Wealth Maker: Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]

Track the most recent changes to the wiki in this feed. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Aug 26th 2011, 07:22

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 07:06, 26 August 2011 (edit) SemperBlotto (Talk \| contribs)		Latest revision as of 07:22, 26 August 2011 (edit) (undo) SemperBlotto (Talk \| contribs)
Line 3,314:		Line 3,314:

	Sense: "(''as plural'') The Irish people." Couldn't this be a sense of '''any''' adjective? Feed the hungry, read to the blind, etc. This is just ''[[the]]'' (sense #5) plus an adjective. Plus, take away the ''the'' and you get something awkward like "Irish have faced many hardships." [[User:Ultimateria\|Ultimateria]] 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)		Sense: "(''as plural'') The Irish people." Couldn't this be a sense of '''any''' adjective? Feed the hungry, read to the blind, etc. This is just ''[[the]]'' (sense #5) plus an adjective. Plus, take away the ''the'' and you get something awkward like "Irish have faced many hardships." [[User:Ultimateria\|Ultimateria]] 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
-
-	== [[Irish]] ==
-
-	Sense: "(''as plural'') The Irish people." Couldn't this be a sense of '''any''' adjective? Feed the hungry, read to the blind, etc. This is just ''[[the]]'' (sense #5) plus an adjective. Plus, take away the ''the'' and you get something awkward like "Irish have faced many hardships." [[User:Ultimateria\|Ultimateria]] 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:22, 26 August 2011

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| Archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification add new \| history \| archives \| Index Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion add new \| history \| archives Requests for deletion for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion for pages not in the main namespace, such as categories, appendices and templates.	Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{context needed}}

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

Scope of this request page:

In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as "brown leaf"
Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use

Templates:

{{rfd}}
{{rfd-sense}}
{{rfd-passed}}
{{rfd-failed}}

Shortcuts:

[edit] xīnxuèguǎnbìng

Another 123abc entry. (read: sum of parts) -- Prince Kassad 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, this is solid-written, so it cannot be sum of parts. Compare English headache. I do not know whether it fails some other requirements like something about toneless Pinyin, but it is not sum of parts. --Dan Polansky 09:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, he shouldn't block me in a range block (91.106.0.0). A range block can also affect a lot of other users also. 91.104.37.64 11:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Chinese does not use the space character in its orthography. By your logic, all Chinese sentences would be eligible for inclusion. -- Prince Kassad 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, you shouldn't do range block (91.106.0.0). A range block can affect many users. 91.104.17.51

It is not sum of parts, but it should not be as a toneless pinyin entry - the correct entry title is 心血管病. ---> Tooironic 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki has no rules to ban Pinyin entries. You shouldn't use yourself's rules to ban Pinyin. 91.104.17.51 08:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Wiki has no rules to ban Pinyin entries." We're working on it :o). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, moved to toned per 2010 vote. Not closing, though. Re Dan, as we know CFI doesn't exempt single words without spaces from being idiomatic. Perhaps this is one of the useful biproducts of that rule (or lack of rule, I should say). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CD + player, sense 8. -- Prince Kassad 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deletion. Actually if kept, put in Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely keep. This is a set phrase which refers to a specific thing. Ƿidsiþ 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep, per Widsith. How would uninformed readers know that it's sense 8 of player rather than one of the other eight? Longtrend 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete; it may be a set phrase, but it's pure SOP. Besides the fact sense 8 of player is "An electronic device that plays various audio and video media, such as CD player", I don't see any way that a reasonably intelligent reader could interpret any other sense of player as being appropriate--except for sense 9, and CD player can be CD + player, sense 9. (Check out CD player software on Google, for examples.)--Prosfilaes 03:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It can definitely be sense 9 of player also, and I'd say to delete it as now defined ("An electronic device that plays compact discs"), except that I suspect that our definition is wrong, as a CD player, at least AFAICT, is something that plays audio CDs only, as opposed to, e.g., CD-ROMs.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes. Many CD players play MP3 CDs, which are in essence CD-ROMs with MP3 files on them, so they do play CD-ROMs. -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems right; "CD player" implies "audio CD player", regardless of whether player of an audio CD or a CD with MP3 files. A CD player does not play CDs with video files, right? --Dan Polansky 19:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that CD in many contexts implies audio CD. Like Billboard‎, Apr 11, 2009 "The rapid erosion in CD sales shows no sign of letting up."[15] I think that's a lack in CD, to miss the specific meaning of a compact disc holding audio data in a Red Book compliant manner.--Prosfilaes 19:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, cf. 2008, Mark J. P. Wolf, The video game explosion: a history from PONG to Playstation and beyond, p. 119;

In 1989 NEC released a CD player for the console that gave it the ability to read data from compact discs. While the CD player could be used to play standard audio discs, it had been designed especially for video game use.

