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Although "London City" is not in my experience a "regular" term, no doubt someone somewhere has put those two words together, so in that sense it can no doubt be "verified". However, I think it unlikely that it is used only in the sense "City of London". For example, "Things to do in London City" [23] is talking about London as a whole. In the case that it does mean City of London, it could be construed as "London + district of London", i.e. the City district, in the same way as we see e.g. "Places to see in London Kensington" [24]. Mihia (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2025 (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.^[25] 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)

Delete. I don't blame the author for submitting this given how well known the concept is, but this is better suited for an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. The meaning is too obvious. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 12:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn’t the term “imaginary friend” also a euphemism for God (or other deities) among non-believers?

Example: “Are you praying to your imaginary friend again?”

This sense extends beyond a mere SoP, I think. 98.203.250.141 21:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I see the example you gave as SoP: someone saying that intends no more meaning than "friend who is imaginary". Yes, that definition is in disagreement with the interlocutor's, but that changes nothing. Compare groomer. Polomo47 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. See translations in fr:ami imaginaire and pt:amigo imaginário. André Koehne (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@André Koehne, it's not just any translation that suffices: the translation needs to be idiomatic. The same sum-of-parts argument applies for both of the translations you mentioned, since they are word-for-word translations. Nominated the Portuguese page for deletion. Polomo47 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo47 not deletion in french? See sources in w:Imaginary friend... it's suffices? André Koehne (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to edit the French Wiktionary, so I didn't do anything there, but I do think the entry should be deleted. Not sure what you mean about the Wikipedia entry, though. Polomo47 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Keeped, in Portuguese. André Koehne (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete. Forgot to vote for a while; changed to weak because I could see the WT:PRIOR argument but I don't find it very strong in this case. Like, the examples we have on that page are also idiomatic for other reasons. Polomo47 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The pertinent meaning ("the subject of a friendship or other interpersonal relationship taking place in the imagination rather than in physical reality") conveys something more specific than the parts. To repeat my earlier example, "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" is not an "imaginary friend" in the pertinent sense. Mihia (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm now thinking the definition is simply incomplete, and that "imaginary friend" hasn't any such restricted meaning (which requires prior knowledge). We need to see if all "imaginary friends" are "friends that are imaginary" (no one seems to question it), and if all "friends that are imaginary" are "imaginary friends" (I say yes), in which case that's proof of SoP, no? Polomo47 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I see it as similar to magic carpet which arose elsewhere recently. Yes, "magic carpet" can mean any carpet with magical properties, whatever they may be, and yet specifically it means a carpet that can fly. Although in some sense "magic carpet" in the "flying" sense is SoP, nevertheless we should in my opinion give it its own definition, and I would say the same principle applies, slightly more weakly, but still viably, just about, to "imaginary friend". Mihia (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep per WT:PRIOR. It's a technical term for a specific psychological concept. As pointed out by P Aculeius there's a bunch of literature and research related to this phenomenon. "Imaginary friends" seem to mainly manifest in young children. That's a narrowness of use that the definition ought to reflect. Can also be used as a disparaging reference to God (cf. sky daddy). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Now attested as a derogatory term for a deity. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I can only compare this to groomer. Don't think this is a real sense. Can go in the entry as a usage note. Polomo47 (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2025 (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)

I don't really care as long as we can get rid of all the minister redlinks one way or another Vergencescattered (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sino-Indian

• Delete: SOP. – Svārtava (tɕ) 13:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Svartava thoughts on Anglo-French, Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Dutch etc.? IMO any of the "relating to both X and X" senses should be deleted just because we can have so many of them and the meanings are not idiomatic.. even if they are affixes. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @LunaEatsTuna Same, with the clarification at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/January#SoP hyphenated compounds, I could nuke the obvious ones, as almost all such combinations are easily attested and the prefix entries Sino-, Indo-, Anglo-, etc. exist just for the purpose of being able to avoid endless SOP combinations like these. Svārtava (tɕ) 05:51, 12 January 2025 (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)

Delete, no widespread usage. But “folga wooga imoga womp” could hypothetically be attestable. @P Aculeius and @Lambiam It originates from a meme/inside joke: on 11 May 2021, a user on 4chan asked what “fwiw” (for what it's worth) meant, and, as a joke, another user responded with an intentionally fictitious abbreviation of no lexical value to tease them: “folga wooga imoga womp”. (Screenshot of the original post on Twitter). Merry Christmas, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Initialisms arise after the term they are an initialism of. Given the origin of the folga wooga imoga womp meme, it was offered as an explanation of FWIW, so the term FWIW is clearly not an initialism of this facetious “explanation”.  --Lambiam 14:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

like ass

SoP with ass Etymology 2 Sense 4. Polomo47 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom; a clear case of SOP in this context, since ass already means what the def is and like ass also does not carry any additional meanings like like shit, like hell etc do. Someone could perhaps convince me otherwise though. Merry Christmas, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how "like ass" is different from "like shit". I looked at the definition we provide for the latter, and like, "You'll feel like shit like ass the next day." sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

  We already have two (read: more than one) senses at like ass, so I really don't believe "does not carry any additional meanings" quite applies.

  I don't mean to say "and therefore we should keep like ass" though, mind (I'm neutral). Just that this particular point doesn't spark me joy. MedK1 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, we have two senses at like ass (one figurative, one literal) because ass has more than two senses (including corresponding figurative and literal ones).

  The reason like shit can be kept is because there are no senses at shit that can explain the usage in examples such as to hurt like shit. It's worth noting that the example you mentioned, specifically, could well be defined at shit (though it is not currently). Polomo47 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Beurré

Not English — This unsigned comment was added by 2a02:c7e:2069:c800:742a:66c8:9b14:8272 (talk) at 1335, 26 Dec 2024.

Well, it's French of course, however the Oxford Dictionary of English lists it as beurré, "a class of pear of a mellow variety". Perhaps it should be altered from capital B. DonnanZ (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

fall orange

Weird entry. Probs speedy-deleteable P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep because "weird" isn't criteria enough for deletion and the OP doesn't make a tie-in to the CFI at all. If it really IS a color, and an attestable one, it probably should be kept anyway; most colors are (compare jungle green, ocean blue, etc. Purplebackpack89 21:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• @P. Sovjunk rationale? :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The definitions of both this entry and autumn orange are comically lacking (bad labels, bad definitions, ...). If it refers to a specific colour, someone should add that; if not (like "18th century green"), it should be deleted. Possibly a question for RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This does exist as a colour, but it's not an American spelling, it's an American term.  Fixed. Brits don't usually call autumn "fall". Keep somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, because as far as I can tell neither "fall orange" nor "autumn orange" exist as colours (see "summer yellow" below), except to the extent that anyone might happen to associate orange with the season. There seems to be no specific colour that is regularly named this; it is not found in W3, no specific definition is provided, and there are no citations or quotations for any of these. I have no doubt that there are uses of the phrase in some durably archived sources, but I don't know of any that would amount to something less vague than the sum of its parts. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, obvious SOP as written. To keep, some evidence needs to be provided that this is used in a non-SOP way. This, that and the other (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

summer yellow

like autumn orange. Seriously crapP. Sovjunk (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Like RfD rationale for autumn orange, saying "seriously crap" is a seriously crappy rationale that doesn't address CFI Purplebackpack89 00:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  But are these actual colours, or just whatever the creator wants them to mean? I used to write about colours, and list those that occurred in major dictionaries. I can't recall anything called "fall orange" or "summer yellow" referring to a specific colour—as far as I know, these phrases mean nothing more than the definitions say: an orange that reminds one of fall; a yellow reminiscent of summer (but wouldn't a fall yellow be just as valid? Is yellow more associated with summer than fall?). Webster's Third New International Dictionary has "Autumn", "Autumn blond", "Autumn brown", "Autumn glory", "Autumn leaf", and "Autumn oak", four of which are synonyms for colours defined elsewhere, but there's no "Autumn orange" or "Fall orange", and I don't see any "Summer" colours. These seem to be inventions of the editor who created them, and to the extent they have lexical meaning, it's just sum-of-parts, like "grape red" or "wood brown" or "cloud white", none of which refer to a specific colour—though there's a butterfly called "wood brown"—and so are just random and transparent descriptions. P Aculeius (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  That seems more like an RfV question, @P Aculeius Purplebackpack89 01:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how plain RFV would help. No doubt "summer yellow" can very easily be cited, along with virtually unlimited other ad hoc compound colour names. It seems to me that we need citations that consistently use the term more precisely or specifically than as "the colour that the words conjure up in the mind". For example, sunset yellow is a specific dye with a specific chemical composition, which you would not know purely from the name. Or perhaps this is what you meant anyway. Mihia (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete, obvious SOP as written. This, that and the other (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

At least fall orange makes sense. I'm not sure that summer yellow does - I have winter jasmine (what, no entry!) with yellow flowers at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

"Delete' all three of fall orange, summer yellow, autumn orange, as SoP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

barcode reader and barcode scanner

both clearly violate WT:SOP. Juwan (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. I wanted to see if barcode reader was an official name for that particular plastic handle-shaped handheld device thingy (in which case it would probably not be SOP), but it does not appear so. There are many objects and devices bearing this name. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Australian rhyming slang; Cockney rhyming slang

SOP: x + rhyming slang. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 00:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; if these were proper nouns they would be kept, e.g. Antarctic English, but they are not, hence SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Cockney rhyming slang at least, per WT:JIFFY and WT:LEMMING (as it's the very first type of rhyming slang and is defined in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary[26]) . --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep Cockney rhyming slang, as a recognized "dialect" that is frequently used to explain the etymology of various words and phrases, not only in Wiktionary but other standard authorities, e.g. Partridge. I don't know whether the same is true of Australian rhyming slang. P Aculeius (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

lemon yellow

Transparent SOP according to definition provided - doesn't look lexicalized like sky blue (which is probably COALMINEable as well). Svārtava (tɕ) 16:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep, it appears to be a recognised colour. I even found it on a tin of paint. DonnanZ (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Was it a durably archived tin of paint though? Rowjanes (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Will this do? List of RAL colours on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DonnanZ (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I don't care about whether the entry deletes or keeps. I just like the "was it a durably archived X?" joke. Rowjanes (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I dunno... The lemons I buy are not quite as bright in colour as what wikipedia calls Lemon (color) ( ⬬⬬ ), but more like  ⬬⬬  or  ⬬⬬ . When I keep the lemons for too long and they turn the mellow yellow RAL Classic colour "Lemon yellow" ( ⬬⬬ ) shown in the list on Wikipedia, I throw them away. In everyday use, neither lemon nor lemon yellow, used as a colour designation, correspond to a precise standard. IMO these terms refer to the colours of actual lemons, which vary over a considerable range. The use of a fancy name in a particular colour standard does not make it lexical; some other names from this standard are “Pearl blackberry” and “Fibrous green”.  --Lambiam 15:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Donnanz. And I would like the nominator to explain further why they think the word isn't lexicalized...what research led them to that claim? Why is sky blue lexicalized but lemon yellow isn't? Purplebackpack89 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete, transparently SOP. You can find all sorts of crappy names on tins of paint. This, that and the other (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, as a standard description of various bright yellows, even though the colour itself isn't standardized. Other dictionaries consider this to be the name of a colour. W3 defines it first as "a variable color averaging a brilliant greenish yellow", and secondly as a synonym for Cassel yellow or Chinese yellow. It would be silly to delete it simply because it isn't always the same hue, saturation, and value. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  The question is if it means anything more than lemon + yellow. Since the color of lemons is not fixed, "lemon yellow" will obviously refer to a color falling in a particular range of colors and that doesn't make it non-SOP. Svārtava (tɕ) 13:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't make it sum-of-parts either. By that definition, most of the colours defined by other dictionaries shouldn't have definitions either, because they're also variable. Ranges are definable too, and we shouldn't be coming up with excuses to delete entries that other dictionaries consider worthy of inclusion. P Aculeius (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Svārtava, should we then delete green because it refers to a range of colors and not a single hex triplet? Absurd! Purplebackpack89 21:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Noting that literally almost any "thing + colour" combination, where "thing" has a known typical colour, seems to be citable: mushroom brown, pumpkin orange, grapefruit yellow, coal black, broccoli green, moon grey ... etc. etc. Mihia (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  And yet most of these aren't defined as colours in most dictionaries, which do include lemon yellow, either with a separate entry or under "lemon". OED, under "lemon", sense 5, shows "lemon-yellow" in use since at least 1807; Ridgway depicts "Lemon Yellow" on plate IV of Color Standards and Color Nomenclature (1912), which is widely used as a reference in taxonomy and the sciences. Not just anything that typically falls in the range of some general colour gives rise to a distinct name, which is why most of the above examples, except for "coal black", are redlinked: good luck finding them in dictionaries (I might not be surprised by "pumpkin orange") or art supply catalogues. P Aculeius (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am opposed to including or excluding entries simply because other dictionaries include or exclude them. In particular, popular dictionaries almost certainly include certain terms (e.g. "lemon yellow") and exclude others (e.g. "grapefruit yellow") on the basis of how common or familiar they are (which we don't, provided that minimum citation requirements are met), and probably without applying our concept of SoP with any great strictness or consistency. Ideally we should have our own rules for potentially SoP colours -- if indeed we need additional specific rules -- so that different people can apply the rules and arrive at the same answer. Otherwise, it is arbitrary that someone says "I think that X is a 'proper colour' while Y is not", even when Y is as easily citable as X. Of course, if there is a "hard" definition, such as an exact dye or chemical (as in my elsewhere example sunset yellow) then that should be sufficient to keep. If we can't say anything more than, essentially, "colour of the stated thing", as is presently the case with "lemon yellow", then I am unclear what is our valid rationale for keeping the entry. I am also dubious about descriptive definitions such as "a vivid green", "a soft orange" etc. being in themselves sufficient, because these could be created for any "thing + colour" where "thing" has a known typical colour. Mihia (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

