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

Deezer
flower crown
tight
Spotify
March to the Sea
Religious Society of Friends
not that there's anything wrong with that
long gone
break someone's neck
run out of patience

Oldest 100 tagged RFDs

fuck it up
adult material
not-to-scale
elder
occasional furniture
instance dungeon
take its toll
Kube
stealth wealth
stem mutation
morel
abstinence
non-Arabic
dynamics
ex-minister
be at
lavalier microphone
in conclave
square root of fuck all
adoptive mother
pro-Hamas
anti-Hamas
pro-Israel
anti-American
pro-American
pro-Arab
pro-British
anti-British
pro-Indonesian
pro-Jew
anti-Jew
pro-Palestinian
anti-Palestinian
anti-Russian
pro-Slavism
anti-Slavism
pro-US
pro-Russian
primiparous
school-age
fat lot of good
blue light
anti-Hindu
accessory before the fact
accessory after the fact
unspoken rule
unwritten rule
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
subbranch
Lulu
-un-
DKC2
DKC3
Nissia
mean time
foregoing
unrequited love
El Camino Real
marine toilet
quarter-
do want
do not want
twelve hundred
December solstice
tacit collusion
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
aluminium-27
argon-36
argon-38
calcium-45
argon-40
beryllium-9
U-235
run
queen bee
neutron radiation
anti-Israel
number homophone
two-move checkmate
freak
aerophobia
hobosexual
digital signal processing
-faction
bank loan
time perception
Magnificat and Nunc dimittis
racial segregation
diriment impediment
breadcrumb navigation
polynomial time
takes (something) to
set-in sleeve
th sound
-tive
mutual aid
reincarnation
blue ribbon jury
language resource
-t

January 2023

adult material

Meaning "pornography", very transparent SOP, also used for other mature content which is not pornography. - TheDaveRoss 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, I think. Ostensibly the term means "material that is suitable for adults", but because it is really only used to refer to pornography (perhaps euphemistically) and not, say, movies and novels where the characters are adults, points to the fact that it is idiomatic. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  You are looking at the wrong definition of "adult," this is the sense "intended for use only by adults" e.g. "adult content", "adult movie", "adult magazine", "adult website", "adult language" etc. - TheDaveRoss 16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say keep. It's from sense 3 of the adjective, and sense 2 of the noun material. It may be "material suitable for adults" but it's also "material unsuitable for children". DonnanZ (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

We also have adult content, of which this is a perfect synonym. I think these should be kept because of their function as euphemisms; only one sense of adult is ever meant, even though all senses of the adjective could potentially apply. This, that and the other (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how far should we extend this? We could also create entries for adult bookstore, adult comic, adult comic book, adult literature, adult video, adult video game, and adult website, among others. Definition 3 of adult could theoretically be applied to any media-related noun.

I suppose the fact that these terms are euphemistic could make them less SOP, but I'm not entirely convinced. Binarystep (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on all but adult bookstore, which Ive just now created. I think it's good that we're taking these on a case-by-case basis. Another good example is adult beverage, because there's no other context where the word adult means "containing alcohol".

As for this discussion, I can see both sides .... I'd even say the nominator undercut his argument by stating that it's not just for porn .... that makes it less sum-of-parts and means we might just need to clarify the definition instead of deleting the page. Yet, I could apply the same logic to adult and say we should rework definition #3 to clarify that it doesn't just mean porn. For now I abstain. —Soap— 13:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Side note: I found "adult drink", "adult root beer float", etc. prominently on Google. On this basis, I'm going to add another sense to the adjective at adult. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete all, unless any of them pass the jiffy test. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per TheDaveRoss and Binarystep. Old Man Consequences (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but adult should cover this, even if it doesn't yet. Equinox ◑ 00:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone is said to be "noted for creating adult fingmippets" and we know that a "fingmippet" is a work in some creative medium, it will be obvious which sense of adult applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete: OK, I’m convinced so I’m changing my vote. I agree it is sufficient if the relevant meaning of adult is in that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that we also have adult bookstore, adult movie, adult star, and several more equally SOP entries in which adult means “related to pornography”. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 13:01, 2 February 2023.

The reason I felt the need to create a page for adult bookstore is that it's not sum-of-parts ... knowing what adult and bookstore mean would not tell you what an adult bookstore is. An adult bookstore, so far as I know, sells primarily sex toys, with video and books being less profitable. I worded the definition conservatively out of caution. I don't think adult movie is sum-of-parts either because, while less common, there are movies with no sex but such graphic violence that they are also restricted to adult viewers in theaters, and adult movie as presently defined does not encompass that (and I believe the current definition is correct). As for adult star .... well, few native English speakers will misunderstand the meaning, but I always think of English language learners first .... for someone with an incomplete grasp of the language, it's very easy to misunderstand this as simply meaning someone who is both an adult and a star. I still don't have a strong opinion on what to do with adult material, and I promise I wont just vote keep just because Im in favor of keeping the other three .... I'd say all four of these phrases are different from each other, really, and should be treated as such. —Soap— 22:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per This, That and the other. AllenY99 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. This is less contoured than the examples adult bookstore, adult movie, adult star proferred by Soap; I am not convinced it must mean pornography, more like an SOP hypernym used as a totum pro parte. Fay Freak (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Inqilābī 18:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

adult diaper

We recently deleted adult diaper as a sum-of-parts, likely influenced by this ongoing RFD. At first that made sense to me, but while I don't doubt it's the sum of its parts, there are other reasons why we list two-word entries. In this case, deleting adult diaper could lead the reader to believe that the little-heard incontinence diaper is actually the most common term for what adults wear, when this to me sounds like not just a medical euphemism but one that might not be understood by a listener (what other kind of diaper could there be?) Someone might recommend listing adult diaper as a collocation under adult or diaper or both, but this doesnt solve the problem .... a person on the adult page probably already knows what theyre looking for, and a person on the diaper page is still liable to think incontinence diaper is the term they want, as it's the only one we deem worthy of a separate entry. Moreover, there is still no policy regarding collocations and so anyone can delete them at any time; reducing an entry to a collocation seems to me little different than deletion. Lastly, there's a possibility of unexpected dialectal agreement here ... do people in Commonwealth countries who say nappy for the baby's garment always call adult diapers nappies as well? I wouldnt be surprised if people thought nappy sounded too cute to refer to what grownups wear, but perhaps Im wrong. In any case, I would like to restore the adult diaper page. One more thing I could add: it's possible I'm the one who created the adult diaper entry, as I was the one who added it to diaper; but if that's the case, I've forgotten about it. Best regards, —Soap— 11:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

786

“[…] a lucky or holy number […]”. Tagged by Sinonquoi on 10 February (“Nonsensical entry.”), not listed. Created by Kashmiri language on 9 February. J3133 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete Abstain Keep.^{(see below for new rationale)} The numerology sense is mentioned on Wikipedia at w:786 (number) and I think it is best kept there, since to explain the significance of the number to a naive reader in a dictionary would require so much background information that it would become an encyclopedic entry. —Soap— 16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Im sitting this out for the time being, as the recent improvements to the page and the comments below have convinced me that this is a valid entry in and of itself. But I'm still reluctant to vote keep because numerology could also provide us with definitions for numbers like 19 (also significant in Islam), 616 (a variant of 666), 777 (used in Christianity), and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. That we haven't added entries for these already makes me wonder whether we've just never gotten around to it in all this time, or whether it's best considered outside our project's scope. —Soap— 12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Im changing my vote to Keep  as this is more wordlike than 19, 616, and 777. —Soap— 14:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete for the above reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

it's ridiculous i think there was a subject here or maybe on wikipedia about how many numbers -- as numbers and not years -- should have separate entries ... delete it immediately this is just absurd ... Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that this has an idiomatic meaning justifies its inclusion per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals, which is further supported by our recent decision to keep 666. Binarystep (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"A lucky or holy number" isn't a sense, idiomatic or otherwise. We don't have "an unlucky number" at 4 and 13. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete per my comment above. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep, since the entry has been rewritten and per the evidence below. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete as defined. It doesn't have a meaning: it doesn't explain what it would mean if you spoke or wrote this in a sentence. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This book suggests it could be found in Indian Islamic books or letters as a shortening of the basmala, in which case we should definitely include it, but I don't know where to look for attestation. However, this book indicates that it is used in "truck art or other mediums vulnerable to the dirt and defilement of the outside world", in which case it may be difficult to find durably archived quotations. 70.172.194.25 00:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers—I found an example in diplomatic correspondence (in translation) here: [1] though worth noting that the original (scan given on previous page) uses Eastern Arabic numerals. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: I think this is another example, in English and using Western Arabic numerals: [2] (it occurs in the front matter, definitely not a page number). This might be a similar example in Urdu: [3] (I can't see the whole page, but it seems to be at the top of page 2, so it wouldn't be a page number, and I'm not sure what else it could mean). Accordingly, keep. 70.172.194.25 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox Keep (Change meaning to area code 786) because for example: 305, named after the 305 area code. So if you clicked on the Wikipedia link it would bring you to "Area codes 305, 786, and 645". So 786 would have a meaning. But change the "lucky number" definition because any number can be "lucky". Heyandwhoa (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You can't say "keep and change meaning". This RFD is for the sense given. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2023

nasal vowel

SOP: "this vowel is nasal". PUC – 08:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

oral vowel

SOP: “a vowel which resonates through the mouth (because the velum closes the passage of air through the nose)”. (Auxiliary request if the outcome of the motion to delete “nasal vowel” is successful.) Fay Freak (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete both. Ultimateria (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

nasal consonant

Might as well add this too. lattermint (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Failed all. Needs deletion+unlinking. Denazz (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all - These are fundamental concepts that are not simply the semantic addition of two parts. For instance, there is no such fundamental significance (regardless of they actually exist or not) in having the semantic additions of the type “nasal semivowel” or “oral fricative”. However, the ones requested for deletion do have fundamental significance compared to such invented sum of parts. Kutchkutch (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep all per Kutchkutch. --Svartava (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No consensus, after a year and a half of time for discussion. bd2412 T 12:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

April 2023

fuck it up

fuck up + it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Hmm, there is a similar entry for fuck up. Though it's not my kind of language, they seem to have (slightly) different senses. DonnanZ (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily understand SoP, but fuck up is very similar to fuck it up. it could be normal to express this on the pages, as on the page there is already a link to fuck up. i only made the page because it was requested entry, but at the same time i believe the definitions are unique (in a sense).

  i'm very new to this, so i may be wrong, but i think this definition should stay :] | 24.227.101.130 14:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep for the second sense. We don't have a sense at fuck up corresponding to the quotes on the citations page. (I'm not sure the second sense is defined correctly, but that's another issue)--Simplificationalizer (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, separable verbs can have objects, in this case an expletive, in between. Fay Freak (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination does not specify a sense of the two provided, and the second sense, "To go at something competently, usually in an aggressive or quick manner", is basically the opposite of the first, to make a mess of things. Since fuck up is usually not used to indicate competence, this is not SOP to an infix of that phrase. bd2412 T 00:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The usage note claims "The "it" in "fuck it up" can be swapped out for direct objects, or removed entirely (see fuck up). ". If that's true then the problem is missing senses at fuck up, not a reason for a separate entry. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree. Compare kill it: there is no specific thing you can substitute for "it". This is an idiom. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• The second sense is currently not covered by fuck up. I'm not sure whether it can take other objects besides it, so it should either be kept or moved to fuck up accordingly. (I agree with Simplificationalizer that its definition could be improved.) Einstein2 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

June 2023

smackers

Rfd-sense: "(humorous slang) Money."

It's just the plural of smacker ("dollar"). Money is uncountable in this sense; smackers is not. DCDuring (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I almost agree with that but we should rewrite the definition of smacker along the lines of the one already in Collins dictionary, namely 'a pound or a dollar' (or 'a dollar or a pound' if you like) as it can certainly refer to pounds. I remember a parody song on the radio about the divorce between Liam Gallagher and Patsy Kensit where the lyrics parodied the Oasis song 'Don't Look Back in Anger' - it went:- "Oh Patsy can wait, she wants it all on a plate and there's just no way (can't remember the next line). She wants 5 million smackers, I heard her say". Of course she did then go on to win 5 mil in the divorce settlement, I can't find that online but I'm sure I could dig up some cites with this meaning. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete. I've found and added some cites where 'smackers' and 'smackeroonies' is used to mean pounds to Citations:smacker and Citations:smackeroonies but this word and all its variants doesn't mean money in an uncountable sense. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Rfd-sense No, I often hear and call money "smackers". — This unsigned comment was added by 81.111.205.155 (talk) at 13:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC).

Moved from a new section. J3133 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. It's used for dollars too, not just pounds, and probably could be used for any other unit of currency being casually discussed in English—if we're not accustomed to hearing about lira or rubles being called "smackers", it's probably because most English-language sources will be from countries that use dollars or pounds, or go out of their way to use the actual name of the currency instead, as a means of exoticizing the locale. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't be used. Alternatively, split the definition of smacker that attempts to cover both lips and money, and then you could delete the plural, since it links back to the singular. Really that definition should be split anyway. Just because both uses are slang doesn't mean that they're the same definition! P Aculeius (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete both plural slang senses ("money", "lips") at smackers and separate the corresponding senses at smacker (+ add {{lb|en|chiefly|in the plural}}). We tend to lemmatize similar mostly-plural slang terms at the singular form (cf. Thesaurus:breasts). Einstein2 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've just made a few edits at smacker and smackers to reflect the consensus seemingly reached in this convo - shall we now delete the redundant senses at smackers and call this 'RFD-deleted/resolved'? We might want to play around with smackeroo/smackaroo/smackeroony/smackeroonie/smackeroonies a bit too, so they're consistently formatted and defined and linked to each other. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• RFD failed. I've made a few adjustments to various related entries and deleted the 'money' and 'lips' meaning in preference of the singular 'lip' and 'unit of currency'. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

elder

One who is older than another.

Respect your elders.