-- Prince Kassad 19:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep; refers to an electronic device that is designed to read CDs, and does not usually refer to a person who plays them. If I play a CD, that does not make me a CD player. --EncycloPetey 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't always refer to an electronic device; it sometimes refers to a computer program. And it's debatable, if I were asked to be the CD player at a party, I don't think I would have problem understanding the request.--Prosfilaes 02:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And I would understand if someone asked me to be a smoke detector. That does not invalidate our entry for smoke detector. Your proposal is hypothetical and (at best) rare; people who play music at parties are called disc jockeys, not CD players. --EncycloPetey 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have understood this command. -- Prince Kassad 10:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should have pickup lines in Wiktionary --Felonia 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Though, it's not really sum of parts. I'd actually keep it, even I'm a bit surprised to hear myself say that. Well, see myself type that. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

do you come here often, can I buy you a drink, did it hurt when you fell from heaven, nice legs, what time do they open, is that a ladder in your stockings or the stairway to heaven are among my most favouritest other lines. To be considered. --Felonia 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"is that XXX in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" where XXX can be replaced with a million variations, i just would not know which one to pick Mutante 22:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How would you say in German: Is that a Currywurst in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me? --Felonia 07:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep; looks non-SoP, so what is the problem? Felonia is Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky 14:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Then Rising Sun, also Wonderfool, created the entry that he now wants to delete. Equinox ◑ 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was (of course) before Felonia got an indefinite block. Perhaps it's a joke on his part, create the entry as Rising Sun, then nominate it for deletion as Felonia. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it and end the deletion stuff! —This unsigned comment was added by 88.161.129.150 (talk • contribs).

kept -- Liliana • 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to actually mean anything. SemperBlotto 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep, as per Google Books, looks like direct translation from German Systemkonsistenz Google Books Google DE Mutante 22:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition is garbage mind you. Can we get a comprehensible definition for it, then reopen the RFD if necessary. Add {{rfdef}} or speedy and wait for a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't given for "mammal" in any dictionary I own or have examined. It also does not match scientific usage, where "Mammalia" is used as the plural. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Its inflected forms ought to be deleted as well. --EncycloPetey 16:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No; it's an adjective with a substantive meaning, and the inflection is wrong. If you can find citations to support gender-specific usage, then the noun's lemma page would be supported, but the inflection will still be wrong and the form pages will still have to be deleted. This is an I-stem inflection. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My source was Latin Wikipedia. e.g. w:la:Ovis aries has "Ovis aries est mammale quadrupes ruminans ..." SemperBlotto 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's substantive use of an adjective. It's not a noun in Latin. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that Latin Wikipedia is not a good source any more than any other Wikipedia. Your example sentence demonstrates why. It translates "Sheep ram is of/with breasts (going on) four feet ruminating ..." (1) It uses the scientific name Ovis aries, which makes no sense in Latin proper, since ovis is a feminine noun meaning "sheep" and aries is a masculine noun meaning "ram". The combination is strictly found in taxonomic "New Latin" which we classify as Translingual. (2) It uses a string of predicate adjectives and a participle, the first of which is neuter and therefore does not match the gender of the subject, unless it is being used as a substantive, but the grammar is equivocal. The other adjective and participle have a single nominative form for all genders and so are of no help in parsing the grammar.

The w:la:Mammalia is helpful here, as it points out that Linnaean taxonomy first adopted the term in 1758, but used as the plural adjectival form mammaliorum. So, any support for the noun would have to come from citations of the last 250 years. --EncycloPetey 16:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think phrases like "I knew him when he was just a mailman" aren't idioms, they just have the literal meanings of the words. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You have put up a straw man to argue against. The citations do not have a single instance of the "when" being followed by a clause in the non-idiomatic fashion. OTOH it is quite possible that the idiomatic expression is not heard in the UK.

Though it might be possible to argue that this is a "mere" ellipsis, with "when" functioning anaphorically or deictically, and is therefore always understood as such without being idiomatic, the same argument could be made for many idioms, including those currently in Category:English ellipses. Even this argument does not hold for some uses of the term. The expression can be used without reference to any specific event or period whether mentioned or inferable from context, just some time in the past when speaker and "someone" were both alive and speaker was aware. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To quote (or at worst paraphrase you) "explain how this meets CFI". The citations are varied, undoubtedly, but in the end just refer to knowing some in the past. Seems we need a third opinon here, c'mon wade in. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For it to be SoP, the first requirement would be that when have the sense of "then" in contemporary English in phrases other than this one. In fact, it ought to to have a sense of "long ago" or "before {someone) became famous/successful/powerful/rich". If it has that sense in any one other attestable expression (three cites) or two different expressions, then we should add when#Adverb ("at a former and usually less prosperous time"). I am unwilling to spend time citing it when I have only heard and read this sense of "when" in this context. Perhaps "back when." or "remember|remembers|remembering|remembered X when." can be found.