DeRo

"Nickname of Dwayne De Rosario (born 1978), Canadian soccer player." I can't find a specific section of WT:CFI covering this (maybe I'm overlooking something) but this doesn't seem like the kind of thing we should include. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:en:Nicknames of individuals. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C54E:F82E:FAA1:E7A5 20:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not something I would want to include. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. In sports, it is quite common for players to have cool nicknames; these names are not really fit for a dictionary, though, are they? But, seeing as this is de jure allowed to be included, perhaps this should go to the Beer Parlour for opinions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Is dictionary material. Famous nicknames can be found in dictionaries, and there's even entire dictionaries for them. (Plus, we could have a sort of reverse dictionary, where you look up famous people and see what nicknames they've gotten.) CitationsFreak (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

But why—why are humans in a dictionary? 😭😭 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Not humans. Terms that refer to a specific humans, or groups of them. And as for why some might look up them up, maybe they read a nickname and are curious as to who it refers to. Or maybe they're a writer search for a succulent sobriquet for a certain individual. CitationsFreak (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

cellar door

"In phonaesthetics, a quintessential example of an inherently pleasant-sounding phrase irrespective of its meaning." I don't think an example of a term possessing a particular quality makes it lexical. There are other terms which are also said to be euphonious, though this one is apparently a commonly cited example: see "w:Phonaesthetics". I tried to see if the term was used adjectivally (cellar-door term or cellar-door word, for example), but it doesn't appear to have been. At most, the information in sense 3 can be added to a trivia section. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Same kind of thing as ghoti (a weird spelling supposed to denote "fish"). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CE7:E0A7:278F:C0B4 15:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete sense per nom. We can, however, include it in a Trivia section, a simple “This word is often used as an example of this and that and considered the most beautiful word in the English language” or whatever should suffice!! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The definition inherently suggests that the term is not used to convey meaning. Sure, this usage can be listed in some other appropriate way. Polomo47 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

co's

For the same reason we deleted bro's. This is just the possessive of co (pronoun). Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dictionaries usually do not list these. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

badak

Indonesian English. I didn't look deeply, but is this cool? Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I looked through Gbooks for a while and did not find any occurrences of this word in an English sentence (without italics, that is). However, perhaps this is better suited for RfV? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The s-plural badaks can only be English, not Indonesian. That plural can be found in GBooks. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C27:44:B850:D46 10:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Earth Summit

Do we really need this entry in Wiktionary? It is hardly dictionary material and serves no purpose, not to mention the fact that it occurred many moons ago and no one really ever uses it in day-to-day conversations. mysteryroom (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree. Not sure if we have any formal policy against this, but we lack many other famous one-time events like the Congress of Vienna, Live Aid, March on Washington, the Yalta Conference (the famous meeting between the Big Three near the end of WW2) etc. I do agree that these are not really suitable for a dictionary but rather an encyclopaedia; Wikipedia can handle these while we handle words. Weak delete based on that train of thought. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur. Thank you kindly for the input. mysteryroom (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP and not suitable for a dictionary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

beard louse

SOP, I guess. Father of minus 2 (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If this referred to a specific genre of lice, say the crab louse, then it could perhaps be kept—however it does not. Notice how we do not have an entry for hair louse despite that word being super common. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

the D

Soccer penalty area; and dick (penis). Both senses are already at D. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2921:96CC:86C1:8A99 10:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, delete. It should be OK to include "The" in place names where it is officially used, there's about 15 hamlets around England named The Green, and oodles of streets with that name too. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete for consistency's sake, as we have two meanings for 'the T' listed at T. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to D so users can locate the relevant def easier; compare the Hub. But yeah basically delete it. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete or redirect: redundant to D. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

TWOW

Definitions:

1. (internet) The online writing competition Ten Words of Wisdom.
2. (internet) A writing competition, usually held online, where participants have to write responses to prompts, typically in 10 words or fewer.

Not sure whether this should be here or RFV, since the second sense, if it exists, might pass. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What about The Winds of Winter? PUC – 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

All the more reason not to have this one. All the Google Books hits are for that one and a few other published works with the same initials. There are also lots of scannos and some kind of (lowercase) term in linguistics or philosophy, but apparently not this.

The fact that this is on a "Battle for Dream Island" fandom wiki doesn't help- that group was so focused on their favorite spot on the internet that they fought for 11 years to get it on Wikipedia in spite of having none of the evidence for notability that Wikipedia requires. I hope this isn't a continuation of that battle. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, while I can understand why you might think TWOW is just "another BFDI thing", I believe that it is seperate and notable enough to warrant its own definition of Wiktionary.

Firstly, on the BFDI Fandom wiki you are talking about, it explicitly states that "Ten Words of Wisdom is not a part of the BFDI franchise". While there are some similarities with TWOW and BFDI (them both having the same creator, many TWOW fans being BFDI fans, and most notably, the contestants are being represented as "booksonas", which are similar to a BFDI character), TWOW is its own thing seperate from BFDI, although the 2 communities do slightly overlap. However, there are many TWOW fans who are not a fan of BFDI, and there will be more fans of that type because of LingoTWOW: a TWOW with over 400 contestants that is hosted and announced by LingoLizard, a linguistics channel of 60000 subscribers, unrelated to BFDI.

Secondly, the TWOW community is quite sizeable, and there are many "TWOW"s. The second official season of Ten Words of Wisdom, "Eleven Words of Wisdom" has over 16,000 contestants, and the official Discord server regarding TWOW has over 5,000 members. There is also a list of TWOWs, which contains a lot of TWOWs. Take note that a lot of those TWOWs are named something along the lines of "[something] TWOW", which denotes that it is a writing competition similar to carykh's Ten Words of Wisdom.

Thirdly, there are already many definitions related to object shows, BFDI, and TWOW on Wiktionary, such as object show, objectsona, and booksona.

Some final notes are that TWOW can also be used as a suffix (-TWOW, e.g. Magnetty TWOW) or more rarely, a prefix (TWOW-, e.g. TWOWlympics), a lot of the TWOW community and TWOWs operate on Discord (but recently, there have been many TWOWs on YouTube) and I will admit that I have a slight conflict of interest with the TWOW and MiniTWOW Wikis on Miraheze, due to me being staff on both wikis. - AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

What is the reason for deletion? The entry is really poorly formatted right now, but I've seen the initalism quite often (i.e., seems attestable) and the content isn't hard to fix. Polomo47 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I added citations. // AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

geop-

Only in geopbyte? This, that and the other (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

bronto-

Sense: “(informal) Synonym of ronna-”. Only in brontobyte? J3133 (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both; could not find anything from a few searches. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

the reality is

Seems SoP. Mihia (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Mihia How would this be different than, say, the thing is? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  "the thing is" seems somewhat more idiomatic to me (not a literal "thing", as in "there's a thing over there, but I don't know what the thing is"). Having said that, "the thing is" is actually an example of one sense at "thing", and also the wording is not fixed, e.g. you can say "that's the thing", which is indeed another example at "thing", so there could be a case for deleting "the thing is". I wouldn't personally go out of my way to advocate this, but "the reality is" seems more blatant. Mihia (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Seems SoP to me too, and I also see a difference from the thing is per Mihia. Polomo47 (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Mihia's rationale above; thanks for the explanation. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

be a thing

I do not blame the author for submitting this entry, but I think that sense 8 at thing#Noun already covers it. It would be an acceptable redirect, though. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom—inclined to agree here; a redirect is also going to be helpful! :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

trade minister

Per other minister terms Father of minus 2 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; a clear case of SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Vergencescattered (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

screw

10. (colloquial, transitive, imperative, vulgar) Used to express great displeasure with, or contemptuous dismissal of, someone or something.

Synonyms: bugger, eff, to hell with

Screw those jerks, and screw their stupid rules!

11. (colloquial, transitive) To give up on, to abandon, delay, to not think about someone or something.

Synonyms: (vulgar, slang) fuck, forget, (Australia) sack

Screw the homework for now.

Screw him, let's run.

RFD sense 11. Don't see how the examples are any different from sense 10. Also the definitions of 11 seem too weak for the examples, or not quite to the point. Mihia (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge or otherwise delete one of them per nom. MedK1 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the problem is with the UXs under sense 11: those are wrong and should be under sense 10. Sense 10 ought to be like, "They screwed me [over]". Maybe this could go to RfV to see if it's really used with no "over">