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

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

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

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

My Oxford Dictionary of English has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2023

instance dungeon

Redundant to instance senses 9-10. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The word instance has other meanings in video gaming, though admittedly Im thinking more about game design than game playing. (If I search Google for instance of an enemy I see people using six different game engines asking similar questions.) It does seem at least that not every instance is a dungeon in games such as STALCRAFT, so it's possible that some games prefer the longer form instance dungeon to make it clear what they mean. This is just a comment, though. —Soap— 09:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a video-game sense of instance (which we have), but I don't think "instance of an enemy" is using that sense. In programming if you have a type of object (e.g. defined by an OOP class) then any object of that type is an "instance". Equinox ◑ 13:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. It sounds I picked up a programming term and thought it was related to video games specifically. As for the existing senses we have at instance, yes, I saw those, and at first I thought they were too specific, but I suppose "dungeon or other area" is broad enough to cover the uses in non-RPG games like STALCRAFT. —Soap— 15:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete, gaming is dumb and we have been decadent enough to give space to a pertinent videogaming meaning at instance even. Programming creativity always gives wiggle-room to variation. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

take its toll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kube

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

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

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

August 2023

stem mutation

Originally this entry claimed it was a synonym of apophony / ablaut, meaning an internal vowel change like get vs. got. That's trivially false: of the first 5 relevant results I found on Google Books, 3 of them were talking about consonant changes (e.g. "nominal morphology of conservative Adamawa Fula is characterised by ... nominal stem mutation based on a system of initial consonant alternation" [4]). That leaves it just defined as a change in the stem, which looks SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Since nobody's bitten on this so far, I'd also point out that "stem mutation" is attested in other contexts like biology for genetic mutations in a plant stem or in stem cells [5], so it doesn't seem to restrict the meaning of "stem". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

abstinence

Two strange senses here. We've got:

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

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

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

non-Arabic

non-Italian etc.

Not sure if we are prepared to have a plethora of lemmas of “non-X language”. We definitely haven’t finished creating entries of every language and lect names yet, and I can’t imagine the vast number of attested SoP entries that we will potentially bring forth by affixing non- to them all, a number that might be at the least as high as half of the aforesaid language/lect names; and I would strongly suggest including such terms in quotations/usexes in the relevant entry instead, as a decent way of representing such terms rather than have them as lemmas. I personally vote delete, but thoughts? We currently seem to be tolerant towards similar ethnic and national lemma like non-Arab, non-Canadian etc., but the language ones feel more weird and unnecessary. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of these non + proper adjective entries (though not "non-Arabic", a recent creation) seem to be Polanskyisms reflecting his personal interest in matters of hyphenation and capitalisation, and I agree they probably don't contribute much. There is an argument, though, that non- can be affixed productively to basically any adjective, and it's not clear that the orthographic convention that it always takes a hyphen before a capitalised one should determine whether the product counts as an eligible word. There are other things that can generate arbitrary and less controversial words (like verb + -er). So I don't have strong feelings about it at first glance.

I'm not sure the "etc." in the proposal is helpful: we should define the scope of the RFD clearly and of the four you list only "non-Arabic" is specifically glossed in terms of language. Are you proposing to delete all non- + nationality entries? Does for example non-Asian count? What about other proper adjectives like non-Bayesian? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I nominated only the language entries / senses here. "Etc." indicates an exhaustive list of all “non-X language” constructions. And well, in my opinion productivity alone shouldn’t necessarily determine whether a term is suitable to have its own entry, and probably other criteria such as dating of a term may be considered as well: ”non-X language” terms are probably a rather recent coinage, whereas terms affixed with un- or dis- tend to date back to the formative period of the language itself, making the latter more legitimate as lemmas. (un- and dis- are still productive in contemporary English of course but newer coinages with un- and dis- for specific domains could always be challenged in RFD.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, these are the correct spelling forms, and should be kept for that reason. IMO, nothing else will do. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: To be clear, non-Portuguese, non-Italian, and non-Spanish are currently defined in terms of the adjectives "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", not in terms of languages like non-Arabic is. Google Books shows they're not used primarily in reference to languages either (e.g., "non-Italian immigrants", "non-Portuguese European merchants"). If definition in terms of language is the reason for nominating them then it seems to be spurious in those cases. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. Since the definitions aren’t precise, I assumed they were defined in the sense of the language. Now I am confused myself, and will leave other people to interpret the definitions while still sticking to my nomination for deleting ”non-X language” terms LOL. So per your analysis, only the nomination of non-Arabic is valid now. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You can try googling "Arabic * non-Arabic". You might be surprised by the results. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Well my personal take is that the number of citations doesn’t necessarily reinforce the legitimacy of a term that feels very SoP. Phrases as non-Arabic speakers and the like could be easily added as citations to Arabic or even non- without any loss of valuable lexicographical information from Wiktionary. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: we don't seem to be entirely consistent as far as whether we keep things like this, although we often do. Various similar discussions are Talk:non-French (deleted), Talk:non-Japanese (kept), Talk:ex-chancellor (kept), Talk:ex-pilot (deleted), Talk:ex-stepfather (kept), Talk:ex-alumna (Spanish, kept). - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Confusing things further, at non-English it seems the discussion and decision were about deleting the general sense and the specific language sense was left alone, whereas this discussion seems to be taking the opposite angle. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Right… This time, I wanted to nominate the specific language sense instead of focusing on random senses, because the language senses feel more SoP than ethnic/national senses. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete non-Arabic (the others have been struck so I suppose they are no longer being considered right now). But I would prefer something like a BP discussion about whether to have such things in general, rather than piecemeal RfDs that go different ways for different non-glossonyms. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• @-sche Just such a BP discussion happened in Sep 2022 (initiated by Polansky). The result was 3 in favour of keeping them (including Polansky and myself, for transparency) and 1 in favour of deleting. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 20:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Limitless and utterly predictable SoP pattern. As I mentioned somewhere else, having a definition for "non-" as a prefix conveniently means that we do not need to individually list the almost literally limitless number of combinations that mean exactly what it says at "non-". Mihia (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all four as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

September 2023

dynamics

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

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

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

be at

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

lavalier microphone

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

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

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

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

in conclave

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

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

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

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

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)

October 2023

square root of fuck all

Tagged for speedy deletion but I feel like it should be discussed hence I've opened this discussion. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There are a few hits for things like "square root of nada/nothing/zilch", etc. Not enough to easily justify entries for them individually, but enough to show some productivity. Then there's "nothing squared" and "twice nothing"... Chuck Entz (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any need for what is a long-winded sum of parts, one of which is potentially offensive. DonnanZ (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) sum

Er, it's not a sum of parts because there is no sense at square root that applies here. Neither is offensiveness a reason for us to exclude things. You're just making stuff up. Equinox ◑ 14:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. I didn't add "vulgar" to fuck all, which means "absolutely nothing" anyway. You will probably get away with this with the quotes you have dredged up. DonnanZ (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You're throwing ad-hominems whereas I proved you wrong with logic. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It'll be the heat death of the universe before @Donnanz reads WT:CFI. Theknightwho (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how CFI works?????????????????? CitationsFreak (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep: not SoP (it doesn't mean "mathematical zero", and square root only has mathematical definitions). Send to RFV if we must verify it. Equinox ◑ 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

square root of nothing is also attested, as are square root of bugger all and square root of jack shit (though I only see one good GB hit). Are there others? If yes, I think the SOP argument could hold water, though I'm not sure (maybe all of these deserve entries? Or is it a snowclone?) PUC – 14:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say add something to the square root entry on this. Not sure how to word it, tho. CitationsFreak (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There is also the square root of sod all, but it doesn't deserve an entry. DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete: Not a set phrase; "square root of" (or maybe "square root") is. CitationsFreak (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Move to something, but I'm not sure whether "square root" or "square root of" is a better location to host the definition. The problem is that grammatically "square root" is a noun, but it is used solely as an adverbial/adjectival intensifier for a noun meaning "nothing" (i.e. square root of fuck all is a set phrase except that one of the components is flexible). So I don't know how to define "square root" as a noun. We could define "square root of" as "basically; essentially" but that would mess with the parse tree. Perhaps we could move to square root of nothing and be clear that nothing is being used as a pronoun rather than an idiomatic component of the set phrase (similar to our use of one and someone in proverbs), and explain the situation in the usage notes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you say "square root of absolutely nothing"? "square root of jack squat"? "square root of fucking nothing"? Google says yes to all three. I say delete, add something to "square root". MedK1 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@MedK1 What would you propose as a valid gloss definition for square root? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps exactly what's at square root of fuck all but preceded by "{{lb|with a term meaning nothing|"? I actually think it might be best for it to be added at the usage notes section instead, something along the lines of "May be used with a term meaning 'nothing' for an emphatic synonym of nothing." MedK1 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning keep. To what, exactly would this be SOP? bd2412 T 00:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

adoptive mother

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

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

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

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

• Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

pro-Hamas and anti-Hamas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pro-Israel and anti-Israel

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

• Delete these and all similar. Limitless, blatantly SoP pattern. Mihia (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

pro-Russian and anti-Russian

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

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

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

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Others

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

anti-American and pro-American

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

(Withdrawn) (Modified)

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

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Arab

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

anti-British and pro-British

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

pro-Indonesian

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

anti-Jew and pro-Jew

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

anti-Palestinian and pro-Palestinian

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

anti-Slavism and pro-Slavism

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

pro-US

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

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

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

META

Is this a noun? Is it even English? Is it capitalised like this? So many questions. I can understand why we have an entry for meta tag, but this one is harder to stomach. This, that and the other (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt HTML tags should be regarded as words. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The hypertext markup language is definitely not the English language or any other natural language. It is not a conlan either; HTML has no parts of speech such as nouns, verbs and adjectives, and HTML tags do not carry meaning in the sense that words in natural languages do. HTML tags are case-insensitive; one could write <mEtA property="og:title" content="META - Wiktionary, the free dictionary"> using camel case.  --Lambiam 17:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but should the "lemma" be capitalised, given that people stopped capitalising HTML tag names about 20 years ago? Thankfully, by your argument that's a moot point. This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to Translingual, preferably as lowercase. The English section was added to an existing Finnish acronym entry in 2018 for no discernible reason. @Nicole Sharp seems knowledgeable enough on technical subject matter, but not on organizing it for an online dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Not natural language. There are literally millions of programming keywords, tags, and API class/method names. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for the "keep everything" people (who begin with D): let's just look at "what's obsolete" (a very very short list of things that have been removed from the framework recently): DefineDynamicAssembly, ExecuteAssembly, ExecuteAssemblyByName, AssemblyHash, you may enjoy hundreds more on the page [6]. And this is just what's obsolete, in one specific software framework, at one point in time. And they don't have definitions. You may also want to investigate food colorants. Equinox ◑ 06:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This user beginning with D is abstaining. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Not a word in any language.  --Lambiam 11:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

<marquee>Delete</marquee>. Jberkel 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, I vote delete. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep iff there are three uses in running text. Otherwise, delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If not appropriate as a mainspace entry, then you need to move all HTML elements to a Wiktionary Appendix and create Wiktionary Appendices for other computer programming and markup languages as well. These are important terms that should be defined somewhere on Wiktionary if not in mainspace. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We do have a sister project called Wikipedia for such things … — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as not natural language. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 00:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. I can imagine this could be a word like "div", but i have never heard of "a META". I would expect "a meta tag" rather. Unless such usage has been common, this shouldn't have a page. --GreyAlien502 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

primiparous

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

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

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

I thought of that, but when I read “At 10–11 months postpartum, primiparous mothers continued to be more attentive”,^[7] or “3 months postpartum, when primiparous mothers have become familiar with their infants”,^[8] the present participle is too present. In fact, all GBS hits I see for primiparous mother are about postpartum behaviour or offspring survival statistics.  --Lambiam 16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

school-age

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

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

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

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

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

fat lot of good

Noun: of no use or help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blue light

Rfd-sense:"Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum generated by an electronic device." Is this (sense 4) actually different from the &lit sense 5? I'm not sure. Ƿidsiþ 06:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is another sense: “Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum produced by the light of an incandescent light source passing through a blue colour filter”.^[9] Also, “Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum emitted by the daytime sky, caused by Rayleigh scattering”.^[10] As sense 4 is merely “Visible light having the colour of the clear sky or the deep sea, between green and purple in the visible spectrum”, without specifying the light source, I imagine we can expect many more precisely specified senses. In other words, Delete.  --Lambiam 18:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

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

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

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

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

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

Al Jazeera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accessory before the fact

accessory after the fact

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

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

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

Undeletion of ancient Greek

Deleted in 2014 with the rationale “This is a mistake not an alternative form. Hardly worth creating {{misspelling of}} entries for wrong capitalization.” Since then, there have been two sections on the talk page:

Not a mistaken form

Pace the editors above, lower-case ancient is more (not less) common when dealing with the people and adjective, with an established meaning very much more restrictive than simply the SOP of "anything very old related to Greece". Ancient Greek may be written either way, albeit it's increasingly common (as we learn ancient Greek less often) to give the name "Greek" to the modern form and instead describe ancient Greek as an all-capped thing-unto-itself.

Further, Ancient Greek is properly restricted to the Greek of antiquity. The phrase however is sometimes used (as in ISO 639) as inclusive of all Greek up to 1453, a sense where it should be lower-case (but still not SOP). — LlywelynII 22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ancient Greek

ancient Greek is definitely more common than Ancient Greek for adjectival use, which is actually the commonest use as well. See this ngram, and compare ancient Near Eastern, ancient Roman... which are also more common than Ancient Near Eastern ([12]) and Ancient Roman ([13]).

A core principle of the Wiktionary is Wiktionary:Descriptivism.