In any event, this dictionary does not have the relevant sense of "when". DCDuring TALK 23:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: "To accelerate" usex: "punch it!".

This seems to be a very specific instance of a newly added sense. DCDuring TALK 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

More explanation, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The definition up for deletion incorrectly identifies the object of the verb; in the sentence given, "it" refers to the gas pedal and not the vehicle. This definition is sort of a combination of 1 and 3, in that it includes engaging a device with unusual (potentially violent) force. The phrasing seems to most often refer to an action to cause rapid acceleration of a vehicle (and the OED definition restricts to this), but other uses seem to exist: b.g.c has 16 hits for "punch the brakes" vs. 223 for "punch the gas", 217 for "punch the accelerator", and 69 for "punch the throttle". (Less biased in usage than "slam on": "slam on the brakes" gets 6,390 where "slam on the gas/accelerator/throttle" get 42/21/0 respectively.) Also a handful of examples for "punch the clutch", but from context those mostly look like examples of *popping* the clutch, which is actually a sudden release of the clutch pedal rather than depression of it. --Speight 05:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"To change churches one attends frequently." I'd have thought you could hop lots of things, not just churches. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that churchhop (compare barhop) will turn out to be attestable. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Plural use not found in this form - only "upgazes". Facts707 17:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be at RFV. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] up gazes

Plural use not found in this form - only "upgazes". Facts707 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be at RFV. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

rfd-sense: "The material with which a surface is paved." The citation suggests they were throwing pavement, that is sense #1. To me, it would be like for porridge having a sense "the materials from which porridge is made" with a citation that backs up the primary sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you interpret chunk here as sense 1 ("A part of something that has been separated."), then it goes your way, but as sense 2 ("A representative of a substance at large, often large and irregular.") it would require a separate sense. However, I'm not finding any pavement in Google Books that really justifies the second sense, however much my gut initially liked it.--Prosfilaes 10:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did find a citation that might work, in referring to picking up pavement, instead of chunks or pieces, but it's slightly ungrammatical (and definitely inelegant) any way you cut it. I added it to the sense. (I do think that's the difference between pavement and porridge here; a scoop of porridge is still porridge, but a scoop of pavement is not a footpath.)--Prosfilaes 10:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the US, I think research will confirm that pavement is mostly uncountable and refers to both paved surfaces and any material used to pave them or the result of breaking up a paved surface. COCA had no spoken or news use of the plural of pavement. The only plural use there was in fiction, almost exclusively books. I wonder whether the plural use is mostly by UK-born writers. I think that paving would prove more common for the material-used sense, however.

Judging from Google news results for plurals, countable use of pavement is much more common (even absolutely) in the UK. MWOnline, Encarta, WNW, RHU, and AHD all have the "material" sense. The UK-based OneLook dictionaries seem to miss this, even when claiming to cover US English (eg, Cambridge American).

One can find at least three varieties of usage of uncountable "pavement" in the US, exemplified by collocations such as "miles of p.", "chunks of p.", and "tons of p.", in order of my estimate of frequency of the varieties. I think the "material" sense needs to clearly indicate the "result of breaking up a paved surface" sense as it seems much more common that the raw-material sense. The "setting" of the cementitious elements of paving or of asphalt seem to be enough of a transformation to make these seem somewhat distinct. DCDuring TALK 12:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not overwhelmingly convinced, but I don't mind being outvoted. Especially if it means the entry gets improved during the discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we have 'the materials from which X is made' for a lot of nouns, then? What about building, house, wall. "[P]rotesters hurled Molotov cocktails and chunks of pavement" seems to justify "A paved footpath at the side of a road." and "it is possible to pick up pavement " seems to justify "Paved exterior surface, as with a road or sidewalk.". The reason I didn't tag it with RFV as I'm confident that it is attestable, just that such attestations will also support one of the other three definitions we already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can use those three in the "chunks of (ruined) building/house/wall", but not for the "materials used to make". But I don't think that these are very frequently used as mass nouns. Almost any normally countable noun any be rendered uncountable by preceding it with "much", "little", "tons of", "acres of". But "pavement", at least in the US, is commonly uncountable. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See Google Books: "chunk of bridge". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: "(of words) No longer in ordinary use, though still used occasionally to give a sense of antiquity."