Outside of that, I believe they are indeed separate senses because saying "screw those jerks" is not close to saying "you should screw those jerks". Polomo47 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why #10 ought to be (essentially) any different from what it is at the moment (except possibly if it is to allow non-imperative use). As for "screw = screw over", have you checked the other senses to see whether this is covered elsewhere? To me, "screw over" usually means "cheat", sense 3. "You should screw those jerks", in a sense 10/11-relevant way, could be seen as a non-imperative use of #10. If #11 is supposed to cover this then, to me, the definitions need to be stronger. I can't see "You should screw those jerks" as really meaning e.g. "You should give up on those jerks". Or do you think otherwise? Mihia (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

miniendoscopies

Converted from speedy request by @Sundaydriver1. I don't see why miniendoscopy would be uncountable if its definition is correct. Polomo47 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"He underwent miniendoscopy": uncountable. "He underwent a miniendoscopy": countable. I find zero hits for "miniendoscopies" plural even in a Google Web search. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:45DC:DAFF:2127:3937 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but it's easy to attest countable usages, like here. I don't believe we usually require attestation of plurals when it's predictable like this. Polomo47 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If the plural form is not attested but “a X” is, then you could perhaps use {{en-noun|!}} which produces plural not attested. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

penetrative sex

SOP. Juwan (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep due to the concept of non-penetrative sex and oral sex. Also WT:FRIED applies because there is a social understanding behind it restricting it to humans: when I search it with dogs it is mostly dogs on human females but not between canines. Probably also WT:THUB in some extra-European cultures. Fay Freak (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we find several other phrases involving sense #4 of "penetrative", i.e. "Pertaining to sexual activity involving penetration by the penis"? If we can cite general use then it would boost the case for deleting, I think. Mihia (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I only know sources in other languages. It makes sense because of pene-. LIrala (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There's "penetrative and non-penetrative abuse", "non-penetrative and penetrative experiences" (of CSA, etc), "penetrative acts", ~ rape, ~assault, etc. I suspect that all of these collocations including "penetrative sex" sometimes refer to any penetration, e.g. insertion of fingers into a vagina, but they might also sometimes only refer to (certain, non-oral?) penile penetration. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not apodictically reckoning the entry as one we have to keep, but as the situation stands we—and even more so non-lexicographers, not least youths—are thus confused about the terminology that from this and that that it would be a contradiction to keep contrasting terms we can make a case for keeping. The legal (?) terms you mention have more contextual peculiarities. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In colloquial usage, I've usually seen this term exclude oral sex, as in these two Reddit threads. I wonder if we should split the definition into loosely and strictly accordingly. AG202 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes it includes, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the context. LIrala (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

forward time machine

This is SOP. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Saph Should we bundle backwards time machine into this RfD as well? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, also SOP. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 19:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Assuming that "forward" is an adjective, we do not presently seem to have an adjectival sense that exactly fits. Are there other examples of such an adjectival sense of "forward"? Mihia (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Seems like a valid (if figurative?) use of the word, and I don't think it's exclusive to (or excluded from) an adjective form. The adverb header has quite a few senses that fit. Maybe we're missing a corresponding adjective sense. Polomo47 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  We may be missing a sense, but in envisaging how we would add it, it occurred to me that we would ideally have other examples to show. Or, possibly we could bundle it into an existing sense. Mihia (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  To answer my own question, at least in one instance, another example might be "forward arrow of time". Mihia (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

troll bot

I don't see how this means anything more than "a bot that trolls (sense 5.1)". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Is kept by WT:COALMINE, as aimbot is. Fay Freak (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

trollbot is currently red. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It’s your job to consider whether a reason to keep anything can be construed before you nominate an entry for deletion, as we have limited capacities to format quotes and formulate answers to everything. Daily Dot editors seem to like this spelling even. Fay Freak (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

TBF it is a simple mistake to make; it should really be (though obviously this is not always case) up to the page creator to add an entry like trollbot as an alternative form of troll bot so that editors know that the alternative form not only exists but that the entry is thus kept via COALMINE. :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep per COALMINE. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

colonial power

Sum of parts, less idiomatic than, say, great power. Also delete multi-worrd French and Romanian translations. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Rather illogical. If an entry is deleted, all translations are deleted, not just the ones you disapprove of. DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The translation table would be gone entirely, and French puissance coloniale would be RFDed as well, but German Kolonialmacht or Norwegian kolonimakt wouldn't be deleted. PUC – 13:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I have the suspicion that some African languages have particular terms for it, if only slang. I am uneasy deleting it without also asking affected peoples. Also, in spite of the present definition, in economics and social sciences one seems to assume a quantity-quality transition if one defines a colonial power being “social, political, economic, and epistemic dominance exerted by Western Europe over territories and peoples since the colonial encounter”. So keep. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

A power in this sense means, quoting the Oxford Dictionary of English, "a state or country, especially one viewed in terms of its international influence and military strength; a great colonial power". Russia and the US could be modern colonial powers, given their territory-acquiring ambitions. But as the entry's creator, I agree with you. DonnanZ (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm undecided, with a slight preference for keeping it. PUC – 16:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I am disinclined to be a turkey voting for Christmas, and remove a useful entry, so I'm sticking my neck out (not that of a turkey) and voting Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I was very torn at first, but I think there is nothing overtly idiomatic about colonial power in its current listed sense in comparison with terms like economic power, diplomatic power, industrial power (not chiefly used of countries), international power, maritime power, technological power or political power etc. For reference, I should note that we do actually have other similar terms on Wikt like regional power: but I would be in favour of deleting this as SOP as well. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: It would appear that you have deliberately omitted the 360 other derived terms. DonnanZ (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. It seems somewhat borderline, but I'm not personally seeing quite enough idiomaticity or "special phrase"-ness here. To compensate, we could beef up the examples at "power", and indeed I have just added a "colonial power" example as well as "maritime power" there. Mihia (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It could be a WT:THUB, it isn't meant to be idiomatic. That was the intention in the first place, if I remember correctly. Unfortunately User:Ktom didn't take that into account. DonnanZ (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we need to sort out a convention for what a "Delete" vote means when so regularly now this "keep as THUB" thing arises. When I vote "Delete", I mean "Delete as a 'full' entry; don't know/care about 'THUB'". Mihia (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

How pathetic. DonnanZ (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Luna and Mihia. - -sche (discuss) 05:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

put

1. (business) A right to sell something at a predetermined price.
2. (finance) Short for put option.

RFD sense 1 unless someone can show how it is different from sense 2. Mihia (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Homoousion

Defined as an occurrence of a word (itself!), which does not make much sense. Should possibly be an alt form of homoousion. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E063:BDA5:37BF:C44E 08:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Merge: determine whether the capitalized or uncapitalized form is more common, and merge the other entry into it. Also, revise the definition as we don’t have meta definitions like “an occurrence of [word]” as it’s just needless duplication and potentially applies to every single term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

flatfooted

Most (all?) the adverb senses look adjectiveish to me Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I can see why one might imagine these are adjectives from the wording of some of the senses, but in each of the example sentences, which agree with those senses, "flatfooted" appears to be modifying a verb: caught, walk, hit, squatted, drink. Thus it appears to be correctly identified as an adverb. Also, if only which part of speech it is is in question, why is this entry—including the adjective—up for deletion? P Aculeius (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

No, you're as confused as the editor who created the "adverb" must have been. My Oxford only lists the adjective for flat-footed, with flat-footedly as an adverb (see flatfootedly). It gives an example for the adjective flat-footed: many companies were caught flat-footed by international competition.

If I said I was caught naked, you can look at naked and find, quite rightly, that it's not an adverb. There is an adverb though - nakedly.

I think FoM2 is right, and the adverb can be merged with the adjective. And flat-footed has the same problem, and should be amended similarly. DonnanZ (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

flat-footed should be defined simply as an alt spelling of flatfooted (or the other way round, whichever anyone prefers). We shouldn't be repeating definitions for trivial spelling variations. Mihia (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A possible test: "I was caught in a flatfooted manner" isn't the same as "I was caught flatfooted". The latter is more like "I was caught while I was flatfooted". Walking flatfooted seems different: you could say "I was walking in a flatfooted manner", though you could also say "I was flatfooted while I was walking". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The "caught flatfooted" example is clearly adjectival. The "squatted flatfooted" and "hit take-off board flatfooted" examples are probably adjectival too. "walk flatfooted" seems more ambiguous to me (would it be a "flat" adverb? ha-ha). Compare also barefoot. I've never heard of the "drinking" sense.

On balance, I would move all the adverb senses to adjective (not delete, since they are not already covered by adjectival senses), possibly tinkering with the definitions to make them clearly adjectival, and possibly 2 and 3 could be merged.

The "walking" example is under the definition "Putting the entire foot down at once, rather than landing on the ball of the foot and then lowering the rest of the foot", as if "landing on the ball of the foot" is a normal or natural way of walking. I have just tried this, and I find it incredibly awkward and unnatural. If I deliberately try not to walk "flatfooted" then I put my heel down first. See also [27]. Should "ball" in fact be changed to "heel" or to "heel or ball"? Mihia (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

IIRC, running is ball-of-the-foot first, while walking is heel-first, though the main rule in racewalking has to do with always having one foot in contact with the ground, not where on the foot the contact occurs. "Landing on the ball of the foot" sounds more like tiptoeing to me. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

In any case, I suppose there is no reason why "flatfooted" shouldn't be an alternative to either, so I think I will change it to "heel or ball". Mihia (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

typical bandicoot

"Any in the subfamily Peramelinae of bandicoots". All the few uses of this collocation to be found at Google Books are either modifying a noun (eg, 'typical bandicoot nest') or simply typical + bandicoot. I haven't even found evidence that Perameles nasuta, the type species of the genus Perameles, or any other bandicoot species is called a 'typical bandicoot'. There is more chance that there might be a non-SoP term true bandicoot. DCDuring (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Send to RFV, I s'pose ... Mihia (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Some context: taxonomy is based on the concept of types. Any taxonomic group consists of everything that is closer to the type of that group than to the type of another group at the same level a.k.a rank. A typical x is an x that is closer to the type of the group of x's than most x's.

The problem with identifying typical x's with a specific group of x's is that "typical" is relative. That means that if you're talking about something in a different subfamily from the type, then typical members of the family are in the same subfamily as the type. If you're talking about something in the same subfamily, but a different tribe, then typical members of the subfamily are those in the same tribe as the type. You could theoretically follow this trend down to levels such as infrasubspecies or races, but there's probably no practical reason to do so. There are probably only a few plausible interpretations of "typical bandicoot" in the taxonomic sense- but there's no inherent semantic reason for that.

The hard part about verifying usage would be pinning down which level is meant. If "typical bandicoot" refers only to members of the same species, it contrasts not just with different species, but different genera, subtribes, tribes, subfamilies, and perhaps other levels in between. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

To keep, I would be looking for a meaning along the lines of common gull (not a "common" + "gull") -- i.e. one in which the adjective "typical" doesn't just have its ordinary dictionary meaning, irrespective of what is being contrasted with what. To me this seems feasible in principle, but I'm not seeing anything promising in search results. It could also be hard to prove (especially with limited references) if, in fact, a "typical bandicoot" also is a "typical" + "bandicoot". But, as I say, strictly speaking I suppose it is a question for RFV ... Mihia (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

let it crust

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1CF6:D817:8F6E:7C72 19:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

No rationale for deletion given, but it's rather unsavoury and I wouldn't miss it. Can it be classed as unsuitable material? It escaped the patrolling admins. DonnanZ (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Does the term crust exist with the meaning of "fecal matter on one's buttocks", or something similar? (I'm sorry.) CitationsFreak (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The fecal matter is not covered by the verb "crust" (which already has an adequate sense) but by the pronoun "it". This is a matter of context. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1070:8DBC:498C:45B1 20:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds more like RfV material. Might or might not be SoP depending on the nuances of usage. Polomo47 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Now I looked at the creator's contribution history and it's all very questionable. Definitely delete. Polomo47 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The "crust" means that it hardens. EliteSlimeJumpingAround (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

As it stands, delete as unsuitable dictionary material. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This vote won't be counted. DonnanZ clearly has no understanding of WT:CFI. Theknightwho (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

literally 1984 CitationsFreak (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Heh, the judge and jury combined. Your judgment will probably be outweighed by other delete votes. It's rather ineffectual. DonnanZ (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz I haven’t voted on this thread, but your opinion won’t carry any weight until you learn how WT:CFI works, which you keep refusing to. Theknightwho (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no love lost between us. DonnanZ (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Let it crust at Urban Dictionary where it belongs. Mihia (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked. That doesn't surprise me. DonnanZ (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete as clearly SoP: let (allow to) it (the subject, here human waste) crust (verb, to form a crust: hardened surface). Whether or not this entry's definition is considered “gross” (which it certainly is lol) is not relevant to this RfD. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per @LunaEatsTuna. The term is SOP but let's not start bowdlerising this dictionary like prudish Victorians. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

yeah ... those crusty old Victorians ... Mihia (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Luna, it's SOP AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Send to RfV. The use of crust here is extremely narrow and counterintuitive. The obvious interpretations of "let it crust" are that it refers to ice formation, cooking processes, or make-up application. That's exactly how it's used in most books on Archive.org. And yet there are dozens of Reddit posts using this phrase as defined in the entry. Might be some bread-inspired wordplay here too. Let someone have a chance to polish this turd. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't this just further the point that this term is SoP, since it is used in each of the examples with the same basic meaning of allowing something to harden? CitationsFreak (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Internet olds seeing "let it crust" on Reddit/Bluesky/etc. won't intuitively conclude it refers specifically to opting not to wipe after a bowel movement because most people aren't basic-hygeine-eschewing goblins. They'll assume it refers to making slush for daiquiris or icing for cakes or something normal. Which is why entries like this have a certain utility. WT:FRIED arguably applies here since "crust" doesn't seem to be used in this specific sense elsewhere. I mean, without getting too graphic, the results of not-wiping generally won't be a hard, uniform layer. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The famous TV ad "Where's the beef?" refers to a burger, not to a living cow or a steak. It is also easy to find quoted. But Wiktionary is a dictionary, not KnowYourMeme. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1421:ED32:9298:E144 00:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary has had an entry for where's the beef? since 2005. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary has had an idiomatic definition for where's the beef?, having nothing specifically to do with actual beef, since 2005. bd2412 T 15:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what your beef (sense 4) is here, but if someone makes a snarky deletionist argument hinging on the view that having an entry for where's the beef? would be silly, they should probably confirm we don't actually have an entry for the phrase first. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