92.184.116.35 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Ancient Greek entry has a usage note for the noun, which correctly states, “Usually, ancient is not capitalized in this sense”, with a hidden comment linking to the Google Ngram Viewer. Both the adjective and the noun are more commonly ancient Greek. Further, MLA style states in its page “Does MLA style capitalize ancient when it precedes Greece or Greek?”, “No. We follow Merriam-Webster, which indicates that the terms ancient and classical are not capitalized when they are attached to names of languages or periods.” It is clear that this is not a “mistake”, as was stated in the RfD, and also, as mentioned above, inconsistent with having the entries ancient Roman (more common form of Ancient Roman) and ancient Rome (which is the form, e.g., Wikipedia uses) or ancient Near Eastern (“of the Ancient Near East”). J3133 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Undelete per nom. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Undelete. Binarystep (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Undelete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Undelete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(Withdrawn) 01:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This should be an RFV then. Equinox ◑ 09:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried looking up some other placenames that only occur as the names of lakes and rivers, and have to admit it was more difficult than I expected. It seems that we typically just don't list these either in their bare form or with "lake" and "river" attached. The ones I did find were all used in more than one placename, e.g. Sligo, Cam, Magog, Champlain. If we move this to RFV I suppose the question would be about whether people can say Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg to mean the lake, since that is the only placename there is. I would expect that they do, though it seems at least some of the Google search results for the long name without the word "lake" are simply pages in other languages. —Soap— 11:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 11:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are saying that "Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg" alone (minus "Lake") does not exist. The way to disprove this is to find 3 cites for it. Thus RFV is the correct venue per policy. Equinox ◑ 11:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 11:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) (Modified)

@Geographyinitiative: I never saw your response at the time. However: these RFVs and RFDs are not tribunals where we seek to punish people: they are (hopefully) a way to improve the dictionary by removing low-quality material, or merging, or whatever. We have probably fought a lot, Mr Geography, but only because of disagreements on inclusion, nothing strictly personal. I hope we will continue to fight on those grounds :) Equinox ◑ 06:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

subbranch

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

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

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

Lulu

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

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

-un-

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

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

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

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

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)

DKC3

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

December 2023

mean time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

foregoing

Rfd-sense

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

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

Comment: Currently the structure is unclear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unrequited love

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

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

  I did find a couple of counterexamples (unrequited love of a mother for their child: [14] [15]) 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)

please restore adult diaper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

El Camino Real

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

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

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

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

quarter-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

do want and do not want

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

because reasons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16] [17] Word0151 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

twelve hundred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

non-English: Undeletion of "not English" sense

Deleted sense:

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

  Synonym: un-English

Sense in entry:

• Not in the English language.

  Synonym: un-English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December solstice

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

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

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

tacit collusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

run

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

The horse ran a great race.

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

The horse will run in the Preakness next year.

I'm not ready to run a marathon.

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

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

queen bee

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

• Keep or send to RFV. If the term really is used this way (outside of explanations of the metaphor), we should have a sense for it. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

biological parent

SOP: biological sense 3 + parent. Compare biological brother, biological uncle, biological grandparent, etc.; cf. also adoptive parent. PUC – 14:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Also biological child, biological son, and so on. But note (lemming test) that Collins has entries for most of these, e.g. biological parent, and so do Merriam–Webster and several medical dictionaries.  --Lambiam 20:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Good example of why I'm opposed to making WT:Lemmings a hard-and-fast rule and to giving an automatic pass to entries that meet the criterion. We can redirect the most common collocations to biological if necessary (or all of them, I don't care). PUC – 21:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I recall hearing "biological parent" used as a put-down by offspring who considered a parent to be distant or uncaring, even if it is the only parent (i.e. the birth parent is also the parenting parent, and there are no adoptive or step-parents involved). bd2412 T 14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And that’s more the tone or particular stress and possibly context that puts down, with the same denotation, not like fille meaning three different things “depending on whether you sneer in a certain way when you use it.” Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

biological mother

Same. PUC – 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

biological father

Same. PUC – 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete, we have good coverage without it. Also it’s wrong – did you know that one can have two biological mothers by mitochondrial replacement therapy? Only to illustrate the SOP nature. Fay Freak (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete all. Inqilābī 21:14, 14 July 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. [18], [19], [20]. 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)

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)

freak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aerophobia

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

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

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

February 2024

hobosexual

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

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

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

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

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

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

digital signal processing

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

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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 [21], 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)

-faction

We've had this entry since 2005, but I dispute that it is really an English suffix.

Consider the list of derived terms. None of the stems to which -faction is added are English words:

‎*lique + ‎-faction → ‎liquefaction

‎*putre + ‎-faction → ‎putrefaction

‎*tume + ‎-faction → ‎tumefaction

I suppose you could make an argument that it overrides an -id suffix:

‎liquid + ‎-faction → ‎liquefaction

‎putrid + ‎-faction → ‎putrefaction

‎tumid + ‎-faction → ‎tumefaction

But the morphological process took place in Latin, not English.

Also counting in favour of deletion is the fact that Cat:English terms suffixed with -faction is empty, meaning that no-one has found it necessary to write {{af|en|...|-faction}} in an etymology. This, that and the other (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like a relic of the days when we had English entries for this kind of thing just to collect in one place the reflexes of the cases where it was applied in Latin (we used to have sug- as an English prefix, ostensibly used in suggest). If there are not instances of it being applied in English, then delete. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right in saying it's not a suffix. The Oxford Dictionary of English calls it a combining form, from Latin factio, in nouns of action derived from verbs ending in -fy (such as liquefaction from liquefy). I think it's keepable somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

So we could add the likes of "equivalent to {{af|en|liquefy|-faction}} to liquefaction, to populate the empty category. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out the suffixes -ification, -fication, -ication, and -isation/-ization; all probably derive from -ation. With -fy verbs electrify becomes electrification as a noun, so the use of -faction is by no means universal for -fy verbs. DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Having through about this some more, it seems that the ending -efy consistently gives rise to -efaction rather than *-efication:

‎liquefy + ‎-faction → ‎liquefaction

‎putrefy + ‎-faction → ‎putrefaction

‎tumefy + ‎-faction → ‎tumefaction

But my point still stands about this being a grammatical process in Latin, not English. In support of this argument are new formations in -efy:

‎genrefy + ‎-faction → ‎*genrefaction (rather genrefication)

‎zombiefy + ‎-faction → ‎*zombiefaction (rather zombiefication)

This, that and the other (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't we already have entries for affixes (or affix variants) that are (at least mostly) only found in loanwords listed as non-productive? I don't see how this is any different from those. 2601:242:4100:22C0:FDAB:807C:167A:56D 18:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep, on the basis of English terms such as aerifaction, sonifaction, solifaction, etc. which don't exist in Latin Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Per Ioaxxere, many of these words were coined in English, even if on a Latin model, so it is a productive element and not just a fossil in loan words. kwami (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

bank loan

This is SOP. — This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talk • contribs) at 03:55, 11 February 2024.

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• I bet bankloan is attestable (I'm not the sucker who's gonna create it...) P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

time perception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

global caliphate

Seems SoP: merely a caliphate spanning the globe. Equinox ◑ 12:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not so sure. "Caliphate" simply means a state led by a caliph; if this were sum-of-parts, it would simply mean a caliphate encompassing the entire world. However, I believe the phrase is used to refer to a specific version of an Islamic theocracy, in which a particular version of Islamic law would be imposed on everyone. This would be more strict than the historical states that called themselves caliphates, and in fact while the title of caliph implies that one is the successor of Mohammed, it doesn't necessarily require theocratic rule, much less the specific vision of a particular, contemporary extremist movement. After all, the Ottoman sultans claimed the title for several centuries, and didn't operate as a strict theocracy! This seems to me to be more along the lines of "New World Order", which doesn't mean just "any global order that happens to be new", but which has specific social or cultural meaning that can't be intuited from the words alone. P Aculeius (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  "American caliphate" exists, meaning something along the lines of "America, but with Sharia law". I suspect that we're missing a def at caliphate. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Inqilābī 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• RFD failed Denazz (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

boo

This is my first nomination, so I hope I'm doing this right! Sense 2: "Used ironically in a situation where one had the opportunity to scare someone by speaking suddenly." I don't understand how this is a definition of "boo". Do words normally have distinct definitions when used ironically? I'm also having trouble visualizing this use, which seems rather nonsensical to me. Maybe I could just have deleted this as obvious nonsense, but I wasn't sure that would have been appropriate, and I thought I'd better seek feedback first. Also, and I don't know whether this should (or needs to be) discussed here or in a separate nomination, but I'm not sure that sense 1 needs the words "especially a child". Perhaps children are more likely to shout, "boo!" or be shouted "boo!" at than adults, but I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the definition of the word. And could I just have "been bold" and deleted one or both of these things? Most of my contributions on Wiktionary have been new definitions, rewording, or comments on talk pages, so I'm a little unsure of myself. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. “to scare someone by speaking suddenly” seems oddly specific. And every kind of child-directed speech can be used ironically. So this definition in question is at least superfluous in combination with the other questionable definition, the claim of the target of scaring being a child, so something must be deleted.

To get the real picture, scaring is not to be taken literal anyway. In affective neuroscience after Panksepp we assume rough-and-tumble Play as a basic emotional system positive in contrast to Fear, and by saying boo one targets the former primary-process system in order to train or maintain social interaction as a function of the age, i.e. booing is always “ironical”, so one should combine definitions with the line that the interjection is used to playfully introduce a sudden scare. The definition in the words “loud exclamation intended to scare” took itself way too serious. Fay Freak (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with that last point. Shouting "boo!" when one jumps out at someone isn't necessarily ironic. A bit camp, perhaps, but that's only because our notion of what's scary—for adults—has changed, likely due to familiarity with horror movies and similar tropes. I don't think that playfulness or social interaction theory form any part of the definition of "boo". The definition is what it means, not what interpersonal dynamics might justify its use. "A loud exclamation intended to scare" is at least simple, straightforward, and accurate, whether or not grown-ups regard it as childish compared with a jump scare by an axe-wielding maniac. P Aculeius (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I have witnessed this. For example, someone is (apparently) alone in a room, and you draw attention to your presence by (quietly saying, not shouting) "boo". It's humorous. Equinox ◑ 11:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it can't be used ironically or humorously. I'm asking whether that constitutes a separate definition of it. It seems to be "the same meaning, but used ironically". Is it normal to have a separate definition for anything that can be said ironically or humorously? Perhaps the visualization issue is due to the wording: in your example, the presence of the person saying "boo" is either known, but unannounced until the person speaks, in which case there was no "opportunity to scare someone"; or the person's presence was not known, in which case quietly saying "boo" will still scare (or at least startle) someone, and therefore not be ironic. But either way, I don't think that ironic use of a word or phrase constitutes a separate definition. Is it normally treated as one in Wiktionary, or is there something special about this word? P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

With no further feedback, I've gone ahead and deleted the second sense, and done a little trimming of the other two, as indicated above, and also deleting the words "or many members" as an alternative to "a member" in sense 3; I think readers will assume that what one person in a crowd can do, several can also do. Also slight rewording of the first: it seems a little extreme to refer to someone frightened by a concealed person shouting "boo" as a "victim". P Aculeius (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

will to power, will-to-power

should not exist Word0151 (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Word0151: Why? You are challenging a well-known and famous philosophical term. You must provide an excellent reason. Equinox ◑ 04:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

will to power is an SOP actually, just like will to truth, will to stupidity. Nietzsche used this 'will to' in a similar manner as other "will to"s. Do we create the entry- will to truth to show what truth means to Nietzsche?
What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. -Nietzsche. What power means here, why create an entry for? Word0151 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep and yes, create the others. This term isn't SOP because it doesn't make sense in English. It's a calque of a German expression, which may well have been SOP in the original context, but certainly doesn't retain it's SOPness in English, where the grammatical structure is quite opaque. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does it not make sense in English?
To be succinct, will to power just means will to power. All other contemplations, what power means etc., are of no dictionary value, and doesn't add much. Word0151 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If I want to go shopping, that isn't "will to shopping" in English. This phrase is special. Equinox ◑ 06:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

=> Do you mean that since the phrase "will to" is not used colloquially, we should include it? Not an impressive refutation.
=> The phrase is special for sure and has a connotation, but what is its value here? Look at the superficial definitions given there, do they make sense. I have tried changing them. keep if my edit is not reverted 🦇 Word0151 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of shallow idiosyncrasies in philosophy whose presence in any lexicon one may be uneasy about (language game), yet this has caught on enough to require explanation and hence a dictionary entry, though our explanation will stay imperfect. Fay Freak (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not the sum of its parts, because you can't determine the meaning from the words alone. I know what each of those words means, but not what they mean together. Does it mean "the will to obtain power"? "Will that becomes power"? "The will to use power"? You can't tell what this phrase means simply by understanding the individual words—unlike, say, "go over there" or "five fat turkeys". Those are the sum of their parts. Without a definition, and perhaps the quote in context, nobody would know what "will to power" means, which is why it needs an entry in Wiktionary. P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per all of the above. PUC – 19:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to close as keep, but I noticed the nominator drastically changed the definition. I am tempted to just revert the change, but I know nothing of this kind of philosophy so was hoping for a second look. This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@PUC If you don't know what i did, why revert? I can give you reasoning for my edit though: the earlier definitions were really absurd with irrelevant expositions, i used the one which is in many dictionaries and also in the book Antichrist by Nietzsche himself. The definitions should be simple and in a fundamental manner without some opinion pieces. Word0151 (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Magnificat and Nunc dimittis

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

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

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

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

racial segregation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diriment impediment

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

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

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

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

polynomial time

Rfd-sense: adjective. Seems just to exist to house the translations Denazz (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

True. The occurrences in question are parts of compounds like the German translation given. So delete. The translation table can be moved to the noun section, for even though we voted to delete attributive-form sections, we did not take the same decision specifically for their translation sections. Some people in the vote opposed (6.: Ketiga123 only formulated it) deletion of the hyphenated-form entries for the translations’ sake. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 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)

-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)

blue ribbon jury

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

time gentleman please

time gentlemen please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through

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

From beginning to end.

The baby cried the whole night through.

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

To the end.

He said he would see it through.

The adverb usage example would work pretty well:

He said he would see the crying through.

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

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

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

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

language resource

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

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

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

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)

-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”‎^[22]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)

Îdinism

Îdinist as well. The entries speak for themselves. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Send to RFV I don't see any RfD matters here. If the question is whether the term is citable, then WT:RFV is the correct venue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is someone’s pet protologism born in a Discord server not a convincing enough candidate for deletion? There’s nothing to verify. I should’ve nominated it for speedy deletion, now that I think of it. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. It's not clear why a word "derived from the native name of the Romanian letter î (“î din i”), combined with the suffix -ism" should describe "a movement to promote the removal of the letter ⟨â⟩". Our entry seems to be missing the important piece of information that (according to example in linked UD entry) letter 'â' would be removed "in favour of the letter 'î'", I suppose meaning that â would be replaced by î? Anyway, if this entry is kept it would be useful to clarify this point. Mihia (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  To provide some context: The Romanian alphabet comprises two letters ('â' and 'î') that produce the same sound, without exception. The sole difference between the letters (speaking in absolute terms) is manifested in spelling. The orthographic rule pertaining to these two mandates that the sound these letters produces (IPA [ɨ]) is represented by 'î' when found at the front (first letter) or back (last letter) of the word: 'înger', 'încă', 'a urî'; and by 'â' when found 'inside' the word: 'mână', 'lângă', 'a sâsâi'.

  The concept the term 'Îdinism' seeks to describe would be the movement, effort or otherwise an orthographic preference to remove the redundancy of having two letters describing the same sound in favour of a single letter, which in this case would be 'î', as opposed to 'î' and 'â'.