From RFV:

Rfv-sense: "(of words) No longer in ordinary use, though still used occasionally to give a sense of antiquity." Having a hard time seeing how to verify this as distinct from sense 1 ("of or characterized by antiquity"). I suppose we would need something like a use of "archaic vocabulary" to refer not to obsolete words but specifically to a preexisting body of words regarded as archaisms. Or something that would specifically avoid referring to a modern usage of a little-known obsolete term as "archaic", reserving that term for archaisms already established in speech. Alternatively, perhaps this could be converted to a usage note on the ways the term is documented in various dictionaries? -- Visviva 20:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The challenged definition is quite similar to one of the senses given in each of MWOnline, RHU, AHD, Collins Pocket, Encarta, etc. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems comparable to #Irish above. It exists but it could take dozens of hours to wade through all the other uses of archaic to fin it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD. If someone had presented cites like Visviva describes, this would obviously be a keep, but as it is, I think it's an {{rfd-redundant}}. (More precisely: I think its use in reference to words is in clearly widespread use, the question is merely whether we want to treat that separately from the more general sense.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

—Ruakh_TALK 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, keep per DCDuring's comment above. —Ruakh_TALK 22:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Backasswardly, I have provided citations that show how editors and translators (mostly) use "archaic" in reference to the language of the authors of the works they are editing and translating. I personally can't quite follow Visviva's comment. Whether our existing definition is the best, I don't know, but there does seem to be a distinct literary use of the term. DCDuring TALK 23:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand Visviva's comment, his point is that any word describable by sense 2 is also describable by sense 1, so the only citations that would specifically support sense 2 as a distinct sense are citations that explicitly distinguish "archaic" words from (say) "obsolete" words (even though "obsolete" words are also describable by sense 1). However, nothing in WT:CFI demands that we have citations that specifically support sense 2 as a distinct sense, so I didn't feel justified in removing the sense as "RFV failed" on that basis. (And I would strenuously oppose adding such a requirement to the CFI. One reason to list two senses separately is that they're clearly distinguishable by citations, but there are plenty of other potential subjective reasons. We might almost as well demand that each occurrence of the sense-label (slang) be justified by three cites where an old person says, "I don't know what that means. Talk like a normal person, young man.") —Ruakh_TALK 00:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, google books:"archaic or obsolete" gets well over a thousand hits, but it's hard to be sure of the distinction they're drawing between the two. (And some might not be drawing any distinction; "or" sometimes connects synonyms, when some sort of mentioniness is involved.) google books:"archaic or even obsolete", though it gets well under a hundred, might actually be more useful. —Ruakh_TALK 20:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant

Make this word redundant? No way!!! It is a beautiful word, often used. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.108.245.68 (talk • contribs).

Even if it weren't sum of parts, it is a plural-only term. -- Prince Kassad 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. Trickier than it first appears. This passed rfd earlier when msh210 tagged it and didn't list it, so I listed it asking 'why is this here' and after nobody replied, I closed the debate. We also have Romance language which I voted to keep, but in fairness I think I was wrong. Romance language is essentially sum of parts as long as you have the proper meaning of Romance. So... delete and make sure Mongolic covers it. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. But how is it a "plural-only" term? There appears to be hits for "is a Mongolic language" on Google. ---> Tooironic 07:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I err on the side of keep. I do not think that the scope of "Mongolic language" is immediately clear from the definition of "Mongolic", other than the definition "Mongolic"--"Of or relating the group of Mongolic languages", which in its turn relies on "Mongolic language". In fact, the current definition "Any of a group thirteen of languages spoken in Central Asia" seems a stopgap one, as I cannot determine based on what characteristics the languages belong to that group. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is because Mongolic was missing a sense, which I have now added. -- Prince Kassad 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have added "Mongolic"--"A major language family spoken primarily in Mongolia and surroundings". Can you add any quotations that support this definition? Should "Mongolic language" be construed as the noun "Mongolic" attributively modifying the noun "language"? That seems improbable, to me anyway. Rather, it seems that if "Mongolic" can be attested as a noun, this is back-formed from "Mongolic language". I have no evidence to support this hypothesis, though. --Dan Polansky 09:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is rather easy actually. Cf. 1999, Roger Blench, Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, Volume 2, p. 203:

Similarly, there are indications that Mongolic and Turkic can be identified with the ethnic categories of Donghu and Xiongnu, respectively, […]

...or, if you want something else, see 2000, Barbara Unterbeck, Gender in grammar and cognition, p. 700:

Apart from their significance as manifestations of class and gender in the languages of North Asia, the class suffixes in Mongolic and Tungusic have also many other consequences to the understanding of the diachrony of these languages.