And FWIW this phrase (let it crust) is "idiomatic" in the sense that its meaning is potentially opaque. There are no existing senses of crust that correspond to the exact shade of meaning being attached to the word here. The two verb definitions are "to cover with a crust" and "to form a crust." The first obviously doesn't apply while the second is dependent on an understanding of noun meanings of crust. The only noun definition that seemingly doesn't specify material composition is the first one, which does specify that a crust is "a more solid, dense, or hard layer." Thus, there's no definition(s) in the entry that might allow one to independently understand that crust can mean "to dry or harden" in a broad, generic way that can include non-dense layers (to graphically elucidate: six or seven on the Bristol scale, if left to "glaze") or dried matter that isn't distributed in a layer. Is it fair to declare a phrase SOP when we currently lack the necessary definition(s) of crust that would allow its exact meaning to be pieced together from its constituents? I get that a reasonably proficient English speaker can infer the meaning "to dry or harden" from context, but dictionaries don't just exist for people that already know the language they're looking up. They exist to help people who don't yet have a firm grasp on a language, and might not be good at "reading between the lines," or parsing the intended nuance of an idiosyncratic, uncommon, or novel use of a word. Now this is way more thought than I ever wanted to put into this subject. This is a real bit of Internet slang as can be confirmed by a quick search of Reddit. It ought to be granted its day at RfV like any other low-value but not-obviously-made-up-nonsense entry. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and those above. bd2412 T 15:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

FedEx

RfD proper noun sense:

(business) FedEx Corporation, a package express company.

Fails WT:COMPANY: the names of companies/corporations are not allowed on Wiktionary. We would, however, keep the verb sense. If this RfD was to pass, the Derived terms heading would be turned into Related terms, and the Etymology is being kept for the verb sense. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I would keep as an abbreviation. Why just this and not include the verb? DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, we do have KFC after all. So keep --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we also have Subway, Asda, Dunkin' Donuts, Target, Burger King, Wendy's etc.? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, corporation names are not allowed on Wiktionary. Unofficial names and abbreviations are allowed, like in the case of UPS, but FedEx is the official, formal name of the company (the FedEx Corporation), not a nickname nor an abbreviation, so it is not eligible as an entry. The verb sense is fine because it is a genericized trademark.. look at Hot Wheels for instance. The proper noun sense for the company is not listed but the noun is. If we allowed corporations there would be tens of thousands of entries just for random companies; we can leave those for Wikipedia! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not so well known in the UK, as it is in the States, and it was originally Federal Express, I believe. UPS is better known in the UK. Don't forget this is a global dictionary, not US-orientated. DonnanZ (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that too. The situation with UPS and KFC is slightly complicated by the fact that they can be abbreviations for different things (albeit rarely) but we should allow abbreviations. Hot Wheels is a strange one, we have similar senses at Ford and Honda that refer to individual cars made by these corporations but but we only list the company name as a separate sense to the cars (and motorbikes) it makes at Honda. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that FedEx became a shorthand before it became the official company name (i.e., they changed it to "FedEx" because that is what people were calling it), in which case WT:JIFFY would apply. If this is not the case, however, then I would include the company name in the etymology, rather than as a definition. bd2412 T 17:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick update: According to Wikipedia (which we trust implicitly) the "FedEx" name was adopted in 2000. Google Books shows uses of "FedEx" in the 1980s/90s, and "FEDEX" going back to the 1970s. bd2412 T 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia can make mistakes; I made a correction earlier, where "Picton Council Council" was written for a former borough in Picton, NZ. DonnanZ (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Well it can, but this isn't one of them. bd2412 T 22:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's as good as its editors, and I know you edit it too. DonnanZ (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia cites this to the FedEx website, which also says that the original name of the company was "Federal Express", rebranded as FedEx for advertising purposes in 1994, and formally changing its name as a corporate entity in 2000. Either way, uses of "FedEx" prior to the rebrand should satisfy WT:JIFFY. bd2412 T 04:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: Does the WT:JIFFY analysis change your view on this nomination? bd2412 T 16:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412: Yes, that should. Can you link the sources here to verify? :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Here are a few:

• In the matter of the merger of Federal Express Corporation and Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 16 NMB No. 112, in United States National Mediation Board, Determinations of the National Mediation Board, Volumes 16-17 (August 4, 1989), p. 433: On December 21, 1988, Federal Express (FedEx) notified the board by letter that FedEx and the Flying Tiger Line Flying Tigers had filed with the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) for approval of their intent to merge.
• Air Force Journal of Logistics (1999), p. 9: In contrast to military organic transportation, express commercial carriers—such as Federal Express (Fedex), United Parcel Service, Airborne Express and Emory—are more responsive to customer demands and are able to adjust flight schedules and airlift capabilities on a daily basis if necessary. According to the Program Management Advisor for FedEx, they are able to fly an additional aircraft with only a few hours notice if necessary to ensure the on-time arrival of cargo.
• "Keeping up in the Silver City", Meriden Record-Journal (December 30, 1984), p. C-1: SAYINGS IN: "Parts is parts" OUT: "Where's the beef?" IN: "I'll Fed-Ex it to you" OUT: "I'll send it Special Delivery" IN: "Awesome" OUT: "Gag me with a spoon"
• "ZapMail zaps profits", Pacific Daily News (December 22, 1984), p. 48: FedEx said its profit fell to $10 million in the latest quarter from $30 million a year earlier.

Royal Mail

Fails WT:COMPANY: the names of companies/corporations are not allowed on Wiktionary. This entry was created back in 2006 and seemed to have survived until today. It does not matter that this is a national postal service: for example, we do not (nor should we) have entries for any other national postal services, like the United States Postal Service, China Post, Deutsche Post, Posti, Correo Uruguayo, etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Obv delete. All the British utilities (postal, gas, electric, etc.) have been nationalised since the 80s or earlier. But that's not the point. Even state organisations are still orgs, they are proper nouns for attempts at things. (Ha! Watch DOGE sail through RFV.) Homework: if an org called "Royal Mail" was either not royal, or not doing mail, would that give it more Wiktionary points? Or would it still be out of bounds by default, as an organisation name? GREENPEACE? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1070:8DBC:498C:45B1 05:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

They have lost a lot of business with the growth of the Internet. And a political question: should it keep the Royal if it's sold to a Czech? Afterthought: I think you mean privatised, not nationalised. DonnanZ (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Not seeing how it can pass WT:COMPANY. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

chocolate chocolate chip

Looks SOP, or trademarked or sth Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Not SOP because it means something different than chocolate chip. Not a trademark either, which could've been ascertained by a quick search. Father of minus 2 is Wonderfool, FWIW. Purplebackpack89 13:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Putting two flavours together is everyday SoP for foods. One can easily find "vanilla chocolate chip", "cherry chocolate chip", etc. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7554:3300:196:C6E0 21:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think this is clearly SOP, if that even means anything anymore here. It has synonyms: double chocolate. It requires explanation; see in 2nd paragraph of w:Chocolate chip cookie, and compare white chocolate chip which does not refer to (white (chocolate chip)) but ((white chocolate) chip) – how would a reader know that chocolate chocolate chip has a different bracketing? See also mint chocolate chip (kept, 2011). Hftf (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, because this does not refer to a very chocolatey chocolate chip, or a chip made with two kinds of chocolate. bd2412 T 04:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Right, keep per the above. Polomo47 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per above. I am kinda hungry now! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

before GTA 6

Like #straight out of Black Mirror: I don't see any idiomaticity in the citations provided, they are all straightforwardly [incredulously] observing that various events have happened before GTA 6 (which has still not happened): I can find people remarking with similar incredulity that we also "really got GTA 6 and Half Life 3 before Bully 2", "we got new Mozart before we got Another Hour"; I can find various people incredulous "we really got..." or "really elected..." a felon "before a Black woman", or incredulous that "We got a Basilisoup event before we got another Burn ID"; etc. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

To put my concern another way: to me, it seems like "GTA 6 is taking a long time to develop" is information about GTA 6 (to be covered in w:GTA 6 or possibly GTA 6) which can be referred to in various ways — not just "[X happened] before GTA 6", but e.g. "weed got legalized before they released GTA 6", or "...before GTA 6 dropped", "released", etc — rather than "before GTA 6" being an idiomatic lexical phrase that means "the other compared event is [inherently] unlikely". (But clearly other smart people view it differently, which is why I brought it up, to find out if other people view it the way I do!) - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Really specious argument. It is an idiom. And if I had not had read it on Wiktionary I would not have understood those humorous YouTube comments and other joke tings. Fay Freak (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Generally used in satirical or hyperbolic contexts rather than as a literal comment on the game's release schedule. Arguably passes WT:PRIOR or WT:LIGHTBULB since understanding its meaning without explanation relies on knowing that GTA6 was stuck in development hell for a decade. That's an uncommon situation for a AAA game but it's not the only time it's happened recently. And yet "before DA4" isn't used in the same memetic way. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep, assuming that the definition is correct and usage of the expression is reasonably widespread. I see no obvious way of understanding this from the literal words. HOWEVER. I have read the etymology sentence "It indicates incredulity that an event is seemingly less strange than GTA 6 releasing" several times and I still don't understand it, or how it explains the usage. Can someone familiar with the term improve this? Struck per comment below. Mihia (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Video games generally have longer production cycles than TV shows or movies. But it's relatively rare for a highly-anticipated big-budget title like GTA to get stuck in development hell for ten years. It takes a perfect storm of things going wrong in combination with enough miraculously going right to keep the project on life support that long. Major publishers are notorious for ruthlessly cancelling projects. So there's a once in a blue moon quality to this phrase. It's unusual that GTA6's production has been delayed so long and even rarer that it's actually going to release against all odds. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I get that "GTA 6 releasing" is extremely delayed and overdue. What I don't get, is why, if something is known to be extremely delayed and overdue, it is "unlikely, implausible, bizarre or strange" that something else happens earlier. Mihia (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if the (or a) missing ingredient in the explanation is that it is ironic? Mihia (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the definition needs improvement; at least as I understand it, the comparison is not necessarily expressing that the other compared event was per se "unlikely, implausible" to ever happen, it's specifically suggesting incredulity at the other event happening before GTA 6 (despite GTA 6 having such a long head start, having been in development for so long that it should've happened already). I'm not sure that's "irony" so much as a simple observation that it's incredible for a game to be taking so long that e.g. Eminem's child grew old enough to have a child.
To me it seems like the entry also currently fails to convey that "before GTA 6" can only(?) be used in comparisons (...in what I would regard as a literal way: saying X event, which occurred before GTA 6, happened "before GTA 6", and meaning by that statement that X occurred before GTA 6 occurred); if it can be used outside of comparisons, that needs to be demonstrated, and if it can't, I think we should try to make that clear by actually saying so in the definition or a usage note, (rather than just by hoping someone generalizes from the usexes that no other kind of use exists, since that's not an assumption people should make, as it would be wrong in other entries).
(But, again, I question what the idiomaticity is... people are incredulous that something else (e.g. that started development later) happened "before GTA 6" in the same way the person I quoted above is incredulous that Mozart (who is dead) released new music before Another Hour, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I really don't know. If e.g. "we got eminem being a grandpa before GTA 6" means "it's bizarre that we got eminem being a grandpa before GTA 6" so as to point out how long GTA 6 is taking, rather than actually "eminem being a grandpa is bizarre" per se, then, yes, the definition does seem wrong, and in fact there hardly is a definition, as far as I can see. Anyway, since I don't fully understand it I will strike my vote. Mihia (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It's less a statement of incredulity at any specific occurrence – such as a 52-year-old rapper's ~30-year-old daughter having a baby – preceding the release of GTA6 than it is an expression of bemusement over the game's unusual delay or the general passage of time. There was a period in the early-to-mid 2000s when Chinese Democracy was used as a similar pop culture reference point. Some of the older Urban Dictionary entries preserve traces of that usage.