  To give further context: What 'Îdinism' captures has historic precedent in Romanian orthography, though I'm personally not aware of any particular formal term that was historically used to describe this variant of the orthography. The informal term I am familiar with for this practice is what's called the 'Communist orthography', source of which being the fact that this orthography was once official in Romania in the years 1953-1993, during the Communist period.

  For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_alphabet#%C3%8E_versus_%C3%82 Vxern (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Abh. Berl. Akad.

I dispute the English section. Would a cite like

• 2014, Frederick C. Beiser, The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism, 1796-1880, Oxford University Press, USA, →ISBN, page 25:

  The first role became clear with the reaction against psychologistic interpretations of Kant, which began with Hermann Cohen's Kants Theorie der Erfahrung in 1871. […] When, in 1847, Apelt and his fellow editors founded the Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule, they declared the importance of Fries' legacy to consist in his opposition to “Schellingian Neo-Platonism” and “Hegelian scholasticism”, and in his attempt to found philosophy on the methodology of the empirical sciences.

mean Kants Theorie der Erfahrung and Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule were now not only the German but also the English titles of those works? I think not! I do not think that citing, effectively quoting, the German abbreviated form of a title makes it English, either. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Unfortunately, this was the solution insisted upon by 93.221.34.66. See Talk:Abh. Berl. Akad. / Talk:Abh.Berl.Akad. and Citations:Abh.Berl.Akad.. What should be done about Abh.Berl.Akad. if Abh. Berl. Akad. is deleted? 0DF (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect it, if we want to keep it, or even better (now that I think about it), delete it. We don't include full work titles like Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule. We include "ASPCA"-type abbreviations, but for things like "Am. Soc. for Pharmacology", "Am. Soc. for Exp. Path.", "Assoc. of Am. Phys.", "Soc. for Exp. Biol. and Med.", "Am. Soc. for Steel Treating", I think the proper approach is entries for the individual components, not entries like Am. Soc. for Pharmacology or Abh. Berl. Akad.. - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Doesn't the fact that Abh.Berl.Akad. is unspaced (in a language that uses spaces) mean that it warrants inclusion? Then Abh. Berl. Akad. would warrant inclusion on the basis of the coal mine test. 0DF (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether parts of a term are delimited by a period/full stop or by a period/full stop + a space is not as important as whether they're delimited at all- it's almost like the difference between one space and two spaces. The coal mine test seems to be more about whether something is delimited at all. I'm also not so sure it's applicable at all to abbreviations. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. With hyphens, too: something like "I'm-going-to-make-you-want-me-until-you-ask-me-home" (or shorter and more common, "let's-do-this") is technically "unspaced", but it'd never survive RFD; the hyphens clarify what the parts to look up individually are as well as spaces would. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, -sche: Please see Citations:AbhBerlAkad for English, German, and Italian citations sans delimiting periods. FWIW, I wasn't the one who created an English entry for Abh.Berl.Akad. and having an English entry for that and/or Abh. Berl. Akad. distinct from a German entry for it/them was not my preference. We have citations of various spellings of this abbreviation in English, German, Italian, and Spanish. In how many languages must there be evidence of use for a term to be considered translingual? 0DF (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@0DF: The coalmine test applies only to English terms that are sometimes written as separate words and sometimes written as a single English word. "AbhBerlAkad" is definitely not a single English word. Even without the dots or spaces, it's still an abbreviation, and I would also contend that it's not English. It's an abbreviation of the German title of a German publication. If it were an abbreviation of something like "Papers of the Berlin Academy", that would be different. As to whether it's translingual: there are are two ways that terms can exist in the text of various languages without being part of those languages: they can be completely independant of any one language, or they can belong to a single language and be mentioned or quoted by others. H²O or Homo sapiens sapiens are translingual. They may be borrowed into a language for some senses, but for the core meaning they're not part of any one language. "Abhandlungen der Berliner Academie" is German, and remains German regardless of the surroundng text. That's the other way: mentions and verbatim quotes in the original language. If I say "We read an excerpt from Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu in French class", that doesn't make "À la recherche du temps perdu" translingual (nor is it English- even though it was mentioned in a Monty Python sketch). I'm sorry if the IP editor from Paderborn gave you a hard time- they're quite knowledgable, but they're also idiosyncratic, opinionated and stubborn. That doesn't mean we should rewrite CFI to suit them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I share the same view as Chuck Entz expressed, and I think we all have the same conviction. Maintaining bibliographic abbreviations is not completely useless. Sometimes an abbreviation is used in a field without it being transparent for outsiders how to resolve it, so the general dictionary can help; also the encyclopedia does but they have often insurmountable relevancy criteria not tailored for mere purposes of merely understanding a denotate. But of all things in a publication, the references are the most likely not to be in the language the publication is written in. IP applied fallacious logics throughout, and attempted to achieve minority domination by sneaking them into new cognitive conflicts we were not provided against because falsehoods are innumerous, that’s how there are always some that stick: → illusory truth effect, → firehose of falsehood.

What is the point of the names of some academic series of books being translated? Like after less than ten clicks on De Gruyter I find “Koloniale und Postkoloniale Linguistik / Colonial and Postcolonial Linguistics (KPL/CPL)”? Because obviously they are in one language otherwise, whether abbreviated or not. But according to IP logics if in a reference in a German opus as well as in an English opus we have this whole string then this whole string, I linked, can have both a German and an English section, and so on for occurrences in French, Persian, Italian, and other texts. Fay Freak (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @-sche, Chuck Entz, Fay Freak: I suggest we have a German entry for Abh. Berl. Akad. with redirects to it from Abh.Berl.Akad. and AbhBerlAkad, with a usage note in that entry stating that the abbreviation is also used in other languages, in which cases the Paderborner's asserted proscription in German against spaceless abbreviations like Abh.Berl.Akad. is sometimes not observed. Would you all be happy with that resolution? It would, in my opinion, be the most accurate way of describing actual usage. 0DF (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche, Chuck Entz, Fay Freak: I hope that none of you will object to my presumption in interpretting the foregoing deafening silence as a mark of your enthusiastic and unanimous assent. I have made the changes I described; now the entry looks like this. Please let me know if you are unhappy with it in its present form. 0DF (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm (still) inclined to delete this, and the German entry as well. We seem to generally not have modern book, journal, magazine, etc titles, nor their short forms; we don't have Philosopher's Stone as a common short form of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, we specifically RFD-deleted HP1 (we also deleted Liber AL vel Legis) ... and I would not, personally, consider a few people typoing or ineptly writing Philosopher'sStone to abruptly make Philosopher's Stone includable. So it's still a delete from me. Other people may reach different conclusions (as WT:NSE says, there's no overarching agreement on things like this, so it comes down to case-by-case RFDs). - -sche (discuss) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Well, in favour of keeping this, I'll say that it was quite difficult to work out what exactly this abbreviation refers to, and that I'm sure others will be puzzled by it and will want to know what it means; our entry could well save others the trouble I had. With a view to preserving that usefulness somewhere, I've spruced up the German entries for Abh., Berl., und Akad. If the entry for Abh. Berl. Akad. is indeed deleted, I'll triplicate the quotations in Citations:Abh. Berl. Akad. at Citations:Abh., Citations:Berl., and Citations:Akad. and add some to their respective entries, in the hope that this will catch searches for the various forms. The etymological note (“Strictly speaking, an abbreviation of the informal shorthand form Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie [‘Treatises of the Berlin Academy’]. There is considerable historical variation in the way writers referred to the Academy and to its periodical.”) and usage note (“German orthography prescribes that, in an abbreviated phrase, spacing be retained between each abbreviated word and the next; that regulation is almost universally observed wherever Abh. Berl. Akad. occurs in German texts. Other languages are less observant of this rule, however, with divergent forms such as AbhBerlAkad. [Italian] and Abh.Berl.Akad. [English and Spanish] occasionally occurring.”) will be lost if Abh. Berl. Akad. is deleted, perhaps to the anonymous Paderborner's chagrin, but hell, at least I tried to accommodate his/her concerns. 0DF (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

galaxy, sense #4

This is a poorly-contrived sense/definition:

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

With such quotes as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philippines

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

May 2024

araneomorph funnel-web spider

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

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

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

two-legged beast

It's descriptive, but not idiomatic. Compare Talk:whirling void. Additionally, the citations don't match the definition; in particular, the second citation isn't derogatory, and should actually be read as two-legged + beasts of burden, not two-legged beasts + of burden as the page suggests. Binarystep (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. As you say, one citation is no good, and the other seems doubtful. Equinox ◑ 21:05, 10 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

autokinetic illusion

Sum of parts. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• : Delete. Quite right, mea culpa, the entry seems self-explanatory. Saviourofthe (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Binarystep (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

channel coal

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.

Please see my talk page: [23]. By the way, I might delete this later, so if anyone wants to archive and copy it here, feel free, just let me know.

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

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

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

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

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

Achilles tendon reflex time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

box ears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

malding

Rfd-sense adjective:

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

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

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

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

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

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

disem-

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

OED has an entry for this prefix. Still delete?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For disembowel the 1933 OED also has this:

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

 --Lambiam 18:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

make-work job

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

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

time stands still

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

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

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

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

Most metaphorical phrases denote impossible situations if taken literally (“the impossible happened”;^[24] “his eyes were fiery coals”;^[25] “my blood turned into ice”^[26]). 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”^[27][28] (or “stood still”^[29][30]), 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”,^[31][32] 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

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)

interbourse

Looks like a proper noun Denazz (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete Word0151 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster has it as an adjective, which, though it's rare, can be found. The stockbrokers' annual event probably should be Interbourse. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete (well, change to proper noun), although I've added the adjective sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

sum of its parts

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

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

An autological phrase! Mihia (talk)

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)

bro's

SOP - "bro is" Ioaxxere (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: This is defined as “his” (i.e., with the possessive -'s; and “Bro's mom wants him home by 6” as a usage example), not “bro is”. J3133 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete It is SOP, alike to that dude's mother. The usage might be slangular though. Word0151 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP: he + 's. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I assume you mean -'s (possessive); we have he's as “he is”, though. J3133 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - I assume this was made because bro is a pronoun, and bro's is the equivalent possessive form (i.e. he-his, bro-bro's), but there's a key difference: possessive forms in English aren't usually applied to nouns individually, but to noun phrases as a whole. This means regular nouns and pronouns don't (have to) take the possessive form when used as part of a noun phrase (e.g. in "John and Jenny's house", John does not (have to) take the possessive form John's; it's usually just applied to the whole noun phrase John and Jenny). The irregular pronouns break this trend (e.g. it's "his and her house", never "he and her house"), which I think is an important difference, as it makes them vestiges of a true possessive case which other nouns and pronouns don't have. bro is not one of those exceptional cases.

Theknightwho (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - bro is, in this sense, a pronoun, and we tend to keep the possessive form of pronouns even if it is formed with -'s. one's is the clearest example, but we also have y'all's, nobody's, one another's and even which's (kind of a weird nonstandard one). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 15:49, 13 July 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)

June 2024

dont tread on me

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

the Gadsden Flag contains the phrase without an apostrophe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

see of

Trivial SOP of see with the partitive of (unlike hear of which has idiomatic senses). In fact I'm having a hard time even parsing it as a single phrasal verb being as it is only ever used with some kind of quantity (some, a lot, a bit etc.) in between, and the of is dependent on that quantity term. 86.145.57.59 14:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that there might be an element of idiomaticity in cases such as "We've seen a lot of Roger and Daisy" (sense 1 example), versus, say, "I've seen a lot of the film", but it is hard to identify that this resides in "see of". The second sense, "to spend time at an attraction or event", seems unconvincing. I can't see how "see of" is in itself a unit of meaning in any dictionary-relevant way, so as it stands, delete. Mihia (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete; I agree with the logic of the IP and User:Mihia. Benwing2 (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Many verbs with a subject could claim such an entry (think of, speak of, dream of, read of, write of, inquire of), but that makes the collocation trivially SOP. bd2412 T 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's SOP, I'd say it's not the right way of treating those "verb + preposition" combinations. We have templates for that ({{indtr}} or {{+preo}}). I would delete (or rather redirect) hear of for the same reason. PUC – 21:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say that hear of is plenty idiomatic enough. Mihia (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not idiomatic, I'm questioning the usefulness of having a separate entry, rather than separate senses at hear. PUC – 09:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's the same issue, isn't it? We have a separate entry for "hear of", as opposed to relying on "hear" + "of", because it is idiomatic enough (both senses, I would say, but the second sense even more so). Mihia (talk) 17:40, 16 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)

human evolution

animal name + evolution. SoP. Wikiuser815 (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I note a fallacy in this logic: humans have a special position in sciences forasmuch as we ourselves are humans plus humans are different from other animals in most aspects that easily guarantee the inclusion of terms containing ‘human’. We would never treat dog evolution or for that matter dog-kind as lexicalized stuff, but would definitely keep human evolution, human race, human sacrifice, and the like. Hence strong keep as a term used in biology and anthropology. Inqilābī 13:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

In biology, humans aren't distinct from other animals. human race and human sacrifice aren't biological terms, but this one is. Wikiuser815 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s why I also mentioned anthropology, in which humans are distinct from other animals. Inqilābī 13:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't talk about "the dog race" etc., and as for "human sacrifice", it probably meets CFI because of sense 2: we say "sacrificial dog", "sacrificial goat" etc., but typically not "a sacrificial human", and we don't say "dog sacrifice" of a dog that's sacrificed and so on. Wikiuser815 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, we don't generally say "dog evolution" or "cat evolution" either, which was Inqilābī's point, but it's not as clear-cut as those two examples. Theknightwho (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

For some reason we say human medicine and family medicine and general practice (that is German Allgemeinmedizin, literally “general medicine”, the most common of the Facharzt specializations necessary to practice independent of another physician after licence, and also Humanmedizin has to be contrasted with a career in Tiermedizin ‘veterinary medicine’) and from there we reach human genetics and a fortiori could keep human evolution, like we keep oral mucositis. I admit this argument is a bit contrived, but I am at a loss for now. The argument of it being a biology term, as which it would be SOP, may not hold water if you approach it with a bit of medical training. Fay Freak (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They aren't the main terms for the evolution of dogs or cats (unlike human evolution, for the evolution of humans) if that's the point. "shark evolution" and "ant evolution" were what made me RFD thisWikiuser815 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't say "dog evolution", but there's nothing wrong with "canine evolution", "feline evolution", "equine evolution", "murine evolution", etc. You just have to use an adjective rather than a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC –

I see nothing in the definition that is not pretty transparently "human" + "evolution". Delete. Mihia (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

native element

SoP; native (sense 7) + element — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 10:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, entry author worded it more complicated than it is. See also Talk:native aluminium and alluminio nativo still running, from the same. Fay Freak (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Inqilābī 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

steal credit

to claim somebody else's contribution as one's own, often at the expense of that person

SOP: just steal (“to appropriate without giving credit or acknowledgement”) + credit (“recognition, respect and admiration”).