-- Prince Kassad 10:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Tooironic, not plural-only. Delete as SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the definition of "Mongolic" with respect to which this is SOP? --Dan Polansky 09:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Adjective, "of or related to Mongolic (a language family)" (which refers back to the proper-noun sense, "A particular language family"). Or possibly the sense here is just the proper-noun sense itself (in attributive use)? Not sure how to distinguish them when the word is modifying a noun.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed: "The act of staying or remaining in expectation". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep because it has a plural. Equinox ◑ 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nary an -ing form that can't have a plural. I would prefer that our standard be the existence of a semantic difference of some kind beyond the normal meaning of the -ing form. Thus earnings, losings, and winnings have distinct meanings. In this case I doubt that the meaning given would be attestably distinct from meanings of the -ing form. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I think there are -ing nouns without plurals (I once gave "defragmentings" as an example). Secondly, if we use the standard you suggest, and if the noun has no other sense than the obvious one, how are we supposed to represent it in Wiktionary? Would we have a typical plural noun entry (like kitchenettes) pointing back to a singular... verb? Equinox ◑ 23:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure what we can find some -ing forms that don't have plurals, probably a higher percentage than on ordinary nouns that don't have attestable plurals. The same issue would apply to the possible existence of comparative forms of -ing forms. The underlying problem is the possible repetition of many verb sense reworded to suit the noun or adjective PoS and the need to keep the -ing form coordinated with changes in the verb entry. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For the definition line perhaps we could use a standard boilerplate, like "Agent noun of verb" sometimes used for verb-er. In any case I don't think the existence of technical hurdles means we should omit valid words. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts - don't + shoot the messenger. ---> Tooironic 21:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we included sum-of-parts proverbs. And also, isn't "shoot the messenger" an allusion to this proverb? —Ruakh_TALK 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the original etymology I wonder? If this form came first I can see why we would keep it, but otherwise, no, we don't keep sum-of-parts proverbs AFAIK. ---> Tooironic 22:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep, at least until I see some strong evidence to delete it. Shoot the messenger seems me dubious of the two. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. "not"/"'nt" "[shoot] the messenger" appears 15 times in COCA vs 84 hits of "[shoot] the messenger" without an immediately adjoining negative. The number of non-idiomatic uses of "[shoot] the messenger" seems small. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet, this is a proverb, shoot the messenger is a verb. That seems to me to bypass any potential redundancy. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

While the symbol of Esperanto is a green star, that doesn't make it dictionary material, does it? Means verda ("green [in color]") + stelo ("star [celestial body]") to mean green star. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a proper noun form? ---> Tooironic 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is, I'd say it's acceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "la Verda Stelo" is a proper noun specifically referring to the symbol of Esperanto (a green five-pointed star). — Robin 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a German prefix. -- Prince Kassad 19:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How so? Do you also say that hervor- is not a German prefix? Is it because it is her- + bei-? --Dan Polansky 22:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all derived terms are simple compounds using the word herbei. This is evidenced by the fact it's possible to split up the derived term into its constituent compound parts and it will retain its original meaning, i. e. herbeiführen may be alternately written as herbei führen. The same applies to hervor- as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW best definition ever. fr:herbei- says this is a particle, whatever that is. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. But there are not going to be many German prefixes left: most can be declared prepositions or particles. Consider, for example, ab-, auf-, an-, and aus-.

One consequence of denying prefixhood to these is that most German verbs with separable prefixes (the term "separable prefix" is contradictory per your exposition) are going to be compounds (Komposita), which seems really strange to me.

Which of the prefixes in Category:German prefixes do you consider prefixes worth keeping? (BTW, I don't consider kardio- a prefix but a combining form. See also de:Kategorie:Präfix (Deutsch).) ---Dan Polansky 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On another note, google:"herbei führen" gives 38,100 results hits while google:"herbeiführen" 1,510,000 results. The former seems to be a rare form that does not really prove anything. If herbei- is not a prefix per the existence of herbei, I do not see how auf- is a prefix given the existence of auf. --Dan Polansky 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Separable prefixes are already treated as independent words in Dutch (as adverbs to be precise), and the words that have them are listed as compounds. It doesn't seem like such a strange idea to me. —CodeCa t 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A consequence of this treatment is that there are very few prefixes left in Dutch, at least native ones; those that are left would be mostly Latin-based or Ancient Greek-based. See Category:Dutch prefixes. I wonder whether this treatment matches Dutch linguistic works. --Dan Polansky 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot split up the word aufhören, for example, while conveying the same meaning. "auf hören" does not make any sense. Therefore, these are true prefixes, like ab-, an-, aus-, be-, ent-, ein-, ver-, zer-, etc. -- Prince Kassad 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, "aufhören" is a separable verb, as in "Hören Sie mal auf". Why can't I argue that "aufhören" is a compound made from "auf" and "hören"? Yes, I cannot meaningfully write "auf hören", but that alone does not prove prefixhood of "auf-" if prepositions are allowed for compounding.