"Where has time gone?"-style musings aren't remarkable in and of themselves (there's a whole subreddit dedicated to them). But this particular iteration (before GTA6) seems lexically noteworthy. The underlying connotations of the phrase – about anticipation and a decade gone – aren't readily discernible from its constituents. Older readers might not have the context to work out that this is mainly a joke about getting older among Millennial and Gen Z gamers. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, there's really nothing to indicate that the game has been in development hell or that its production has been delayed at all; seven years of primary development isn't really that unusual for major games anymore. The phrase is more in reference to the intense anticipation surrounding the game (even the announcement of the announcement of the trailer broke records on Twitter) and the amount of time since the last series entry (12 years)—but the development itself isn't really too unique or unusual. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep—it seems quite idiomatic to me; I think the additional sense of this being said after something bizarre or implausible occurs adds a unique element to this word that, say, Half Life 3, Star Citizen or Beyond Good and Evil 2 lack. Additionally, these aforementioned games being used as examples of a long wait is quite rare in comparison to GTA 6 anyways. Compare also, perhaps, in Minecraft and in Roblox as valid entries (in my view, the nom may disagree with these as well) that are kinda vaguely sorta similar-ish to this entry. “I want to kill you in [video game]!! Rawr!” can be humorously said for any game one wishes. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep per LunaEatsTuna --Oxocero (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete – literally just a meme, and calling it idiomatic would be a stretch JimiY☽ru 06:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep per strong demand from the GTA community. This term is very useful for anyone until GTA VI comes out. When GTA VI comes out then the term will be very notable. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

my everything

Rfd-sense Used to expresses deep affection, care, or adoration for someone or something. No more phrasey than bastard! my dear!, sweetie! or Daniel Lawrence! Father of minus 2 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The Valentine's Day special RfD! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Could be covered at everything ("he was everything to her"). If not, must be "one's/someone's everything" and not "my". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7554:3300:196:C6E0 19:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Why just RfD-sense, though? Polomo47 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete the whole entry as SOP. Could be "his/her/your everything". Ultimateria (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

further and further

This, and others linked from entry are just a comparative and comparative structure, no more SOP than bigger and bigger or more and more tumultuous. Snowclone maybe??? Father of minus 2 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Plus nearer and nearer. Polomo47 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Abstain. I am reluctant to support this RFD. There is at least one more, which I will not name, as it should be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep instead, as they seem to be idiomatic. As Trump said in 2021: "Twitter has gone further and further in banning free speech". I think he has changed his tune now. DonnanZ (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone else, but I know of four more! Mihia (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That sort of vote illustrates the necessity of not naming similar constructions. DonnanZ (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz Are you speaking of more and more, less and less, or farther and farther? PUC – 20:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. No sufficient argument to have this is discernible thus far. Fay Freak (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 20:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

literally 1984

SoP - literally ("Used non-literally as an intensifier") 1984 ("A totalitarian or dystopic society") * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It has attracted translations. DonnanZ (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The Russian translation is SoP by the same argument. The Finnish translation looks SoP too but is less clear. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Svārtava (tɕ) 04:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 10:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep - not literal in the usual sense, and you can’t just combine any two senses and call it SoP. This is about as unhelpful as saying magic carpet is SoP because “magic” sometimes refers to things that fly, completely missing the point that it’s a narrower meaning. Theknightwho (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

However, there is not a specific sense "able to fly" at magic (nor should there be IMO). Mihia (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mihia No, but "magic" definitely does encompass "able to fly due to magic". The point is that referring to a specific (sub)sense does not mean it's SoP, because it's restricted to that subsense. On this particular term, I don't really see how an interjection like this could be SoP anyway, since 1984 isn't an interjection. Theknightwho (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The entry says Phrase, not Interjection. You can shout it out alone, but that's true for "awesome!" too. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7D43:D2B0:FE09:EE93 16:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The difference, as I would see it, is that you can't understand specifically what "magic carpet" (normally) means from the two entries. Yes, you can understand that it has supernatural qualities, but this could mean making things disappear, or rolling out to an unlimited length, or changing colour when you step on it, or anything else. All of these types of carpet would be a "magic" + "carpet" but not a "magic carpet" in the usual sense. On the other hand, "literally 1984" is literally "literally (in a non-literal sense)" + "totalitarian society". Having said that, I am not entirely convinced that the entry at literally is presently exactly right. Mihia (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete. I do think you can shout out “literally [adjective/noun describing a quality]” for basically anything. Don’t think the omission of a “that’s” or “this is” makes it any different.

“This is a pretty tasty banana.” / “I really like bananas”

“Literally the best!” Polomo47 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SOP per nom and Mihia—a very common collocation but a collocation nonetheless; perhaps it can be noted at the current entry for 1984. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Literally delete as it literally could be "literally anything". However, I have added a "literally 1984" example to literally for good measure. Mihia (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Memetic set phrase. Could also potentially refer to the calendar year. But it's generally used narrowly to refer to the dystopian novel. People don't walk into '80s dance parties or retro game conventions and non-literally remark, "It's literally 1984 in here!", unless they're making an ironic reference to the dystopia sense. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You’ve correctly argued for the idiomaticity of 1984 but said nothing about the full phrase. You can say “literally 1984” when you see something dystopian just like you can say “literally Christmas” if you walk into a Christmas-themed party. Polomo47 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Jberkel 16:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete per Polomo. If this were only used satirically, I'd be strongly in favor of keeping it so people won't get confused, but our definition and use-examples are ambiguous and suggest it can be used in full sincerity. —Soap— 13:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep per TheKnightWho Vergencescattered (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Polomo47. - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

dinner guest

Looks most SOP Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Svārtava (tɕ) 04:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; I tried to see if one could be a “dinner guest” if invited over for breakfast, lunch etc. but it appears not, hence not idiomatic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I think dinner guest refers to a specific social role rather than just "a guest who happens to have dinner." Its lexical stability and cultural specificity distinguish it from a purely compositional phrase. It has near-synonyms (convive) and idiomatic translations (convidat (see usage note at hoste). Tischgast/tafelgast, illallisvieras/ruokavieras, commensale/comensal (more like a participant)). Is guest room SOP then? Or dinner hour? Hftf (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

From how I usually perceive these attributive-noun modifiers, this is a very typical SoP formulation. To me, "dinner guest" intuitively means a guest whose purpose is having dinner, so indeed a guest who happens to have dinner isn't traditionally described as a dinner guest. Polomo47 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but it is still SOP, weak delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

just friends

Converted from speedy. It might be argued that this expression has specific connotations, so it might be best to run this entry through RFD. Svārtava (tɕ) 04:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. If we decide to keep this (or possibly even if not), I think we should also have just good friends, which I would say is, if anything, more idiomatic. Mihia (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as SOP. The word is very interesting (at least it is to me lol), but has no actual idiomatic or metaphorical meaning. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep on the grounds that it (normally) means "just friends, not in a romantic/sexual relationship", as opposed to "just friends, not business partners / relatives / whatever", albeit this might often be obvious from context. Mihia (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. PUC – 20:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep - It's a pretty transparent phrase, but there are collocations such as "a just friends" "the kind of just friends" and "he didn't do just friends" that aren't really grammatical unless this is an idiom. There's also the phrase "Historians will say they were just friends", a jocular way of calling two people gay, which only really makes sense if you specifically read the phrase as referring to the specific denial of a romantic relationship. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep, like the others I feel the overtones make this somewhat more than the sum of its parts. This, that and the other (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I agree with others that the overtones are subtle. For me, that makes it more likely that all or part of the true meaning of the term could be missed and that is surely something we as the writers of a dictionary should be trying to help with. John Cross (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

tide of change

Clearly SOP; one could construct "winds of change", "wave of change", "torrent of change", etc. mysteryroom (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to note that winds of change is a famous phrase in history (originally "wind of change", apparently, which I don't think I knew). Mihia (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Snowclone? More likely SOP, especially in the quote given, so delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The lack of a definition doesn't help, but it seems to be idiomatic, something like a tide. Here, the votes for women movement was likened to a tide of change. For me, it's a tentative keep, a suitable def is required. It's rather sad to have a quote from Trump though. DonnanZ (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Routine figurative sense of "tide" that could apply to anything relevant: "a tide of issues", "a tide of bad publicity", "a tide of prosperity", etc. For me, however, the most relevant existing definition at tide, "Tendency or direction of causes, influences, or events; course; current", does not very adequately capture the implication of very large volume that we see in e.g. "tide of change". (Also, my initial feeling was that this sense of "tide" is mostly used of negative or unwelcome things, but I'm not sure whether usage actually bears this out.) Mihia (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps sense 2, "A stream, current or flood", is supposed to be (or include) the main figurative sense? In which case do we need a separate sense 8? Mihia (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You can't stop a rising tide without building a barrage or weir in a river. Where I live, a long way from the sea, a riverside road is flooded every high tide. DonnanZ (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

little pinky

What nominal uses I have seen make this appear to be construed as little + pinky. DCDuring (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. At face value, this seems SoP to me, humorous or not. I don't see how it would be a blend. Can be convinced of the opposite, though. Polomo47 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete—it might honestly be a blend in some people's linguistic repertoires, but I think that DCDuring's sum of parts etymology is more common. It is the pinky finger, which is indeed little. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

hopeless romantic

Seems SoP. At least 3 senses (1,3,4) of hopeless would apply. Possibly also both senses of romantic. DCDuring (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep as WT:THUB, for Spanish empedernido. I would imagine there are other languages with idiomatic translations as well. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 22:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete, there are various ways to circumscribe related sentiments deriving from insecure attachment styles and shortened attention spans. We only begin to understand it, but for this entry, creators and talk page discussors didn’t and were at best as well confused after reading the entry. The present term can be translated as somebody who is in some respect desirous of entertaining romantic exchange (i.e. romantic) but struggles due to compatibility of personality and or environment with such goals (therefore a hopeless one).

At this occasion it is remarkable that we describe situationships as complicated and with but some equivalence, which is not wrong but not descriptive of what actually one fails to define, in this idea alleged to be defined by not being defined. Fay Freak (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I wonder whether the definition is correct anyway. It reads "A person who strongly desires a successful romantic relationship, but struggles greatly to find or maintain one in practice", but couldn't, say, a man who has been happily married for many years also be a "hopeless romantic" if he behaves in a soppily romantic way to his wife (often buying her red roses, writing her soppy love notes n stuff)? Mihia (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can find actual idiomatic translations. @Saph, the Spanish translation is misformatted — it's supposed to be either romántico incurable or romántico empedernido. empedernido hasn't this meaning by itself. Polomo47 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep as a common collocation, whether it's idiomatic or not. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete. For me, not quite enough individuality, given existence of e.g. "hopeless optimist", "hopeless dreamer", "hopeless idealist", and so on. "hopeless romantic" can be an example at the relevant sense of "hopeless", which in fact it cunningly already is. Mihia (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

nearer and nearer

SOP PUC – 20:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Limitless pattern with comparatives. Nothing notable about "nearer and nearer". As mentioned previously, it could be anything: bigger and bigger, smaller and smaller, harder and harder, easier and easier, ad infinitum. Mihia (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Mihia It's surprising how many entries in Category:English comparative adjectives can be used this way (e.g. cheesier and cheesier) Chuck Entz (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. 😂 💦 It gets wetter and wetter. Fay Freak (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It's getting worse and worse. Deletions for the hell of it. These are emphatic forms, surely. Maybe these can be incorporated into comparative entries such as nearer, which is defined as "more near". Does anyone ever say that? Anyway, there is nothing wrong with these, and there may be occasions when writing or saying something when you want to use this emphatic form of comparative. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I've created worse and worse so that you like me more. PUC – 09:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@PUC: I don't dislike you, but you can be annoying, as I probably can be. But this is a surprise, as I wasn't intending to create it. What makes it more worthy of inclusion than further and further and nearer and nearer?