Note that "steal credit" is generally followed by "for", as in, "X stole credit for Y", so it's just saying they unjustly appropriated recognition, respect and admiration for doing something. Even where it isn't, it's implied by context. It's also not bound: "took credit", "stole undue credit", "stole recognition" etc. Theknightwho (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it also possible to "steal credit" in the financial sense? E.g., by taking out a loan in another person's name, relying on their good credit history. bd2412 T 04:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

take credit

Same issue. Theknightwho (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete both steal credit, SOP. Abstain on take credit. PUC – 18:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep "take credit". Strongly a set phrase. We virtually never say things like "I'm going to take recognition for that", or "I'm going to take praise for that", or "I'm going to take approval for that", or "I'm going to take acknowledgement for that", etc. Mihia (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia Yes, but you can use a variety of verbs with credit (in fact, pretty much anything that can mean steal), which means that's where the sense belongs. The fact that recognition, praise, approval and acknowledgement aren't exact synonyms (i.e. can't be used in the precise same way) isn't relevant. Theknightwho (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mihia. Keep "take credit". DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete both as clearly SoP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

the math ain't mathing

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

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

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

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)

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)

Poundland

Rfd-sense A British chain of pound shops. Not notable - should go in the etymology section for the adjective sense. Theknightwho (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. But I hasten to point out, lest newcomers are confused, that WT:CFI has no "notability" criterion and we are not in the habit of using one. WT:COMPANY is unnecessarily terse and conflates the concepts of the entry and the individual sense, so we could definitely tidy up its wording to reflect actual practice. This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - that was crappy reasoning: the issue is that we don't generally include brands simply because they are brands. Theknightwho (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, WT:BRAND, right. This may actually pass that criterion if people are using "Poundland" as a metaphor for (say) cheapness, where context does not provide sufficient clues to discern the metaphor (see WT:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names). One would need to go cite-hunting. This, that and the other (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other The metaphor sense is really common (to the point I'd argue it's everyday English in the UK), but only attributively, and usually as "Poundland version" or "Poundland-esque" etc etc. However, the literal brand itself should probably be mentioned only in the etymology section. Theknightwho (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 100% agreed. The entry has also been fixed up a bit since the RFD was opened. I'm back to my original "delete" stance then. This, that and the other (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't often go in Poundland, but I thought it's a trading name, not a brand. DonnanZ (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz It's both, and a trade name is arguably a kind of brand by definition, as it's what the business advertises themselves as (i.e. it's how they brand themselves). Plus, in the narrower sense, they do also sell Poundland-branded products, I guess. Theknightwho (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

So if it's both, which name is better known, Poundland or Boots? (See separate RFD). I imagine it's Boots, which has been around for much longer, and also markets its own products (maybe bog rolls even). DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As a person who lives in the freest country on God's green Earth (America), I'd say "Poundland". I think I've heard the term before in British media, but never "Boots". CitationsFreak (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak For context, Boots is the other half of the Walgreens Boots Alliance, and in the UK it has about the same level of brand recognition that Walgreens does in the US. Theknightwho (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Are we confident that the alleged adjective sense is a true adjective and not an attributive noun? Mihia (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to attributive noun. I don't believe it is truly an adjective. Yes, you can probably find examples of "very Poundland" etc., but the same goes for any brand, e.g. "very Tesco", "very Armani" ... virtually anything. This is a feature of English that does not automatically make these words adjectives, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete brand sense, now that we have it as an attributive noun (which we should keep). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:18, 27 June 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)

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)

@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)

get into it

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

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

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

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

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)

busted my neck

busted his neck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buddhist flag

SoP of Buddhist + flag, in which the meaning (flag designed as universal symbol of Buddhism) is also clearly unidiomatic.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah delete. Inqilābī 13:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Is "Buddhist flag" limited to this particular design? Theknightwho (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho No. See the Wikipedia article. Possibly "universal Buddhist flag" would be limited to this design (maybe ...), but "Buddhist flag" by itself can refer to all sorts of things. Benwing2 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

leaf lard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mixed nuts

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

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

tomato juice

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

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

ground beef

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

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

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

Communist Party of China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2024

quadratic equation

(edit: also for cubic equation, linear equation, etc. that exist)

• Delete: SOP. —Svārtava · 14:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Noting that we also have cubic equation, but none higher as far as I can see, albeit I forget the terminology now after "quintic". Also we have linear equation. Mihia (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I already considered them similar enough to be "speedily deleted per precedent" if this RFD is successful hence I didn't take the pain of finding all of such terms and listing them, but now I have added them to this section only (seems acceptable, as no other votes have been cast). —Svārtava · 02:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Purplebackpack89 11:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. A user might add this definition for the adjective bad:
          (banking) Of a bank, created to specialize in the ownership of defaulted loans and their collection.
  Another user could then nominate bad bank for deletion as being SOP. But, perhaps, we should not add definitions of adjectives with a meaning for such a specific application; rather, we could list the combination as a derived term.  --Lambiam 20:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Quadratic in mathematics is a general term for "2 degree" and used in various such SOP phrases like quadratic expression, quadratic function, quadratic polynomial, quadratic equation, etc. —Svārtava · 03:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Probably don’t delete- can be kept as translation hub. Inqilābī 14:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep per Inqilabi: see French équation du second degré. PUC – 09:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all. Very common set terms in algebra. linear equation and quadratic equation is covered by most major dictionaries (OED, AHD, M-W, Collins etc.). M-W also includes cubic equation. I have improved the quadratic entry a bit, and added quotes showing it can be used in non-technical contexts as well. Einstein2 (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

human death

SOP? PUC – 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete unless some non-SoP and verifiable sense is added. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

human life

As above PUC – 21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Same as above for human death. It does appear as SOP, but it is an actual, distinct term/definition in the field of law, used in briefs and legal documents. mynewfiles (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not. Beginning and end of it are debatable, and hinge on the biodiagnostics available at the time of debate. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that every court defines "human life" as starting when the sperm fertilizes the egg. CitationsFreak (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The beginning point is definitely a matter of POV that we shouldn't spell out in such detail. A fertilized ovum is definitely alive, and it's human, but that's also true of skin cells. The question of whether it's a human life in the same way as a newborn infant as opposed to being like an unfertilized ovum is a matter of vehement debate and people are fighting and dying over it. That sure looks like something beyond SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hence my reason for creating it. mynewfiles (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as it stands; the current overspecificity is, well, overspecific; different people/works/etc define the beginning differently, so if we clean that up ("beginning from [one person's ideas]" → ~"beginning at its beginning", like all things) it's clearer that it's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I added cites to both human life and human death to illustrate their unique usages. mynewfiles (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongest delete possible. SOP and seems to exist primarily as a sneaky way to push an anti-abortion POV. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That was not my intention at all. I have no opinion on the matter of abortion. mynewfiles (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One does not inadvertently define "human life" as "beginning from the fertilization of the human egg." This is not objective scientitic fact. It's not even an uncontested philosophical position. It's a religious tenet that only gets invoked in the context of arguments for banning abortion, conctraception, IVF, and stem-cell research. In any case this needs to be nuked from orbit. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That may be your view, but the topic of abortion was emphatically never on my mind when I created this entry. There's no need to be overly aggressive in your incorrect assumptions of others. mynewfiles (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edit history includes Pledge of Allegiance and Nasty Pelosi. Forgive me for finding it doubtful you lack familiarity with the texture of debate surrounding an issue that's been at the forefront of American politics for 60 years. In any case, this is SOP. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your assumptions are once again becoming more and more incorrect and ridiculous with each subsequent reply. I've created hundreds of entries with a multitude of meanings of various political persuasions. mynewfiles (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not neutral to define "human life" as beginning at "fertilization" whether or not it was done so with the intent to forward an ideological position. It's not a neutral definition in and of itself. It's possible for definitions to reference contested ideas (for want of a better term) without presenting said ideas as objective fact. In this entry that could take the form of something like: "a human being and their biological and social development (variously defined in law and ethics as beginning at points from fertilization to birth)." I still think this entry isn't inclusion-worthy for strictly CFI reasons. But it would've been fully possible to construct this definition in a way that didn't set off alarm bells. I'm not the only one to have pointed out the "fertilization" definition is problematic. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should check on their edits. It all seems too ... weird to not have some bias. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as a term of art, though it needs proper explaining. Nothing to do with abortion, either, and we wouldn’t delete it on that basis if it did. Theknightwho (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a "term of art" (i.e., a technical term) for which there is no corollary Wikipedia article. Just a disambiguation page pointing to some articles on topics readers might connect to the phrase "human life." Wikipedia doesn't seem to want to define this as a concept when it can do so with the scope afforded by an encyclopedia. Why should we, a dictionary, seek to define it in their stead? There is no singular definition. Any definition will inevitably be uselessly vague and overbroad, or forwarding a narrow agenda. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho, how would you describe it? CitationsFreak (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per my take on #human evolution. Inqilābī 12:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

But you haven't made a cogent argument there? PUC – 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. Inqilābī 16:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I changed the definition to get rid of the unrealistically narrow scope and added some usexes that show more idiomatic use. It's a set phrase that refers to one or two specific intersections of the senses of its parts- a bit of a gray area. Part of the debate over abortion, etc. hinges on the difference between the fertilized ovum as something human that's alive vs. the same as a human life- whether it's a human being or not. That seems to be the core of what makes this idiomatic. There's also completely non-idomatic usage, which muddies things up a bit. If we keep this, we should probably add {{&lit}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless some non-SoP, verifiable sense is added. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's Wiktionary's definition of death zone in which this term may appear non-SOP:

A area of land at sufficiently high altitudes inn which there is not enough oxygen to sustain human life. mynewfiles (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In this example, human life is used in a physiological/biological sense. mynewfiles (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles: that’s an SoP sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

One can also make a distinction semantically, let's say, between two different types of rights: animal rights vs. human rights. Hence, there could be a distinction between life or any of its derived variants and human life. mynewfiles (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

chemical depilatory

SoP of chemical + depilatory: I don’t see any lexicographic merit in its inclusion, though keeping it as a {{collocation}} or a redirect is an option. Inqilābī 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Double antibody suffixes

-zumab

Monoclonal antibodies are assigned names according to a complicated WHO naming sytem. The usual nomenclature is the following: [1] a variable prefix; [2] an infix referring to the medicine's target (target substem"); [3] an infix referring to the source of the antibody ("source substem"; omitted in antibodies named after 2017); [4] a suffix ("stem" = -mab for every antibody named before 2022). (E.g. abciximab: ab- +‎ -ci- (“cardiovascular”) +‎ -xi- (“chimeric”) +‎ -mab (“antibody”).) -zumab, -ximab and -umab were created by JoeyChen in 2020 after removing the entries for the standalone -zu-, -xi- and -u- (I haven't found a relevant discussion prior to the changes). However, these are merely three of the frequently co-occurring combinations of [3] and [4], and semantically are not more closely related to each other than e.g. [2] and [4]. Guidelines also treat source substems and stems as different entities. I find the treatment of these combinations as genuine suffixes misleading, therefore, I think they should be deleted (along with their categories) and removed from the etymology sections of antibody entries, while -zu-, -xi- and -u- should be reinstated as infixes. Einstein2 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

phytozome

all attestations I can find are for the comparative platform for green plant genomics Phytozome, no usage of phytozome as a name for plant genomes. Anatol Rath (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Inqilābī 15:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

theatre organ

This refers to any organ installed in a theatre, so it's SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Not really, because a) this also describes attributes and functionalities of the organ, b) most extant organs of that description aren't in silent movie theaters (which now are virtually non-existent, and c) not all "theatres" have this type of theater organ. Purplebackpack89 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The definition as currently written is, "(music) A large pipe organ, usually also containing percussion and sound effect elements, of the style found in silent film theatres.", fwiw. Purplebackpack89 03:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 Yes, that is the definition you wrote, but there are (were) plenty of Wurlitzers installed in conventional theatres, too, and those are theatre organs as well. The fact that not all theatres have a theatre organ is irrelevant. Theknightwho (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. The point is that not all theaters WITH ORGANS have this type of organ. The additional point was that this definition as currently written ISN'T SOP Purplebackpack89 20:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep, not SOP. Wurlitzer organs essentially are theatre organs, even if not installed in a theatre (see). I'd call any organ with certain distinctive features (e.g. tibia clausa stops with the distinctive wide tremulant, or percussion stops) a theatre organ. I'm sure I could find durably archived evidence if needed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Theknightwho (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

church organ

Refers to any organ installed in a church. For some reason, the definition specifies "Christian church", but I don't think that's necessary. Theknightwho (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 06:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• I will keep church organ and theatre organ because each of them is a special variation of the pipe organ, constructed very differently and sounds unique when played (I read that the theatre organ even has orchestral features and it may not be a true organ despite the name). The fact that the terms are lexically sums of parts should be irrelevant; the definitions can be improved however. Inqilābī 18:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian

Nonstandard use of capitalization. Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an alt form, I would allow it. But transsiberian is much more dubious. DonnanZ (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The prefix trans- is not normally capitalized, nor is the word trans-Siberian a proper adjective. To capitalize the T is nonstandard per capitalization of English words. It is not a valid form of the word, nor is it notable enough as a nonstandard form to merit inclusion, and should be deleted. It appears to be mistakenly reanalysed from Trans-Siberian Railway, which is indeed a proper noun.