What about the following: herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter-? --Dan Polansky 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And "herbeiführen" behaves as a separable verb: "Dadurch, daß wir gewisse Dinge tun, führen wir andere herbei" (Example found in Google books.) --Dan Polansky 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You can combine the last batch of suffixes with *any* verb you want. You can create words like heruntergießen, herabschauen and hereinsprühen. This makes them anything but prefixes. -- Prince Kassad 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The readiness for combination of a candidate prefix has nothing to do with prefixhood, if you ask me; it does not detract from prefixhood. --Dan Polansky 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

German allows for an arbitrary amount of adjectives, adverbs and prepositions to be combined with verbs to form new compound verbs. Compare for example schnellöschen, which is composed of schnell + löschen and means "to speedy delete". It certainly does not turn schnell into a prefix. -- Prince Kassad 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(<) The term schnellöschen is a rare form whose infinitive is not even attestable in Google books, so I wonder why you pick this as an example. Furthermore, schnell is an adjective rather than a preposition, which makes all the difference: I would argue that prefixes often correspond to prepositions and certain adverbs. You still have to explain that "auf-" is a prefix, given with how many verbs it combines, and given the existence of the preposition "auf". I argue that "herbeiführen" is morphologically analogous to "aufhören". --Dan Polansky 09:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm quoting here a response made by User:Atelaes in response to the deletion of Wander- a few pages above:

If part of a compound is simply a word, which means the same thing in the compound as it does alone, then we should not have an affix entry for it. Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon. We should only have affix entries when the part of a compound does not have a standalone counterpart, or means something different when its used as a compound. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

auf- is a prefix simply because its meaning is not identical to the standalone word auf. You cannot write "auf hören", it makes no sense. -- Prince Kassad 14:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but for the record — I don't think you're interpreting Atelaes' statement the way that he intended it. —Ruakh_TALK 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(<<) de:W:Zusammengesetzte Wörter#Typisierung nach den beteiligten_Wortarten (compound words#classification by the part of speech of constituents) does not list any of the terms derived from herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter- as compounds. OTOH, it says that „Fast alle Wortarten können miteinander kombiniert werden" in a quotation, meaning that almost all parts of speech can be combined.

On another note, it is unclear that "herbei" is really a separate word. If "herbei" always occurs as part of a separable verb, then it may look as a separate word whenever the separable verb is in the separated position, but it is unclear that this alone suffices for the separateness of "herbei". I admit that "herbei führen" can be found in some old German works in Google books.

The terms herbei-, herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, and herunter- are listed in http://www.welt-im-web.de/?N%26uuml%3Btzliches_in_Dateiform:Deutsche_Vorsilben, although the website is no academical reliable resource.

Unfortunately, I do not know of external reliable authorities to check with, or else I would post some links. --Dan Polansky 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

One more link: http://www.dwds.de/?kompakt=1&qu=herbei-.

For a list of terms derived from "herbei" or "herbei-", such as herbeizaubern or herbeireden, see also de:herbei.

As an aside, I do not boldly vote for anything in this thread. I do not claim to understand what a prefix is. --Dan Polansky 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also not an expert, but IMO "herbei" is not a prefix, but part of a compound, because it is a separate word (according to the Duden), which functions as an adverb. It is true that it is rarely used standalone, but this is true for all adverbs. A standalone usage would be the interjection "Herbei!" to call people to come to you. As for the general definition of prefixes, I would use the term prefix only for something that does not also exist as a separate word with exactly the same meaning. Therfore "ent-" (englisch: de-) would be a prefix, but "auf" and "ab" not, because they exist as adverbs with the same meaning (don't confuse them with the prepositions "auf" and "ab" that have a different meaning). --Zeitlupe 09:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that canoo.net treats words such as herbeiführen as adverb+verb compounds (as opposed to aufhören which they call a prefixed verb, see [16] and [17]. I tend to agree with that view, but I'm not so sure either. Dan Polansky's objection that herbei etc. might not be unbound words at all seems legitimate, though all dictionaries I know do treat them as adverbs and thus words. On the other hand, canoo.net also treats elements such as zurecht in zurechtbiegen as prefixes which I don't quite understand. Longtrend 14:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A code of a currency. SoP. -- Prince Kassad 19:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not any code, a specific code defined by ISO. Lmaltier 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Says who? -- Prince Kassad 20:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Says the ISO. See ISO 4217 Currency Code List. Keep, as there are usually other unofficial codes in use.--Dmol 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely non ISO codes for currencies are also called currency codes. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But "ISO" is usually implicit, this is why the page is useful. Lmaltier 06:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep ISO-specific definition, delete any generic definitions that come along. DAVilla 07:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to favor International Standards Organization definitions over other ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Except maybe for the common ones like USD and EUR, I think these fall under the same rule as language codes and should only appear in an appendix. -- Prince Kassad 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're calling common. I suspect most can be found in use in regional periodicals. I know NIS can. As for the nominee (AFN), keep and RFV if desired (after checking for cites first, natch).—msh210℠ (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep this, and any others that get nominated. (It's verified by looking at the ISO 4217 Currency Code List). But there is no reason to have a separate appendix, nor should we just list the common ones. Common to who?.--Dmol 21:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A standards body mandating a term does not automatically make it language, as discussed before with the "standard" (but not even attestable!) units like yottasecond. However, in the case of these currency codes, I'm sure they are all very attestable indeed. Send to RFV for citations to prove it? Equinox ◑ 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that a standards document's tabular listing of a code constitutes a mention not a use. OTOH, I would expect almost all of these to be in use in a few languages and thus be as Translingual as all of the attested-in-no-language taxonomic names that we include unchallenged. I don't know what kind of attestation would be sufficient to protect us from becoming mere claques for unused standards. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus to delete. As long as there is no copyright concern, we can probably add other language-independent codes.--Jusjih 08:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