I have been looking this morning at find no place - "X, Y and Z find no place in this work", the author did not include them. We have find one's place, which isn't the same. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

There’s only so much info for language learners that can be gathered from a dictionary. General information like this has no good place to go, unless you wanna shoehorn it into Appendix:English adjectives. Polomo47 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

We don’t have to put it anywhere since it is for grammars more than lexica. Fay Freak (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. Polomo47 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

find no place is a verb, not an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

nearing

Sense "paradise" added by an IP last July. Probably a hoax, since there are no hits on Google for the citation given (which is incredibly vague, being only "Corley, M. 1782") and I can't find this sense anywhere. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 21:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Added by someone named M Corley, perhaps? But the diff is interesting, being quite sophisticated for a drive-by hoax. Mihia (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If it was real, I would expect it to be found in an old dictionary of some sort. Probably not a famous one, as that would already show up, but still a pre-1900 one. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking should be moved to RFV I suppose. Mihia (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Ford

Rfd-sense found on road dead.

This is not a definition. I admit I didnt look in the history, but this looks like something that might've been quietly added in after a deletion of a page with the joke as the entire entry. Perhaps that's what FORD used to say? Anyway, it's impossible to cite this because any claimed use of the word in this meaning will just be the word Ford used somewhere near the explanation of the joke. Which makes it a mention, not a use. I think. I dont know how else to put it. Either way it's not a definition of anything so i vote Delete. —Soap— 13:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Cf. fix it again Tony. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F593:7924:49E5:D253 18:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

i might make an RFD for that, too, but i'd prefer to handle it separately, as it has its own page already, so it's at least in one way more valid to me than this Ford entry is. However, neither of them is a definition, unless we can find people saying I drove my Fix It Again, Tony to the repair shop, and the like. —Soap— 22:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless there's evidence of it being used like "The roadkill was Ford", this is clearly the punchline of a joke, not a sense anyone actually uses to communicate information in conversation. Along the same lines, we recently deleted "National Felon League" as a definition of NFL. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete (assuming no evidence of real use to convey this meaning, as in Smurrayinchester's imaginary example). There are dozens and dozens of these -- as many as anyone cares to make up. See e.g. [28]. Mihia (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as not lexical. Not to mention, the real entry should perhaps have been located at FORD anyways aha. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Smurray. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

say

Rfd-sense: (impersonal, transitive) To have a common expression; used in singular passive voice or plural active voice to indicate a rumor or well-known fact.. Indeed not a verb, but a phrase, and supposed to be listed at they say (as it already is). Definitely not impersonal either. Shouldn't be a controversial delete, but I'm putting it here just in case.

Arguably, even they say should be deleted. But currently I don't think so. Polomo47 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

they say survived my RFD with one of these increasingly troubling and unsatisfactory outcomes whereby keep and keep as THUB votes are conflated and apparently added together to result in a "full keep". Not that I feel enormously strongly about they say per se, but this issue generally does need looking at. Mihia (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this sense really exclusive to "they"? Can you not write things like "people say 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' ...". I suspect the true lemma here is just "say" and "they say" should be deleted as SoP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That's just sense 3 of say. Any other meaning stems from the subject of the sentence, be it they or people, both of which carry a meaning of undeterminedness. Polomo47 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

illegal

1. Contrary to, forbidden, or not authorized by law, especially criminal law.
2. Breaching certain enacted statutes of positive law; not lawful, not legal (cf. immoral, unethical)

Don't see any worthwhile distinction. Delete sense 2 (or in fact probably merge some of it into sense 1). Mihia (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete sense 2 as redundant to sense 1. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete (sense 2). Couldn’t make the definitions any clearer myself. Polomo47 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete especially in view of sense 3 – altogether, the three senses for the same meaning complex raise questions more than they are helpful. Fay Freak (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above. Does the usage note for the page refer to this specific sense btw? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that definition 1 is intended to cover the point made in the usage note via the distinction between "contrary to / forbidden" and "not authorised by". Mihia (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

forcible rape

"Rape perpetrated through the use of force." It is forcible sense 1: "Done by force, forced". There are not enough senses of forcible or rape for this to be confusing. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:D8D8:8AE7:2BDD:6149 21:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

May be, may not be, could have been a defined crime. Fay Freak (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The entry was perhaps created as it is a legal term in some jurisdictions, but the definition is still SoP. Compare having an entry for forced rape, violent rape, even second degree rape etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Luna. - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

jaw

A word with no meaning! — "used in certain set phrases like jaw harp, jaw harpist and jaw's-trump." I can't see how it is an adjective either. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:D8D8:8AE7:2BDD:6149 23:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

We need a note on the page to link these compounds, somehow, anyway, to attain clarity. Fay Freak (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Could we "define" it as a "word of uncertain meaning" (which seems to be the case)? It would give us an anchor for the links. I don't like "certain set phrases" much though. If only for the musical instrument (using that term in its loosest sense!) then we should say so. Mihia (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

{{n-g}} seems to fit such cases since honestly they are not (or unlikely to be) comprehended to have meaning in isolation, as opposed to elements like interfixes (-s-) positively known to have no meanings. Cf. lick, خر (xar). But this is what it has, without using the template. WT:EL does not allow us to have etymologies without POS and glosses. But the gloss line, understood broadly, is to describe what a morpheme is for, by what we understand. Fay Freak (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it should be {{n-g|A word with uncertain meaning used in ...}}. If the PoS is uncertain too then I dunno, but if we have to choose something then noun might be a better bet than adj. Mihia (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

In fact, of course the existence of e.g. jaw's harp does indicate noun. Mihia (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If a word only occurs in a compound, we should not include it alone, since it doesn't occur alone. For example social notworking does not require that we create a page for "notworking", since that never occurs alone. (We can, of course, use "see also" links from appropriate entries.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:94A1:F093:C692:AC1C 21:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it depends whether it was ever a "real word" distinct from "jaw" ety 1. We imply at jaw harp that "jaw" may have been the original form, but not from "jaw" ety 1 -- in which case this "jaw" must have meant something once, mustn't it, just that we don't now know what. On the other hand, if "jaw harp" and other "jaw" variants are simply a corruption of "Jew's harp" etc. then I agree, it doesn't have any independent existence. But this seems to be uncertain AFAICT. Mihia (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If the word has no known meaning, and even its existence is uncertain, don't you think "see also" is adequate — pending further scholarship? (I remember as a kid seeing "scarre" in the dictionary, a Shakespeare word, and my mind was blown because it said something like "uncertain meaning". What? There are words without definitions? Talk:altoruffled is another good one.) Otherwise we might as well have an entry for the cran in cranberry. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:94A1:F093:C692:AC1C 22:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. Mihia (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Although, wouldn't a "see also" in a single ety section imply that it definitely is the "same word"? I think the interest here is that it might not be, even though on the face of it one would imagine that it "obviously is". Mihia (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This is nothing. A "see also" would suffice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. We do have a standard approach for this, used already on thousands of pages: {{only used in}}, though see the talk page for my suggested improvements. Hftf (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Hftf Purplebackpack89 04:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

front page of the Internet

This is just an advertising slogan, not a dictionary term. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. You seem to be right. I don’t see it replacing Reddit. You can as well attest it to designate Google and what not, evincing it not to be idiomatic. Fay Freak (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete as it is a slogan rather than a nickname. Lots of Googling reveals that most results use this term in that way; nobody really says “I was scrolling the front page of the Internet the other day when I saw your funny TikTok”. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete (or include all of List of Coca-Cola slogans, which are better known). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:94A1:F093:C692:AC1C 21:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

1984-esque

SoP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It ain't now. WT:COALMINE applies. DonnanZ (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me while I just go and slit my wrists. Mihia (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you could have said the COALMINE policy is.. 1984-esque. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per COALMINE due to 1984esque. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

put out

Rfd-adjective sense "taking offense, indignant". How is this different from the past participle of put out sense 3.1: "To cause someone to be out of sorts; to annoy, impose, inconvenience, or disturb"? PUC – 12:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@PUC: I see this from time to time—it is difficult to distinguish an adjective from a past-participle use of a verb (for example, one can say "She was miffed." Adjective or verb use?). I don't know if there's a way to do so. Happy to hear what people with a good knowledge of grammar say about this. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally if one can insert "very" then it is an adjective. Since "very put out" is OK, that indicates adjectival use is possible. Mihia (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep "much put out" is a thing. This probably should've been RfVed, not RfDed. And, for seemingly the bazillionth time, a ton of participles can be both verbs and adjectives. Purplebackpack89 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

henna tattoo

SOP? Protegmatic (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I would think so, unless there is an argument to be made that a tattoo is always permanent (henna tattoos are temporary). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning keep for precisely the unless raised by LunaEatsTuna. Although our definition of the word does not do a great job of conveying this, tattoo does imply permanence, so much so that there is an attestable meaning (missing in our entry) for making a permanent impression (e.g., "She tattooed her name on my heart"). bd2412 T 22:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Was leaning toward delete. Others have raised good points. We currently lack a sense of tattoo consistent with the "non-permanent supracutaneous body marking" meaning here. I'm also not aware of any single-word synonym for this concept (mehndi refers to the practice of henna "tattooing"). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as per the permanent/temporary argument. In fact, Jordin Sparks sings, "You're still a part of everything I do/You're on my heart just like a tattoo". Here the tattoo is a metaphor for something always being with you. Khemehekis (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

foot fetish

SoP with foot +‎ fetish (“sexual attraction to or arousal at something abnormally sexual or nonsexual, such as an object or a nonsexual part of the body”, sense 3). We could just as easily have hair fetish, fat fetish, diaper fetish, latex fetish, hand fetish, Wiktionary fetish, etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as nobody says podophilia for reasons I think should be obvious. This is the adult diaper RFD all over again, where we're going after what's by far the most common term and leaving people with an awkward and little-used synonym just because it happens to be one word instead of two. —Soap— 14:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Your logic definitely makes sense but, to me at least, it opens the door to far too many similar entries; a collocation is still a collocation. Most fetishes, addictions (X addiction) and phobias (save arachnophobia) are like this, as are the former's X fetishism and X fetishist (e.g. podophile) counterparts; all of my hypothetical examples above can also all have further synonyms like X kink that further exemplifies their SOP nature. griffonage might allow for bad handwriting, bibliosmia for book smell, Discordian and Facebooker for Discord user and Facebook user respectively, redolent for strongly scented (especially common in the context of scented candles) etc. Would a usage note on podophile not suffice? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  i appreciate that when you voted against me on the adult diaper RFD, you did so politely and with a profound explanation, as you've done here. i'd like to see more votes like yours in RFD discussions. however i responded to you on that discussion with my own explanatory rationale, which i still stand by, and which i also apply to this RFD. rather than drag it all out again i'd just say i don't think this is a sum of parts entry. best regards, —Soap— 22:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  I use what I call the "Wikipedia test" for weighing the inclusion-worthiness of seemingly SOP terms: if the subject has its own Wikipedia article (e.g. false memory, imaginary friend, gay agenda), it's probably more complex than surface-level analysis suggests. There's never going to be separate Wikipedia articles for stuff like green door, big tabby cat, Discord user, or any of the other lexical spaghetti that gets tossed at the wall in discussions like these. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  This is an excellent point! I'm !voting keep, as per the Wikipedia test. Khemehekis (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete. There being an idiomatic synonym is no reason to keep. Oh, well, coal mine. Keep. Polomo47 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, because this doesn't (except in joking references) refer to a fetish for twelve inches. bd2412 T 05:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Soap and BD2412. It also passes WT:COALMINE. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. WT:COALMINE. AG202 (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, COALMINE or not. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

foot fetishism

SOP; compare foot fetish. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC). Keep on the basis of "WT:COALMINE". — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per my above vote for foot fetish. —Soap— 14:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per my above vote. I guess keep per coal mine. Polomo47 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above arguments. Also passes WT:COALMINE. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. WT:COALMINE. AG202 (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Automatic keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

fat fetishism

This too. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per my above vote. Polomo47 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE Someone-123-321 (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Where is the coalmine here? Did you manage to find three citations of fatfetishism? Polomo47 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

COALMINE says "Multi-word terms that are not necessarily idiomatic but are the significantly more common forms of attestable single words."