On the other hand, transsiberian follows the older tradition of uncapitalizing a proper noun when it comes before a prefix (cf. other examples such as transalpine, transamerican, or transneptunian). This is perfectly standard in the English language, and is highly attested. What exactly do you find to be, “much more dubious”? Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 15:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. A reminder to Donnanz that whether you personally like or loathe a word bears no relevance in our inclusion, and stating your opinions thus can be confusing and misleading in a formal procedure. Inqilābī 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That's hardly necessary, but I did forget about transatlantic. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We keep non-standard spellings too, and this is not a valid ground to rfd an entry. If you doubt its attestation, then go over to WT:RFVE. Inqilābī 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So be it, then. Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 15:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We do delete rare misspellings, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, but possibly RfV I would agree with Inqilābī's assessment that the nominator didn't provide valid grounds for deletion Purplebackpack89 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added a proper noun sense, since "Trans-Siberian" is sometimes used to refer to the Trans-Siberian Railway. Theknightwho (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

declare war

A set phrase, but SOP. There's a figurative sense because war has one (war on drugs, etc.), it's not specific to this combination. As far as I can tell, none of the translations is entryworthy and warrants a THUB; these, although set phrases too, are equally SOP. PUC – 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Inqilābī 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's taken only 13½ years, from November 2010, to discover that fact. Abstain for now. DonnanZ (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

My verdict changed to keep. I found enough refs that illustrate it is indeed a set phrase with a figurative meaning. As for PUC's aversion to SoP translations, the hard work put into translations by some editors would be wasted if this entry was deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

People who regularly add translations have added translations to innumerable entries, and I don’t understand how few entries getting deleted would be a wastage of their effort. Anyway, a pro tip would be to avoid adding translations or quotations to questionable entries if you don’t want your contributions to get deleted. Inqilābī 11:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstain for now, because I feel like an indefinite article would normally be expected there. But I would also point out that if I painstakingly reconstructed The Garden of Earthly Delights by hand using only ASCII and CSS, all the hard work I would have put into it would be wasted if it were deleted. That doesn't mean it should be kept. That's a bad argument. Hythonia (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase/construction and as a translation hub. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Which translations qualify? PUC – 20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The Mandarin, Japanese, and Korean ones, mainly. But presumably most of the languages have set phrases, rather than just being any old combination of "declare" and "war", so it's useful to have this entry for those collocations as well. For instance, I suspect that "ilmoittaa sota" in Finnish would be incorrect, even though "ilmoittaa" is listed as one of the translations of the relevant sense of "declare". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep (although I think the definition is overspecific - it just seems to mean something like "to begin hostilities, or prepare for such") - phrases like "secretly declared war", "informally declared war", "silently declared war" don't work if there has to be a literal declaration involved:

• 1884, Sir Sidney Low, Frederick Sanders Pulling, The Dictionary of English History, page 292:

  In 1579 Elizabeth entered into an alliance, offensive and defensive, with Holland, and thus informally declared war against Spain.

• 1982, William L. Rivers, The Other Government: Power & the Washington Media, Universe Publishing(NY):

  To combat such favoritism, a few of the correspondents silently declared war on the president.

• 2008 June 16, Martin Dugard, The Training Ground: Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Davis in the Mexican War, 1846-1848, Hachette UK, →ISBN:

  On April 23, Mexico secretly declared war on the United States.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the two posts above. I agree that the definition should be either be generalised or a new sense or subsense created too. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I dont see any way this could be sum of parts. The nominator never explained it either. —Soap— 15:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Vergencescattered (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

CN95

Brand name used by obscure mask companies. I can't find anything from the Canadian government involving this word. Randomstaplers (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Plural form: CN95s Randomstaplers (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as I doubt if WT:BRAND is satisfied. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Monster Manual

Let's kill this fast Denazz (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, delete. Inqilābī 17:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep - doesn't feel any weirder than having entries for specific chess openings, and Dungeons & Dragons is fairly well-established at this point. Theknightwho (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If (as I initially assumed) this were a colloquial nickname for a book with a title like A Handbook of Non-Playable Races or something, it would be in a greyer area, and we could debate whether it was more like personal nicknames like Talk:J-Lo/Talk:RPattz that have (for better or worse!) been kept, or book/film-nicknames like Talk:HP1 that have been deleted... But since it in fact seems to be the official title of the book(?), it's a clear delete IMO: we don't keep the names of modern books, Wide Sargasso Sea, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, etc, and I think that's reasonable, they're not words, they're something for an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary to cover, IMO. (We only keep really old books like Genesis.) - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@-sche It's probably more accurate to say it's the name for a type of Dungeons & Dragons sourcebook, since there have been been a large number of them published over the years, and they're all referred to as "Monster Manuals". The AD&D Monstrous Compendium is still a Monster Manual.

I'd support changing the part of speech to "noun", on that basis. Theknightwho (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a common noun with a more generalized definition would probably be fine (although it does get a bit grey: surely "monster list" or "book of monsters" wouldn't be includable); I do spot some lowercase cites. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning keep per Theknightwho. bd2412 T 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think, therefore I am

Alongside I think therefore I am, presented as a proverb (which it isn't). PUC – 19:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@PUC: I have changed the forms to phrases instead to match the main entry. What about the translations with entries (e.g., French je pense, donc je suis)? J3133 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, the French, it's not a proverb. PUC – 18:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Japanese has an interesting translation 我思う、故に我在り and Chinese also seems to be a set phrase from literary Chinese, I wouldn't want them deleted. Justin the Just (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In keeping with my vote last time: keep. The fact that this has been snowcloned suggests that it has lexical value, as do the translations that Justin mentioned. This phrase is also used as something of a philosophy "catchphrase", apart from its literal context. In its original context (i.e. Descartes Meditations) it was SOP and non-idiomatic. But it has since taken on a life of its own as a set phrase. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Indeed, you've made that argument about snowclones before, but it's as bad as it was the first time. That a phrase is snowcloned doesn't prove it has lexical value in and of itself. By that token we could create the first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club (Appendix:Snowclones/first rule of X: do not talk about X). PUC – 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@PUC: Yes, I guess you're right that the snowclone argument isn't very good. I mostly reiterated that argument because no one pushed back against it last time. Nonetheless, I still think it has lexical status as a philosophy "catchphrase". It's often the only thing people know about philosophy and I've heard people use it simply to signal, "Hey, I know some philosophy too!" But I'm simply trying to express my gut feeling that the phrase is lexically significant. If other people disagree, so be it. I'm not strongly attached to this entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Fair enough, I just wanted to push back against that specific argument. PUC – 12:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Fix and keep per above Purplebackpack89 04:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fix what? PUC – 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking "fix that it was tagged as a proverb", but it's already been fixed, it's now a phrase. And @PUC, what rationale other than "it's not a proverb" do you have for deletion? Purplebackpack89 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

first grade

thirteenth grade

(Including variants like 1st grade, grade one, grade 1 etc. etc.)

Purely SoP in my opinion. I was actually surprised to find these entries. Inqilābī 22:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep per WT:HOSPITAL, along with WT:FRIED imho. Our definitions need to be updated as many, if not the vast majority, schools in the U.S. consider kindergarten to be the first grade in elementary/grade school (mine in Texas sure did). Hence first grade is usually the "second" grade that people go through, especially in states where kindergarten is required. CC: @-sche AG202 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm - this can be applied to many different systems. I guess it's not terrible, but I'm not thrilled about creating entries for the UK equivalents year 1 to year 13, which are also offset by a year (with reception being the equivalent of kindergarten). That's before you get onto the historic system(s), too. Do we really want entries for all of these? Theknightwho (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: The following rationale may be more encyclopedic in nature, but I think it's useful for when someone sees "first grade" in running text wants to look it up. They'd be able to find it here, see what it refers to, and how it's a NAm + PH-specific term. I see how it might be redundant especially with the year X examples, but I find them useful. It's helpful to know, more so for learners, that ex: the equivalent of French CE1 is actually second grade in the US, year 3 in the UK, or year 2 in Australia. The fact that it's this variable pushes me even more towards WT:HOSPITAL, and other websites like WordReference take note of this difference as well. There's still lexical info in the end. (Also thirteenth grade would have an even stronger case if our definition were more accurate...) AG202 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

For example: our grade one definition currently points to first grade, even though that's not even truly accurate. AG202 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@AG202 That's true, and we do already have sixth form (which refers to years 12, lower sixth, and 13, upper sixth), which is a weird holdover from the old system that I won't delve into here, but there used to be fifth form, fourth form etc. as well, and I think a few private schools still use that system. Without knowing about them, they're very opaque. Theknightwho (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all per AG mostly, and, if for no other reason, because without a dictionary definition, you wouldn't know if 1st grade is when you are the youngest or the oldest Purplebackpack89 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. In French it's the other way round: seconde is your second-last year of school (our entry is missing that sense, but that's more a reflection on the state of our French entries than anything else). And that's not to mention the difference between grades and forms. This is a finite and reasonably sized set of entries. So keep. This, that and the other (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I remember forms when I went to school in NZ, the term sixth form (at least) is still in use in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: some of these entries don't have proper definitions. E.g. eighth grade is "The period in school that comes after seventh grade and before ninth grade". Then grade eight is defined as "eighth grade". Ultimateria (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all. But ...

Improve the definitions. Two being between one and three isn't helping anyone. The def given for "first grade" is much better and that should be copied on to the others. (for the US entries)

... Make it more international, as there are only US examples so far.

In my (1960s) Australian schooling, we had a very simple "first grade", or more commonly but interchangeable, "grade one" for the first year, "second grade" for the second year etc, right up to twelve. But other terms where used, such as Junior or Senior for the 9th and 10th, and 11th and 12th years respectively. A generation before there was "Scholarship", for eighth grade.

I lived in Ireland for a while, and "first grade" is not the first year of school. It's about third after kindy and prep type years. I think it's changed since my kids were at school. And "junior cert" and "leaving cert" made an appearance there somewhere.

As mentioned by others, there are variations around the world. These entries would be a good place to hang those other entries from.--Dmol (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

triple-

I don't think this is distinct from triple. Einstein2 (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Inqilābī 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ScribeYearling (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete and I think I would be inclined to agree. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Failed. Category:English terms prefixed with triple- needs zapping too Denazz (talk) 17:58, 11 October 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)

spacecraft clock time

SOP? The definition given is "The clocktime displayed by a clock carried on board a spacecraft." -Vuccala (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Created at a time when the creator was still coming to terms with our policies and practices. This, that and the other (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely NOT SoP, although it may appear as such. The term has a distinct use in the field of astronautics, and I will add several cites soon. mynewfiles (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I just added seven citations for this term, dating from the 1960s. It is definitely NOT SoP, as you can see from its concrete and specific use in the field of astronautics. mynewfiles (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that a term can have a "concrete and specific use" in a particular field of endeavour and still be SOP. The two notions are independent of each other. WT:PRIOR doesn't even apply here, because the meaning of the term is literally just "time on a clock on a spacecraft" (even if the clock is a metaphorical one) - there is no added layer of meaning. This, that and the other (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

live under a rock

Rfd-sense "to live in isolation" as distinct from sense 1, "to be isolated from knowledge of current events". Maybe we can reword sense 1, but I disagree that this is a different sense. PUC – 14:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete – I am inclined to agree. This second sense seems very rare, perhaps it might simply be a misinterpretation of the first sense; through some searching I found only a handful of uses for "live under a rock" to mean "living in isolation" (such as being a recluse or extremely introverted) on Reddit and Twitter. IMO not worth combining into the first sense either unless there are some more usage examples to be found that I am missing, otherwise it seems like undue weight to me. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

emergency parking bay

Tagged but not listed with rationale "SOP". Ultimateria (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't see how this can be anything but SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep as WT:FRIED: The definition is way more specific than just "a parking bay reserved for emergencies". — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the "or where vehicles can wait" sentence: if that part can indeed be attested (there are no quotations so who knows), it would, in my eyes, mean that this is not SOP. Though, I imagine an "emergency parking bay" could be for both emergency vehicles or for vehicles to park when experiencing an emergency. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

scare the fuck out of

Probably one of those X the fuck out of constructions Denazz (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete after the fuck out of is created (cf. the shit out of). Einstein2 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• I am in exact agreement with Einstein2. bd2412 T 18:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: already covered by the fuck, so I don't think the fuck out of needs to be created. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is covered by the fuck. The second sense there (which is the most similar) covers uses where the fuck is added between the verb and particle in phrasal verbs, which is not the case here (*scare out of doesn't make sense on its own). Einstein2 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  You can scare lots of things out of someone though, and we have entries for them:

  • scare the bejeebers out of
  • scare the daylights out of
  • scare the fuck out of
  • scare the hell out of
  • scare the life out of
  • scare the living daylights out of
  • scare the shit out of

  It's worth noting that, in comparison to the uses found in the quotes at the shit out of, the sense involving scare is somewhat more literal. It's conceivable that you could scare someone so much that they lose consciousness, or perish, or lose their fecal continence - but when it comes to charming or suing the X out of someone, we are strictly in the realm of metaphor. Not sure if that's a useful argument for keeping, though. This, that and the other (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Good observation, although scare is not the only verb where this construction is used in a somewhat literal sense; we even have entries for phrases like knock the living daylights out of and beat the crap out of. It seems to me these can be combined rather freely, so I suggest lemmatizing them at the "the X out of" forms, while the more frequent "verb the X out of" phrases can be turned into hard redirects. Einstein2 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would say that with "the living daylights out of", it is only used with verbs like "beat" and "scare". People wouldn't say "charm the living daylights out of" or "sue the living daylights out of", though "charm the shit out of" and "sue the shit out of" are possible. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:A66B:2813:3AA2:8438 21:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  A quick Internet Archive search brings up results with e.g. hack, burn, plague, reinforce, shake, embarrass, annoy, cheat. Einstein2 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Google searches for those phrases does turn up results, though. They may not be common, but they do exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think that for all the cases of "the X out of", the primary verbs are "beat" and "scare" and it is used secondarily with other verbs. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:C47:40B8:9E8:5244 20:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wassup. Just came here to say, per the rfd instructions, that I added the translations section to that page, since it's meaning is a perfect match for the Portuguese pregar um susto do caralho, which, because of using the word caralho, is much stronger than to scare the shit out of. I also deleted the two last usage examples that didnt make much sense. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  The problem here is that this phrase is an intersection of a generic "(blank) the fuck out of" and a generic "scare the (blank) out of". bd2412 T 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

toot toot

Isn't this just repetititon of toot? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, delete. Inqilābī 16:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy. Ultimateria (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think I've also heard this used as an interjection used to tell someone to get out of your way. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 21:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• see also beep beep/honk honk Denazz (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Satirically fix the definition to read "The sound of a car horn, TWICE". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54BC:581B:5785:CEDB 22:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete; same rationale as beep beep and honk honk below. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Gunsway

1. (historical) A Mogul treasure ship that was captured by famed pirate Henry Avery in August of 1695.