From RFV:

Kept at RFD and sent hither.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

google books:"exploitative competition" gets a few thousand hits. Most or all are in this sense. Not all of them support the notion that it's a constituent — sometimes "exploitative" is modified by an adverb (e.g. "exclusively exploitative competition"), or "competition" is modified by another adjective in parallel with "exploitative" (e.g. "intraspecific, exploitative competition") — but those are issues for RFD rather than RFV, no? —Ruakh_TALK 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To my understanding, it was kept at RFD and sent hither to look for cites that demonstrate the existence of an idiomatic phrase. You've mentioned tests, Ruakh, showing that a cite is no good for that (modification of exploitative by an adverb, another adjective in parallel); is there any test showing that a cite is good?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, a good cite is just one that isn't bad. A bad cite of an adjective-noun compound would have modification or coordination of the components. Neither is necessarily fatal, but might require time-consuming careful analysis and be subject to challenge. In this case, it would probably help if the cite came from the context and perhaps contrasted exploitative with other kinds of competition, but with both types of competition being expressed in full. To put it more positively, the quote should unambiguously highlight the exact term as a unit in the context, register, and grammar of the inflection line and the sense line. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I studied this in Ecology last year. It's certainly a specific type of competition, contrasted against "interference competition."

1994 Christopher S. Lobban & Paul James Harrison, Seaweed ecology and physiology, Cambridge University Press, p99

Exploitative competition involves a scramble for a limiting resource (e.g., space, light, nutrients) without direct antagonism between organisms. Interference competition results from interactions between organisms that may not relate directly (if at all) to any limiting resource... If interference competition is taking place, however, exploitative competition must also be potentially possible.

Ackatsis 10:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD. I've added the relevant sense to [[exploitative]] and cited it outside the specific collocation "exploitative competition". Incidentally, exploitatively is also citeable in a corresponding sense — see e.g. google books:"compete exploitatively" — but if we define that adverb in some basic way ("in an exploitative manner" or somesuch) than it's moot. (BTW, I'm not particularly advocating deletion; I just think the previous RFD discussion was meaningless, since the participants don't seem to have examined citations and usage or anything. If we keep the entry, then we can simplify our definition of exploitative by referring to it.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete or redirect to [[exploitative]], I think.

—Ruakh_TALK 16:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical term, whether or not it's a sum of however separable parts. Keep. DAVilla 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How can you tell that it's a "technical term"? Obviously it's composed of two technical terms, but what makes it itself one? (Could you give an example of a sequence of technical terms that is not itself a technical term, and explain the difference? I'm not necessarily looking for objective criteria — though of course that would be ideal — just for something that makes clear what you mean by the phrase "technical term", and perhaps that makes clear why you think all "technical terms", in the sense that you mean it, should be kept regardless of SOP-ness.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shit, I didn't realize exploitative was a technical term. I should have read the quoted text more carefully. No, you're right to delete this one, although I still think it makes sense to keep exceptional collocations like active volcano. DAVilla 07:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there an articulable reason why we should keep active volcano but not this, or is it just "gut feel"? (I mean, active ("being an active volcano") is incredibly well attested. google books:"volcanoes were active" gets hundreds and hundreds of hits; google books:"Etna was active" gets twenty-some, and so on.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of hits at google is totally irrelevant. You can get google hits on sheer nonsense. Geof Bard 20:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A list of scheduled events or of performers or contestants.
What's on the card for tonight?
rfd-redundant (cricket) A tabular presentation of the key statistics of an innings or match: batsmen's scores and how they were dismissed, extras, total score and bowling figures.
rfd-redundant (horse racing) A listing of the runners and riders, together with colours and recent form, for all the races on a particular day at a particular racecourse.