Nowhere does it mention that the form has to be citated anywhere.

+ this is literally the exact same story as "foot fetish" seen above, so if majority consensus was keep above then majority consensus is also keep here Someone-123-321 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

"Nowhere does it mention that the form has to be citated anywhere": the text you quoted quite literally says attestable, which means attestable by our WT:CFI; that means three quotes. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Cited. 2601:240:8002:E690:9C08:C172:7C05:CBC 11:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn't RFV; no one is saying that instances of fat fetishism cannot be found. Unless instances of fatfetishism which are not scannos or typos exist (in which case WT:COALMINE would apply), the term remains SoP and is deletable on that basis. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I fully understand WT:COALMINE. Would the instances of fat-fetishism count toward this when the hyphen makes it a single word? 2601:240:8002:E690:A86C:F521:48B1:6D90 06:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

No, per this part of WT:CFI:

Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds, including hyphenated prefixed words, in the same way as to spaced phrases.

Polomo47 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning delete as to this one. This appears much more transparently SOP to me. bd2412 T 15:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

fear of heights

A very common collocation, but a collocation nonetheless. Compare fear of spiders, fear of flying, fear of needles, fear of snakes (Indiana Jones be like), fear of public speaking etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as a synonym. This may be preferable to height-fear. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Initially, delete as SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Has this user ever voted "keep"? DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Funny how a lot of the entries people post to "Requests for Deletion" usually deserve deletion. We should use this page for sharing our favorite entries that we truly want to keep, instead. Polomo47 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

In other words, the answer is "no". DonnanZ (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. In just a couple of minutes I was able to find the requisite three citations of "fearofheights": [29] [30] [31]. What a blessing that we have the COALMINE principle to allow us to keep these useful phrases. Mihia (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  I meant to reply, but forgot — this comment made me grin tons every time I read it. Polomo47 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• "Fear of heights" is blatantly SOP. To me the question is, is acrophobia sufficiently rare that WT:THUB allows us to keep the multi-word phrase? In other words, is this an Anglistics vs English studies scenario? That's really the policy-based decision making we ought to be engaging in. In this case I'd say acrophobia is an appropriate place to host the translations, so delete fear of heights. This, that and the other (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  I also want to mention that the translations listed at acrophobia appear to either be the equivalent of "acrophobia" or "height-fear"; the latter type doesn't support a THUB at fear of heights, and if most of the translations that do support a THUB are equivalent to acrophobia, then it should be there. Polomo47 (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think computer fields that possibly don't support spaces are sufficient to support a coalmine keep, by that logic nearly everything could be kept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 05:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

height-fear

Adding this on, because being a compound changes nothing, and neither does being hyphenated. I don't see a heightfear for WT:COALMINE. Polomo47 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Let joy be unconfined! Mihia (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Bloody typical. Deletion-happy. DonnanZ (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

click off

RFD sense: "To click outside or next to an element, for instance a window in a graphical user interface."

I'm assuming a technically miswritten transitive definition, which, if I'm visualising it correctly, does not seem sufficiently idiomatic, but simply "click" + "Outside the area or region of" prepositional sense of "off", analogously to "click on (a screen element)". Or can anyone see something else in it? Mihia (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is transitive, actually — it might be ambitransitive. “I opened this window, and now it won't let me click off!”. Means “to exit”, “to close out”. Not sure what this means for idiomaticity, though. Polomo47 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been clicked off about this kind of "phrasal verb" at Wiktionary for about 16 years. There are many true phrasal verbs; there are some that only specialty phrasal verb dictionaries have; and there some that are more than sufficiently transparent, even in novel uses, such as above, to not be worthy of being in the lexicon. DCDuring (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Assuming it's a phrasal verb (i.e. "off" is an adverb, particle, whatever you want to call it, and not a preposition as I originally thought), which sense of "off" do you think is meant? Mihia (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Undelete glownigger

Used "in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" (2019, 2020, and 2023; see Citations:glownigger–two Usenet quotations and one notable anti-Semitic manifesto. (For some reason, the countless Twitter citations appear not to be accepted here, specifically in this entry.) @Ioaxxere thanked me for my edit, but they did not undelete the page, so I suppose we need to go through this bureaucracy in order to restore it. (By the way, this is a nice page.) RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support since glowie is a related term that sources which use THAT term (that I'm not saying by name due to the n-bomb and because I'm white) also usually use Someone-123-321 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

duff degree

SoP with the only adjectival sense at duff (worthless, etc.). Not a common phrase either: Google Books has 1 hit for "duff degrees" and none for "a duff degree". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9425:3A9A:6C7F:8407 22:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why User:Gamren created this. DonnanZ (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom as SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know/remember why I didn't check duff first. Yes, delete.__Gamren (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

baby new potato

SOP Jin and Tonik (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you formulate why this one is but baby carrot is not? Fay Freak (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fay Freak I would think that the first sense (though not the second sense) at baby carrot is also SoP and should be replaced with {{&lit}}. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 07:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't formulate, I expurgate Jin and Tonik (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jin and Tonik Do you also want to bundle baby corn and baby bok choy into this? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. See baby (“(of vegetables, etc.) Picked when small and immature (as in baby corn, baby potatoes)”, adjective: sense 1). This adjective can be used for practically every vegetable; we could also have attested Wiktionary entries for baby spinach (which my brother eats), baby kale, baby potato, baby lettuce, baby pea, baby bell pepper, baby zucchini, baby squash (which, I must say, is delicious 😋), baby eggplant, baby artichoke, baby cucumber, baby mushroom, baby leek, baby watermelon, baby turnip, baby fennel ... all of which further illustrates the SOP nature of this entry. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete the baby vegetables, including the first sense of baby carrot. These “small” and “tender” qualities are described at baby. Polomo47 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

English whisky

Any whisky that is English. (See Wikipedia article for confirmation.) Not a "type" of thing like champagne. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BD8F:976:A4DC:6C26 21:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

English whisky is a category of whisky that has its own Wikipedia article that passes the GNG as notable I am unsure what you have requested deletion. Keep ChefBear01 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. See WT:CFI. CitationsFreak (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you CitationFreak I have read the policy.

English whisky has more than three independent sources including those on the page and has been in the news since 2016. ChefBear01 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep as per WT:FRIED. Delete, see below. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Those English upstarts can't call it Scotch... That reminds me of Old Hokonui distilled in the Hokonui Hills during the prohibition era. DonnanZ (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see WT:NPOV, also to clarify whisky producer in England call their whisky English whisky. ChefBear01 (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep per WordyAndNerdy's Wikipedia Test. Khemehekis (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Khemehekis@CitationsFreak is this a candidate for snowballing as there is a majority of support for keeping it?22:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC) ChefBear01 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There's only two votes in support. I say give it more time.

Also, does this term solely refer to their type of whiskey, or does it apply to to all English-based whiskeys? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak English whisky is any whisky made in England.

@ChefBear01,@Lunabunn, @Khemehekis

there are currently 3 votes to keep, it is unclear how many are against.ChefBear01 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

English whisky is any whisky made in England — delete. I was unsure from reading the "C-rated" Wikipedia article whether there was any specific qualifier for English whisky, but now the page creator says there isn't. That means there can't be an argument for WT:FRIED. Consider, also, how Wikipedia has w:Mexican whisky, w:South African whisky, w:Indian whisky, w:German whisky, as well as w:French wine, w:Polish wine, w:Brazilian wine, w:Vietnamese wine... it baffles me that two people are claiming this is a valid argument for keeping. Polomo47 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Changing my vote. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 23:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:Lunabunn to be called English whisky it has to be fully produced geographically in England

there is a GI proposal currently in consultation that sets out the exact criteria for calling whisky specifically English whisky.

Also to clarify I am not the article creator I began editing the article much further along in the articles history ChefBear01 (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. If can sell English Single Malt Whisky, that's English whisky, right? DonnanZ (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Donnanz Would you mind to clarify? Unsure how an English department store selling whisky from an English distillery and calling it English whisky is a reason for or against deletion. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 07:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If I was a whisky drinker, I would like to believe what it says on the bottle. If I buy milk, I look for a bottle of whole milk. DonnanZ (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: judging from the definition and the Wikipedia articles "w:Whisky" and "w:English whisky", it does not appear there is any difference in the ingredients from which the product is made nor the method of manufacture, compared to whisky made in Scotland and elsewhere. If the only distinction is that it is made in England, then the term is SoP. It is irrelevant that the product has an article about it at Wikipedia, and that its producers are seeking a geographical indication for it. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

On that basis Scotch whisky and Irish whiskey would have to go, which is inadvisable. I also discovered Welsh whisky in a supermarket today @ £33 a bottle... DonnanZ (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I think Scotch whisky and Irish whiskey might pass by virtue of WT:JIFFY, since they are likely the source of Scotch and Irish. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

According to Oxford, the noun Scotch is short for Scotch whisky, so it originated from the dated adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

below is a quote that show differences between English whisky and scotch

Freedom to use any type of cask Scottish whisky must be aged for at least three years in oak casks which have previously been used to mature sherry, bourbon, or other spirits. English whisky producers, on the other hand, can use any type of cask they choose, including virgin oak, wine casks, even beer casks. Distillers can also choose other woods than oak, such as maple, chestnut or cherry.
Freedom to use any type of grain Scottish whisky must be made from at least 51% malted barley. English whisky producers can use any type of grain they choose, including unmalted barley, wheat, corn, and rye.
Freedom to add other flavourings Scottish whisky cannot contain any added flavourings, other than water and caramel colouring. English whisky producers, on the other hand, are free to add other ingredients to their whiskies, such as fruit, spices, and herbs.
Freedom to innovate

English whisky producers benefit from a more relaxed regulatory environment overall. For example, they are not forced to submit their whiskies for approval by a government agency before release for sale.

References

All of that is beside the point. We don't have an entry for "New Zealand Christmas", even though it's easy to find differences from "English Christmas", such as the fact that it's celebrated in the middle of summer. And the fact that some Chistian denominations celebrate Christmas in January doesn't justify a separate entry for any term with a qualifier to set it apart from Christmas as celebrated on December 25th.

This is a dictionary: our entries are about words and phrases, not about the things they refer to. An "adult female human" is the same thing as a "woman", but the first is just the sum of its parts, so we don't have an entry for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

English whisky is not a new term it existed from 1800 until 1900, it was revived in 2006. Historically it has precedent as a word that existed, fell out of use and then became actively used again in 2006 ChefBear01 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Per my comment in the below discussion, I urge you to take a better look at WT:CFI, so you understand the difference between WT:ATTEST and WT:SOP — these are the main two criteria that must be simultaneously met for a word to be in this dictionary.