Nothing generic about this- just a specific formerly famous named ship. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Prior discussion of some other famous vehicles' names: Talk:Curiosity. I'm leaning towards delete... - -sche (discuss) 08:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: not dictionary material. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above. There are countless other famous ships out there, but their non-idiomatic inclusion on Wikt is simply out of scope. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

one way

A possible strategy, especially one that is less common or convenient. from the master of dumb edit summaries herself. Denazz (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Denazz What's the reason for deletion? It seems to me that it meets WT:FRIED. Though I do wonder if it is always preceded by that's (and should therefore be moved). — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 21:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Same as "one strategy", "one approach", etc. Normal use of "one". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7165:32DB:8256:403C 03:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• It is worth comparing it with one-way. DonnanZ (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• I redirected to one-way P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

police impersonation

SOP This, that and the other (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning keep, on the basis that it is never used to describe, e.g., a police officer "going undercover" and impersonating a non-police officer, or a comedian or impressionist doing a bit where they pretend to be a police officer. bd2412 T 01:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think these counterexamples are a bit far-fetched:

  • I just don't see that one could naturally interpret X impersonation to mean impersonation by X. Surely it most naturally means impersonation of X. If you said "John was involved in spy impersonation in Russia", well, I'd initially be confused because the noun phrase is ungainly, but I'd go on to think John had been impersonating a spy.
  • The term impersonation isn't really used to talk about acting, is it? A person mimicking the stereotypical characteristics of police officer might be said to be doing a police officer impression, not a *police officer impersonation - that would imply something sinister (to me). I wonder if our def at {{m|en|impersonation} needs strengthening

  This, that and the other (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 17:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SOP. This, that and the other makes a great point with his response to BD2412's concerns. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Wolaita language

Wolaitta language

This is just SOP, right? There's nothing special going on here? This, that and the other (talk)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. It is the same as English language. SOP. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:4700:7253:8E6A:73BB 23:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above, perhaps a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's language page names? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

English or Spanish

I never remember where WT stands on memes. Anyway, first one to comment on this post is gay. Denazz (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Abstain. Hythonia (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep— no reason to delete, and the nominator is the gayest person ever. One problematic part of the entry, however, is the codeswitching in the usage example. Maybe the entry can be converted to translingual if the term be attested in multiple languages? Inqilābī 12:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep – I created this entry under the logic of "English or Spanish" being the name of the 'game'/'prank', like rock-paper-scissors or smth. I believe we delete most entries about memes, but entries that happen to be memes are kept. Also, I added a second sense. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

King's health

“A toast expressing loyalty to the king”. This is just an SOP usage, King's + health, as the object of the verb drink in the sense of “to toast, to drink to” (sense 6). One could equally well drink anyone else’s health; there’s nothing special about the phrase “King's health” as used here. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Inqilābī 13:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. Checks out, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

high-protein diet

Unsure if this is right. Where did you get 20% from, @Mynewfiles? Denazz (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Regardless of whether the definition is factually right or not, the term seems SoP to me. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• let's add high-fat diet|high-protein diet|hypoglycemic diet|keto diet|ketogenic diet|low-caloric diet|low-calorie diet|low-carb diet|low-carbohydrate diet|low-fat diet|low-glycemic diet|low-sugar diet|modified low-carb diet|modified low-carbohydrate diet|weight-loss diet to the mix. Denazz (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah they will better fit in an encyclopedia than in here. Delete em all, I guess. Inqilābī 15:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• SOP entries with unreliable definitions, delete. Fay Freak (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems unreasonable to delete the entire set. "modified low-carbohydrate diet" is defined as a synonym of "South Beach Diet" which is a specific diet, and not just any low-carb diet that has been "modified" in some nebulous way. That doesn't seem SoP. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54BC:581B:5785:CEDB 21:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Shavian shit

all of this user's Shavian English has got to go! Denazz (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• shit in here is probably related. Denazz (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Don't you mean 𐑖𐑦𐑑? Theknightwho (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeh, I can't see any of those symbols, and I'm not gonna download any Firefox extensions to do so Denazz (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is RFV issue. Nothing prohibits us from adding attested Shavian script lemmas. Inqilābī 13:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any point including Shavian-script English in the dictionary. If there is consensus to delete, we can spare ourselves the RFV process and just put a note in WT:AEN saying Shavian isn't allowed. This, that and the other (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep the symbols, delete the words. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

clubhouse

Rfd-sense: "{{lb|en|Internet|social media|neologism}} A type of social network app based on voice, where people can communicate in audio chat rooms with a group of people." WT:BRAND, see Clubhouse (app). – wpi (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s in the wrong entry too, as the term is spelled with an initial uppercase. Delete at any rate. Inqilābī 14:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wpi Since this should actually be located at Clubhouse instead I feel like you can just boldly remove it yourself TBH. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Bangladesh Zindabad

SOP to zindabad, and endless "X zindabad" exist. --Svartava (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)--Svartava (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SOP. This would be like having an entry for every "long live X" phrase. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

fight one's way

SOP? Denazz (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like it to me too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – looks SOP and non-idiomatic per the second and third senses listed at fight. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: fight + one's way. Einstein2 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 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)

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)

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)

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)

hump someone's brains out

SOP? X one's Y out? Whalespotcha (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It's one of a series on the same theme: others are beat someone's brains out, blow someone's brains out, fuck someone's brains out, and for good measure beat one's brains out. DonnanZ (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(Just as a footnote - blow someone's brains out, at least in the "shoot in the head" sense, is not the same kind of SOP as the others. It's not just "blow" + "someone's brains out" (i.e. spectacularly, dominatingly). Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. We could create separate entries for 'someone's brains out' and 'someone's lights out' instead but these are widely used set phrases, only certain verbs tend to precede 'someone's brains out' and 'someone's lights out' in any case. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This is somewhat similar to the entries mentioned in #scare the fuck out of above. Indeed, there are a handful of verbs which co-occur with someone's brains out more frequently than others, but there are probably dozens (if not hundreds) of verb + someone's brains out constructions that are attestable and it's difficult to draw a line as to which ones are common enough to have separate entries. That's why I think lemmatizing someone's brains out and someone's lights out may be the best solution. Einstein2 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think the verb is an essential part of a verbal phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That may be true, but when these fragments are so productive, creating a lemma for the bare "idiomatic" fragment is a more feasible compromise. See also: someone's heart out (M-W), someone's arse off (M-W), one's way, [one's] way out of a paper bag. Einstein2 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

tentabulge and similar terms from Category:en:Homestuck

If I understand WT:FICTION correctly all of these entries should be contained in a separate appendix and not in the main dictionary space due to their insular usage in relation to this fictional work, no? Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. WT:FICTION applies to terms originating in a given work/franchise. The entries in the category were coined outside the fictional universe of Homestuck. Einstein2 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Per Einstein2. WT:FICTION applies to terms taken directly from a work of fiction. It doesn't preclude the inclusion of terms that reference fiction. It would be impossible to include Sherlockian, Scroogelike, etc. if it did. Most of the entries in Category:en:Homestuck were coined by fans and thus not subject to WT:FICTION. The two exceptions are kismesis and moirail. Both of these are taken directly from Homestuck. However, I believe the cites show evidence of long-term idiomatic usage. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Understandable misreading of the WT:FICTION policy. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Shaviliuk Gambit

This is hardly dictionary material. In addition, it's barely attestable. Should we also delete other entries for chess openings such as Zilbermints-Benoni Gambit and Staunton Gambit? They seem to be purely Wikipedia material. mynewfiles (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Don’t really see why it wouldn’t be dictionary material, it’s an idiomatic term where people might run across it and want to know what it means. If it’s not attestable, then send to RFV; otherwise, keep. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Leaning keep as it doesn’t appear to be SoP. However, we’d need a chess expert to weigh in on whether the definitions are accurate … — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Send to RfV because it looks just about barely attestable. We do allow chess openings on Wiktionary BTW, no matter how complicated either; see Category:en:Chess openings for our 56 entries on openings. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

no outlet

I've seen lots of sign creep in WT recently, this is a classic Denazz (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Not clear what it means. Are there no electrical outlets available? 2600:1700:4410:47A0:5959:4682:75BD:5268 23:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. At minimum, WT:HOSPITAL applies - this is not used or known in Australia. Is it US-specific? This, that and the other (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. There used to be road signs saying "no exit", nowadays wordless signs using a symbol are used. DonnanZ (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Simple test if this is SOP - are there examples of outlet being used to mean access to another road outside of this context? A quick Books search doesn't find anything relevant (almost everything that looked like a hit turned out to mean "road" as in "railroad", or the "outlet" was actually a shop/restaurant on a road) so unless there are good examples of outlet being used in a positive sense ("the road was not a dead end because it had an outlet", not "A dead end is a road with no outlet") I'll say Keep. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. This does not exist in the UK either. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I added a US gloss. Is it used in Canada? This, that and the other (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I've always seen "No Exit" here. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

school zone

SOP? The added "reduced speed limits" bit seems like the author's attempt at hiding SOPness Denazz (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"School zone" is only transparent if you are familiar with the concept or phenomenon. The term actually has the alternative meaning of "designated geographic areas that determine which schools children will attend based on their home address". Instead of deleting this article on spurious grounds, perhaps it would be better to add the second meaning. Bathrobe (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Do people refer to roads near churches as a "church zone" or roads near supermarkets as a "store zone" or the ones near shopping malls as a "mall zone" like they refer to roads near schools as "school zones"? I don't think they typically do. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:2D97:7436:9597:69F8 01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Where I live, both Bathrobe's meaning (a school's enrolment zone) and the meaning in the entry (a reduced speed zone on a road) are current. Clearly not SOP imo. Keep and add a second definition. This, that and the other (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. See, e.g., Dennis Prager and ‎Mark Joseph, No Safe Spaces (2019): "Driving 45 in a school zone is not the same thing as vehicular homicide". Presumes foreknowledge of a school zone as a speed limit area. bd2412 T 18:00, 9 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)

police headquarters

+ police precinct. SOP? Denazz (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete both * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete both – SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 20:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

diamido-

Prefix unused? Denazz (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep @Denazz: took some Googling but I found usage for this use in diamidobenzene, diamidophosphoric, diamido-ether and diamidogen. Looks rare but attestable. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

stannoso-

Prefix unused? Denazz (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

OED has two quotations for this: stannoso-stannic, which is probably just stannoso + stannic, and stannosochloride, which we can also dub a compound of stannoso + chloride. Prefix seems unused in modern IUPAC nomenclature, as I could not find any recent chemistry names for it in any web databases. Perhaps a dictionary misinterpreted this as a real suffix based on the aforementioned entries? Or it might be obsolete and extraordinarily rare. Delete for now. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

XVideos

Just a website. Denazz (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not Wiktionary material. mynewfiles (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete: don’t see how it passes WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless quotes that pass WT:BRAND can be found. AG202 (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete, such sites are prone to malware anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A great website, which should definitely be kept. PUC – 19:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's as good a reason as @Donnanz's. We'd better add "must not have malware" to WT:CFI. Theknightwho (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We need to go ahead and create a page WT:No sodomy to prevent such inappropriate words or rationales or unnecessary pucization of this project (which is unbecoming of an admin). Anyway, delete per my statement in #Pornhub. Inqilābī 17:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Added two quotes (2019, 2022) which may count towards inclusion under WT:BRAND. I feel like RfV is a better place for finding qualifying citations for such terms. Einstein2 (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Einstein2: you're mostly right. It depends on what the nominator thinks of the term. If finding qualifying quotations is not the issue but there is a very low likelihood that the term passes the CFI, then RFD is the correct venue for the discussion. However, if the issue is more about whether enough qualifying quotations can be found for a term which otherwise is thought to pass CFI, then RFV is the more appropriate venue. It's often a matter of an editor's impression whether a term is more in the former or latter scenario, so it's hard to say that RFD is always the wrong venue for such terms. I suppose if we wanted to be strict about it, if there's evidence or consensus one way or another the discussion could be transferred, but this may be more trouble than it's worth. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, in my honest assessment, with Einstein2’s quotes, and its kind, it passes WT:BRAND, and judging by the interests affected, rather than essentialistically, it now seems to have greater influence on the characters of people than books of the Bible we include, not to compare with named individuals we include, which we can do as well, since some people are remembered for their companies and products. Lol, we even include Baidu and DuckDuckGo, what’s the difference, that you can only find porn with this search engine? YouTube is a search engine too—you make money on by targeting the keywords people search. I think the point where we include Web-site names is when the brand has permeated the minds so much as to be too valuable for the owners to rename the site. It is all around the place like the International Space Station. Fay Freak (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

honk honk

repetition. Denazz (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete already covered at honk * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, same rationale as beep beep below. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. (Incidentally, it seems to have an idiomatic meaning on alt-right forums: Citations:honk honk.) Einstein2 (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

beep beep

repetition. Denazz (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC) repetition. Denazz (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC) like honk honk Denazz (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete already covered at beep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete delete – just beep twice with no additional meaning stated. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

goverance

presist

Supposedly misspellings of governance and persist, respectively. These are typos, which are not allowed under WT:TYPO. Theknightwho (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. We allow misspellings but not typographical errors, as these are. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Deltee P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:34, 14 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)

October 2024

2024 PT5

The criteria for inclusion indicate this asteroid should be excluded. “Proper names of planets, minor planets, and moons (excluding associated numbers)” may be included, but this asteroid has no proper name and only a number. It is the only entry in “Category:en:Asteroids” not to have a proper name.

The CFI also state: “All systematic names of celestial objects, as well as celestial objects not listed above (including comets and manmade objects in space) shall be included if they have three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements, in the same manner as place names above.” I doubt if any such figurative use exists.