If a word is disputed by the former criterion (attestation), it goes in WT:Requests for verification; if it is disputed by the latter (idiomaticity), it goes here, in WT:Requests for deletion. This is to say that it matters not how many times you can find the term "English whisky" in use: what matters is if you can argue convincingly that "English whisky" is any more than "whisky that is English". And since you said yourself that it is not, then I don't think you can. Polomo47 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I also explain above what makes it unique and expanded on the criteria (definition) that makes it is own category of whisky and not just whisky made in England as it has to be made a certain way, it seems that my first definition was too simplistic.ChefBear01 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you try again, then, to show the difference between “English whisky” and generic “whisky”? You quoted an article that showed differences from Scotch whisky, but as far as I can tell that only shows that Scotch is idiomatic. Polomo47 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

As I explained above, Scotch is short for Scotch whisky, and both are listed in the Oxford Dictionary of English. Not that this fact will make any impression on you, of course. DonnanZ (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

We are in agreement. Indeed, Scotch whisky is idiomatic as the origin of Scotch, though I didn't make this clear in my reply. And take the stick out of your butt. Polomo47 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to be careful about what you say. Nothing goes up my arse. DonnanZ (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@ Polomo47 So I understand what exactly are you looking for in this definition to distinguish it. Is there something in particular I can focus on and what baseline are you using to determine “generic”.

For example the weather in England means that whisky matures quicker in England than elsewhere, English whisky has more wiggle room to innovate in terms of cask types used instead of just oak which is the traditional wood used as well as flavour casks (sherry casks etc) which alter the flavour during maturation and stills can be altered with an insert that changes the shape and the flavour.ChefBear01 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

But I assume that other whiskies can also be brewed in a variety of barrels. The relevant questions here, for my definition of SoP:

1. Can every "whisky that is English" be called an "English whisky"?
2. Is every "English whisky" a "whisky that is English"?

If it's "no" and "yes", the entry is kept per WT:FRIED; if it's "yes" and "yes", I deem it as sum-of-parts. Sum-of-parts entries may still be kept for other reasons, though. Polomo47 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo47 If you are referring to brand names such as “English” Park by the Nestville distillery in Slovakia it cannot be referred to as English whisky, a whisky distilled in England that meet the specifications can by geographical origin be can be called English whisky. ChefBear01 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom (and per Polomo47). - -sche (discuss) 15:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:-sche In reply to @Polomo47 I believe the answer is no and yes per WT:FRIED ChefBear01 (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

English The use of the word English doesn’t in itself make a whisky English whisky Whisky An English whisky which can add other ingredients beyond malt barley or cereal grain water such as spices and the method can be altered beyond the traditional method means it goes beyond just a generic whisky.ChefBear01 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

buy-bust operation

Sum of Parts. A operation related by a buy-bust. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand the current definition is wrong? If the correct definition is as you say it should be, then deletion would be in order, yes. Polomo47 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:buy-bust operation, and note that the initial edit summary was: "I hear this a lot on the news, but i don’t really know what it means." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:80E7:F108:75CE:66F7 19:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I definitely falls into WT:ATTEST ChefBear01 (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Now and in the discussion above, you seem to terribly misunderstand Wiktionary policy. It's not a matter of WT:ATTEST, but of WT:SOP. Polomo47 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies I have place this in the wrong section.ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Recreation of the corpse at every funeral and the bride at every wedding

Rationale given for deletion highly inaccurate; inappropriate for deleting admin to claim it was "a vandal keeps recreating it" or "created in error", and, indeed, the deletion was in violation of an interaction ban. As for the claim "This phrase is never used alone"

a) The phrase need not be used alone to justify a redirect

b) That was never proven at RfV that it was never used alone

c) Here is an instance of "the corpse at every funeral" used without an accompanying "bride" or "groom"

d) There are many additional instances that do not explicitly follow the exact phraseology of "the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral"

Purplebackpack89 12:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I say recreate, yes. Those seem like useful redirects, and I didn't find anything in the RfD discussion that really justified deletion. Not sure where this RfV is. Polomo47 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Rather than create redirects, why not look for occurrences of the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral separately, and if at least three qualifying quotations for each can be found, create entries using {{short for|en|the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral}}. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I feel like I’m missing some important context here, because I couldn’t find the RfV in question. Would someone link me to it? Polomo47 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo47 This has never been to RfV. It was speedied without an RfV... Purplebackpack89 20:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

cats rule, dogs drool

Could go in Appendix:Snowclones/Xs rule, Ys drool, but this is a pretty common construction for lots of nouns (and it borders on SOP). At school I heard "girls rule, boys drool" and vice versa, and battle of the sexes versions seem to make up the majority of uses on Google Books. Plus there are lots of others: "Trojans rule, Greeks drool", "Geeks rule and MBAs drool", "Unicorns rule and werewolves drool". Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and move to Appendix:Snowclones/Xs rule, Ys drool. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, delete, move to appendix. Polomo47 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Appendicize, per those above. bd2412 T 15:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I do note that the earliest instance I can find of "cats rule, dogs drool" is in 1993, and the earliest instance of "girls rule, boys drool" is in 1996. bd2412 T 15:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
    • That is fascinating! I would really have thought that the latter came first. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
      • I considered cats rule, dogs drool original as a non-native speaker, and exceptionally attentive etymologist. Fay Freak (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
        • A Newspapers.com search turns up similar results, with a first use with cats and dogs in February 1993, which is itself apparently a line from a movie, and a first use with girls and boys in October 1994, in a cartoon. bd2412 T 21:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
        • Update: twist ending. Cycles rule, surfers drool, found as graffiti in November 1967. bd2412 T 21:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Move to snowclones. I would not be opposed to a hard-redirect in the mainspace for this model phrasing. Fay Freak (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Lunix

Sense: “A Unix-like operating system, unrelated to Linux, for the Commodore 64 and Commodore 128.” Apparently it is supposed to be LUnix (but presumably added here because this entry already existed). The Wikipedia article was deleted (“I could find no adequate coverage of this operating system in order to justify an article on it. Any mentions found were brief mentions mostly just copied from this article or a deluge of a people misspelling Linux, even in books.”). J3133 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Low-key imagining this entry with the Misspelling of Linux template. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

i changed the definition to

Deliberate misspelling of Linux..

I think i just didnt know at the time that that template existed. —Soap— 01:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: well, it definitely exists, though it seems to have peaked in popularity more than twenty years ago, so even long-time fans of Commodore might not have heard of it. It's still archived and theoretically still being updated here if anyone's curious, so it's citable in the loosest sense through GitHub and its print mentions, but I don't know what to do. Do we file this under WT:BRAND? In which case it would surely not pass. Oh well. —Soap— 01:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

-happy

Always hyphenated; not morphologically a suffix at all. (The right approach may be to put it at the normal word entry happy, glossed "in combination".) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2452:AA6A:7CD1:369A 07:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

deletion-happy? You're right, not a suffix. Delete it, amend the derived terms and add them to happy. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. As IP and DonnanZ points out, these are not suffixes: we have a lot of similar words (not sure on the linguistic term for them), that operate the same as -happy, like -based, -oriented, -specific, -centred or -centered etc., none of which are morphologically suffixes. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per LunaEatsTuna. Fay Freak (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

gender bias

SOP: we can have any number of articles formatted in this way, i.e. “cat bias”, “dog bias”, “political bias”, “conservative bias” etc. Could possibly satisfy WT:THUB but thus far the translations listed are all word-for-word: Finnish: sukupuoli (“sex, gender”) + vinouma (“bias”); and the Russian entry is also SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete. “gender bias” = “bias based on gender” = “gender prejudice”. I feel like political bias is actually more common, too! Polomo47 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

There are some biases that are SOP. Half a week ago I searched whether I should create recognition bias but I rather refrained myself. This one appears specific enough a concept however but unfortunately phrased (by a 2006 IP essentially, when everyone was dumber, less informed and less woke!) in a SOP fashion. The translations are useful either way, because we might be too retarded to guess them ourselves. Weak keep. Fay Freak (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

tactical nuke

Defined here as a tactical nuclear weapon. We already define tactical as of or relating to military operations that are smaller or more local than strategic ones, so it follows that a tactical nuke is one that's used in such military operations. I feel like if we choose not to have tactical nuclear weapon (I say choose because the author linked the two terms separately, which feels like a conscious decision), we shouldn't have this either. I would obviously appreciate not creating that entry amidst the vote though. Hythonia (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

If the current definition is correct, delete. Baffling entry. Polomo47 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; I presume this entry was created as tactical nuke appears to be a collocation. I am tempted to create tactical nuclear weapon now, but I will be smart and wait until after this RfD so that it will have to be nominated separately! >:3 /s. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

highering

Rfd-sense adjective. Just verb used adjectivally --90.174.3.169 09:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: woah, another gerund that can be used as both a verb and adjective... Purplebackpack89 15:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have added many quotes to gerunds. The quote can be easily moved. DonnanZ (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete: redundant to the participle sense. Svārtava (tɕ) 14:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

without prejudice

Rfd-sense:

4. (formal, procedural) Choosing not to take a stance, at least for now, without binding future decisions.

Seems redundant to sense 3:

3. (law) A term used to allow a statement or proposal in communications, while allowing the party to return to their original position without being impeded by the described statement or proposal.

Added by Jruderman. This, that and the other (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I can see how the relatively opaque definition of 3 would prevent someone who was looking for sense 4 from realizing that it was intended to already be present. If we delete 4 we should try to more intelligibly incorporate its sentiment into 3 (and broaden the label). - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

How about "Choosing to take a stand without binding future decisions"? CitationsFreak (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I’d say without-prejudice correspondence may not always involve taking a stand. There are discussions on a possible settlement of the dispute, but parties don’t wish to be bound by any factual assertions or settlement proposals if the matter ultimately cannot be settled. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Suits are withdrawn or dismissed with or without prejudice all the time, depending on the circumstances. All that would be necessary would be to indicate that "prejudice" indicates that the issue in dispute is treated as though adjudicated (whether or not it really was), so that it can't be raised again in the same dispute. I'm sure that can be worded more succinctly. Sense 3 is certainly both confusing and redundant. But why wouldn't the legal use of "prejudice" be covered under "prejudice", when "with" and "without" are used in their ordinary senses? "Without prejudice" seems SoP if "prejudice" includes the legal sense. P Aculeius (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I will leave guys to sort this out more intelligently. Without describing what is ordinary and general and intended I cannot include translations just yet.

unbeschadet + genitive is a correct translation, it is used, as without prejudice to, in the context of statutory precepts excluding the derogation of others, or allowing the latter ones being an exception to the rule; the opposite being ungeachtet, notwithstanding, commanding the practitioner to ignore another provision in the given context.

The current definitions about “parties” and “legal interests“ have no meaning to me thus, and are suspect to be wrong as well. Unless the “party” is the legislator, the speaker of the law, himself, which is a twist and probably too much mental gymnastics, and still makes the definition unfortunate.

In English-language trade they as well pay without prejudice, and, now I think about it, whenever I read ohne Präjudiz in attorney letters, they probably learned it in international law firms or abroad. Our country bumpkins with law degrees found it hilarious, and the judge I asked about it esteemed it to mean the same as ohne Anerkennung einer Rechtspflicht (literally “without recognizing an obligation (in case it will be seen differently)”) (which the attorney letter in question thus had in pleonasm with that other anglicism).

They still use this idea of prejudice more broadly however in common law, as in “dismissed without prejudice”. Of course from German, Prussian, understanding the court always is prejudiced in the sense of recognizing his obligation to assess and decide the case. You only condition your declarations in the course of a litigation because you know it will be definite.

Wikipedia has a few ideas without coherence (and prejudice): It “is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law.” As etymologists taking the primary data serious, unlike Wikipedia, we should hypothesize that there are broad common law meanings which may have been restricted in EU English to continental dogmatics. The Wiktionary entry prejudice is a latent stub here and needs a historical investigation, but for now one might start to expand without prejudice. Fay Freak (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Abraham ben Abraham

Name of a person; long precedent to not include these. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surjection The Wikipedia article for Abraham ben Abraham suggests that he might be a legendary figure, which would make this entry fall under different policy for inclusion/exclusion, I think? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Meitei civilisation

Kangleipak civilization

SOP, like Greek civilization, Roman civilization, etc. By the same creator as singular oasis of comparative civilization and organized society and a host of terms which have had to be deleted (at RFV). - -sche (discuss) 20:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Funny. Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)