Overall, it seems to me that celestial objects of this sort which have no proper name are best left to Wikipedia. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I created the entry. I have no opinion about RFD/RFV here. Please delete as needed. I was unaware of the "systematic name" rule and will keep it in mind in the future. I do not plan to interact any further here or there and I apologize for causing any problems. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 is obviously this year, but we don't include entries for those. PT5 is meaningless, maybe someone's initials and a number. Names of asteroids etc. usually have a number attached, which can be included in the text of an entry, but probably not in the title of an entry. I avoid creating such entries like the plague, and am inclined to delete this. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies

Minecraft

Not dictionary material. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Minecraft exists and Wiktionary:CFI doesn't contain a specific rule for names of video games, so I thought Plants vs. Zombies was allowed. Sorry for the mistake.
Minecraft can be deleted for the same reason (unless there's a good reason for it to be dictionary material). --Davi6596 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: terms like this need to satisfy WT:BRAND, and I doubt that Plants vs. Zombies is used in a figurative sense. I would say the same for the noun sense of Minecraft (which I've thus nominated for deletion), though the verb sense is fine. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we bundle Super Smash Bros. 4, Roblox and Doom as well? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, yes, as I don’t see how WT:BRAND is satisfied. Alternatively, if it is thought that one or more of these entries might satisfy BRAND, send those to RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. 4 is in a different category since it's not an official term. AG202 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't read that part, forgive me. Now I support deleting the entry. Davi6596 (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've added three cites to Minecraft which potentially contribute to it meeting WT:BRAND. The mentioned entries should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and I consider RfV to be a better platform for challenging the inclusion of terms for which stricter attestation criteria (WT:BRAND, WT:FICTION, WT:COMPANY) apply. Einstein2 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Minecraft, since that seems similar to other brand names like Google, Instagram, etc. Having the verb sense kept without the proper noun looks incomplete. Minecraft is also a single unspaced word (thus the entry also contains good lexical stuff like the etymology) unlike phrases like Plants vs. Zombies, and it having a verb sense definitely shows that it is more inclusion-worthy. Weak keep Roblox based on the same - it looks it also has a verb sense like Minecraft after looking through a quick Google search. Strong delete others like Super Smash Bros. 4 and Plants vs. Zombies. --Svartava (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Davi6596 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Svartava: I disagree that the existence of a qualifying sense (like the verb sense of Minecraft) means a non-qualifying sense can remain in an entry. WT:CFI doesn’t contain a “kitchen-sink” rule like this. The appropriate way to refer to the non-qualifying sense is in the etymology section. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Sgconlaw: I don't disagree. The example was comparing how other such proper nouns like Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. function well as inclusion-worthy verbs and we have kept their proper noun senses as well - being used as a verb surely indicates use as a common word in the words on WT:COMPANY. --Svartava (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Svartava: But that's what I mean. The fact that a word like Facebook has become a common word with noun and verb senses should not, as I have expressed above, justify the kitchen-sink approach of "OK, then we can include the proper noun sense as well." The proper noun sense belongs in the etymology section. In any case, Minecraft isn't a company so WT:COMPANY doesn't apply to it. The applicable policy is WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Sgconlaw But we have kept the proper noun senses at Facebook, Instagram, etc. and those cases look similar to Minecraft here. Either we could propose the deletion of all these proper nouns if they're added due to the kitchen-sink approach. Svartava (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Svartava: I see no evidence that the proper noun senses have been "kept"; rather, it seems that no one has challenged their existence. I think the correct approach is to nominate these senses for RFD so that the matter can be discussed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Sgconlaw: Yes, though there seem to be a lot of entries like this in Category:en:Websites. I'm not entirely sure yet but it seems that there are abundant "independent citations" out there as required by WT:BRAND. I'd be just neutral in case the deletion of all terms like Facebook, Instagram, Minecraft is collectively proposed. Svartava (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  That category contains some phrasal proper names tho. Davi6596 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Pornhub

As XVideos above. PUC – 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would we keep the sosh meed (Twitter, Discord etc) but not this? My reading of WT:BRAND suggests that popular products (websites are products) are chill with their own entries since they are very familiar and widely-used, like "John Doe is on Facebook" or "She jotted it down on her iPhone before leaving the café". Pornhub is taboo but still used in this way as the most-visited website, just slightly less than some social media but more than others we have entries for. Unless I am mistaken on my reading of the policy? By the XVideos rationale all our social media entries would have to be deleted as well (I am vaguely in favour of keeping them based on the WT:BRAND logic). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Added some quotes (Dec 2017, 2019, 2020, Jan 2024) that probably qualify under WT:BRAND. Einstein2 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This should be kept because of the noun sense by default. AG202 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete the proper noun sense, which can be stated in the etymology for the figurative sense. Inqilābī 17:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete the proper noun sense, as the quotations do not satisfy WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw What about quotes 3–6? They are independent in their usage and they span three years. Is there a reason they do not satisfy BRAND? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

igpay

Looks like straightforward Pig Latin to me, even when it's used to refer to police officers. Considering that there is at least one Pig Latin counterpart to pretty much every word in the English language, we shouldn't even get started on Pig Latin entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – I agree: if we had a fancy "Pig Latin for X" template, there would easily be thousands of attestable entries. Additionally, considering Pig Latin words are all formed via the exact same rules, I feel like having entries for each would serve no useful purpose. (Was gonna write this message in Pig Latin, but I could not be bothered to work it out in my head). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Take to RFV - I'm not opposed to words derived from Pig Latin, where they occur in running English sentences not otherwise written in Pig Latin - I think there's a difference between "erehay omecay the igpays" and "Here come the igpays", with the latter showing lexicalization (see for instance, ixnay, amscray, kayfabe). That said... I'm not finding any examples of that. "igpay" only seems to appear on Google Books in the phrase "Igpay Atinlay". If there's actual examples of use to mean pigs (the animal) or police, then Keep. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Send to RfV in principle per Smurrayinchester. google books for "igpay -atinlay" finds a decent number of uses, but most of them are mentions or scannos and I found only two things I would call uses, both of which are very dubious. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• End-say to Equests-ray for Erification-vay. Binarystep (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church

Probably SoP. Inqilābī 16:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Svartava (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• I see it is a proper noun.. as such, can it really be SoP? Either way, this looks to be part of our unresolved "problem" regarding the inclusion of the names of organisations and organisational entities and bodies on Wiktionary. But, out of general curiosity, what do you make of our entries for Anglican Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Latin Church, LDS Church and Mormon Church? Additionally, @Inqilābī, Wikt also has entries for each of the other Orthodox Churches (if you wish to bundle them to this RfD as well, at your discretion): Albanian Orthodox Church, Alexandrian Orthodox Church, Antiochian Orthodox Church, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Jerusalemite Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, Polish Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church and Syriac Orthodox Church. Interestingly, a great deal of these were added by IPs. Either way, I am going to say delete based on the arguments presented at Talk:National Hockey League, such as Facts707's "Definitely Wikipedia material", the fact that this does not, for me, satisfy THUB, and based on our de facto practice of linking abbreviations and alternative names to their respective Wikipedia articles, hence insinuating (albeit not formally) that such elongated organisational names are not worthy of entries in a dictionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: ‘SoP’ was a thinko on my end, I was going to state the rationale as ‘encyclopedic material’- but then the term is also a SoP of Constantinopolitan + Orthodox Church nonetheless. It did occur to me that several similar terms would exist but I was too lazy to track them; and also thought we may as well discuss church organizations one by one, cause we may have never nominated these lemmas for deletion before. I have to thank you, though, for having hunted down a list of them all! I honestly wanted to just see how other editors would react to the nomination of this particular term, Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church. Speaking of other lemmas you listed: Eastern Orthodox Church in particular is rather a very basic term, being literally one of the major branches of Christianity, and thus comparable to the likes of Sunni Islam, etc. I think all of the other Orthodox Church branches in your list can be deleted. Most of the other churches you mentioned farther above can also be deleted, except perhaps Anglican Church, which seems broader and more generalized in scope, even though it is arguably still SoP seeing as Anglican covers the relevant sense. Thank you for the discussion; depending on the progress of this nomination I will decide if I will nominate the other terms for deletion or not. Inqilābī 19:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would keep if it is a valid term. There is now the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, a separate organisation to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. DonnanZ (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Baguio General Hospital Compound

Just a hospital compound really? Denazz (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Denazz It looks to be a hospital compound but (despite I completely disagreeing with this rule) it does indeed appear to satisfy our basic criteria for the inclusion of place-names, which says that eligible are "districts and neighborhoods of cities and towns". For one reason or another, this hospital compound (perhaps big or important enough) was designated as a barangay, which Wikt says is "the smallest local government unit in the Philippines, a subdivision of a city or municipality". Thus, it is a locality, and apparently has a population of about 600 (???) per their 1990 census. I mean, even if it had no residents at all, it would still be eligible to have an entry (and, indeed, we have at least hundreds of ghost towns). So it, and the Santo Tomas School Area, Saint Louis University SVP Housing Village etc. are all eligible in theory. That said, a brief Google search reveals only geographic databases, gazetteers and census data that mention this place, hence it would not satisfy our criteria for attestments (independent usage). Thus, send to RfV where I presume it will inevitably fail. Incidentally, I noticed that the Saint Louis Uni Housing Village entry thingy is already there too, and This, that and the other seems to have some more info on these entries. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

bleed until one can't breathe

Just a metaphor in the Shawn Mendes song? I don't want to RFV this, as it looks like a meta-question for treating metaphors. Snowclone of "X until one can't Y" perhaps? Denazz (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This is a song-specific metaphor, not an idiom in the English language. We similarly don't have entries for end of June (from "Watermelon Sugar" by Harry Styles), in the spin cycle (from "Dirty Laundry" by Kelly Rowland), or cornflake girl and raisin girl (from "Cornflake Girl" by Tori Amos). Binarystep (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

semieidetic

Plz delete this entry as there are no known cites in this unhyphenated form; only the hyphenated form, semi-eidetic is cite-wise. mynewfiles (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete – Seems insanely rare. (Although mayB this should have gone to RfV?). No results from Google's Usenet archives, GBooks, GScholar, any subscription-only service on the Wikipedia Library nor Newspapers.com. All I found via a Google Search was a single post on Reddit and a single tweet. Hardly worth keeping IMO. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

whoa, fuck

(vulgar) An exclamation or expression used to express surprise, terror, or shock.

SOP. Binarystep (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Whoa, delete P. Sovjunk (talk)
• Delete as SOP – same rationale as the entry below. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete purely SOP. Mynewfiles.

Delete, SOP. PUC – 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

whoa, shit

(vulgar) An exclamation or expression used to express surprise, terror, or shock.

SOP. Binarystep (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Whoa, delete this shit P. Sovjunk (talk)
• Delete SOP indeed, definitely more like a sentence. This would be like having “whoa, nice” or something like “well, shit” etc. Also, the entry was created by a new editor, so it makes sense. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Sovjunk :P --Svartava (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

scores of

SOP? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – yes. We were missing a sense at score but I added it as: "a great deal; many, several". LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

keep mum, stay mum

Both verbs are a transparent sum of parts, keep (or stay) + mum. Compare the synonymous remain mum,^[33][34][35] as well as keep silent^[36][37][38] and stay silent,^[39][40][41] which are equally transparent sums of parts.  --Lambiam 19:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 19:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nominator rationale. See mum (“silent”, adjective). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

brush with death

SOP. PUC – 19:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete and repurpose as collocation on brush #6. ―⁠Ktom (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

baseball uniform

SOP? I think any game + uniform is possible like this. Created by a semi-vandal IP, now blocked. --Svartava (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nominator rationale. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Binarystep (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

aranga

Arangas, a least in Russian, is the singular, not plural, also used in official documents (well, kinda, official, but like museum documents and news), also massively in different kinda stories. Can not find so much ethnographical material with usage in Russian or English. The -s ending is anyway not plural. Tollef Salemann (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tollef Salemann are you arguing that the word doesn't exist? Or that the plural is wrong? Either way, those issues are for WT:RFVE. This, that and the other (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

aranga doesn’t exist, because arangas is the singular. What is aranga I don’t know. What plural is for arangas I also don’t know. But it is RFD for aranga, not arangas. Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

fifth to last

SOP? P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How is this different from every other variant on a number page? forty-third (to pick a random example) can easily be derived from forty-three if you know the rules of English ordinal numbers, I don't see how this is any different. Vergencescattered (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with our numbers rule but I will try to explain its rationale: I think we consider forty-three and forty-third to technically be separate words (since there are no spaces). Also, we do have entries on Wikt for every possible form of a verb (i.e. like the ones at game#Verb or kitchen sink#Verb) even though native English speakers can deduce how their tenses should be written. fifth to last is different; at a glance, it is more like a sentence to me and is definitely sum of parts, just being created via fifth + to + last. There can be an endless number of these, and we can just as easily have fifth from last, last but five, last except five, last aside from five, last except for five etc. These are not really 'words' per se, definitely more resembling sentences really, and we do not need entries for each possible combination of these. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Move to to last and refactor into a generic entry on the phrase referring to being any specified number away from being last. I note that we have second to last (and next to last), and third to last, and I think those are for enough down the number list. bd2412 T 19:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Also Module:number list/data/en has gotten way out of hand. AG202 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's a mess, there's a lot of unnecessary redlinks in there that I'd support getting rid of. Vergencescattered (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 19:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If there's no {{tbox}} I dont see why we should list this. Presumably there are languages with non-trivial words for "fifth to last" somewhere, but we dont list any right now. —Soap— 19:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete (forgot to vote aaa) per my rationale above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

get a lot of stick

SOP. One can also get some/little/plenty of/buttloads of stick, or receive/take/dish out a lot of stick P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, see the eighth sense of stick (“encouragement or punishment, or (resulting) vigour or other improved behavior”). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Compare get a lot of flak. PUC – 19:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Pangasinan province

This looks totally SOP, but the entry has sat around, seemingly unnoticed, for the best part of two decades, so I thought I should check before deleting. This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Vro thinks we Wikipedia with all this bureaucracy. But nah, delete as SOP – we can do this with every place-name in existence, i.e. London city, Alberta province, Campania region, etc. No need to have entries for each one of these + violates SOP anyways. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This is a duplicate of Pangasinan. Normally "Province" is not added to Philippine provinces, but a couple in Category:en:Provinces of the Philippines have been so treated. DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

nondifferentation

Obscure tyop P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2024 (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)

Friends

Rfd sense: "The title of an American television situation comedy; Friends". This survived an RfD back in 2007 as no consensus and as such has kept being added back after being repeatedly removed by other editors. Wiktionary has no entries for individual TV series (nor standalone films) outside of this one entry; it is far too encyclopaedic and there are hundreds if not thousands of other very popular shows that might have a precedent for being added if we kept this. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, not dictionary material. Some of the arguments from 2007 are unconvincing; moreover, that discussion includes a quote from CFI ("A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning.") which is no longer present in the policy. Nowadays we would generally look for evidence of figurative/metaphorical use. Exactly where to draw the line is still unclear, but I find it difficult to imagine situations where the name of a TV show could be used in a metaphorical way that is more than just a straight simile (so not "It was like watching an episode of Friends" or "It was as if we were on Friends"). This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)