The cricket and horse racing senses seem to me to be included in the first sense above. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are covered already. Delete as redundant.--Dmol 03:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would keep them both - detailed information that is not available on Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 08:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But in fairness, SB, we are not Wikipedia. Not sure of your logic here.--Dmol 08:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've always viewed Appendix space as a good home for marginally worthy information of a semi-encyclopedic type. I could imagine a multi-column listing of sport, alternative names, content for various types of sports data tables and references to WP and Commons links. It will seem so quaint to the younger generation of cell-phone-video sports-highlight recorders.

Also, we may need to extend the above sense or define a new sense to clarify the potential use of a card to record details of past events. For baseball, see box score and line score and w:Box score (baseball) and w:Baseball scorekeeping. DCDuring TALK 10:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

w:Cricket scoring has helpful links, including one to Notcher's News, but curiously not to w:Cricket statistics. (Apparently "notcher" is how obsessive cricket scorers refer to themselves. I don't know the corresponding term for baseball obsessives.) DCDuring TALK 10:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

3 seems redundant to 1, but I don't see how 2 is. AFAICT from its wording, 2 is a list of events that have occurred rather than a schedule of planned events.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but in golf card has the same meaning (a record of all the hole scores). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So we should keep and generalize 2 then, no?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The copyright violation has been corrected (see WT:RFC#August 2007), but the entry remains sum-of-parts, at least as currently defined. Is there a more nuanced, non-SoP definition to be had, or should this be deleted? — Beobach 22:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: Many other places of the same name. IMHO a pointless definition - either list all possible meanings, or just leave it out. -- Prince Kassad 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this should be detailed. I don't know how many cities are called Newport, but I know that the list is limited. It would be interesting to provide the etymology for each of them (very probably, the general etymology is new + port, but some of these towns may have been given this name after another Newport). Translations might differ according to the city (e.g. in Welsh, but I don't know). And gentilics might differ, too. Lmaltier 20:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather keep the summary sense line, with the possibility to tweak it. The last vote on the subject (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2) says this: 'If the name is shared by several places, some of the places bearing the name can have a dedicated sense line, while other ones can be covered under a summary sense line such as "Any of a number of cities in Anglophone countries".' --Dan Polansky 08:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing forbids one line per sense (i.e. one line per town). It's necessary to accommodate different translations, different gentilics, different pronunciations, citations about different towns, etc. If towns are grouped, readers are left uncertain about what to think about these points. Lmaltier 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep and list first as "a place name". Note it can be combined with other words in the cities Newport Beach, Newport News, etc. DAVilla 07:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

idiomatic, only with bare infinitive Indicates something that will happen very soon; indicates that something is imminent.

He's standing at the edge, and I think he's about to jump.

This entry is for a non-constituent that is NISoP. See about#Adjective and to#Particle. Is there any evidence that someone can learn the grammar of a language by looking up lexicalized non-idiomatic non-grammatical units? DCDuring TALK 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what I think about this one. Possible relations: "he's ready to jump", "he's near to jumping" (I don't consider these two very defensible as entries), "he's going to jump" (confusable with someone actually travelling in order to reach a jumping-spot), and about time. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lemming check: We are the only OneLook reference with this entry. Others have either a sense of about#Adjective, which we should and now do have, or "be about to (do something)", which some differentiate from "not be about to (do something).

Also, I am not in a position to opine on the utility of this as a translation target, which is why I asked the question above. Sometimes I wonder about the utility of our entries for grammatical words like prepositions, determiners, etc. They are hard to construct and hard to read for normal folks, even when not wrong in some way. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure; we obviously need to cover this meaning either here or at about. If anything, I think this does function as a single unit, and therefore is includable. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the theory, but I just came to this page wanting to check what "about to" is exactly about. If it had not existed the next natural thing to do would have been to go to the enry "about", where the same information would have been readily available. What about a redirect to "about#Adjective" ? --Hekaheka 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the preposition about ("around, close to, near") + a verbal noun (infinitive). He's about to jump = He's near jumping/close to jumping. Simple preposition + particle to me, at least from the standpoint of the origin of the construction. Leasnam 22:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I think. But other dictionaries seem to insist on presenting it as "be about to" or define the preposition non-substitutably as "engaged in" (which implies a following -ing form). I erred in placing the sense in the adjective PoS. The Websters 1913 wording helped me miss the sense in the preposition section.

As Hekaheka recommends, a redirect (but to about#Preposition) should suffice. I have inserted two usexes in the appropriate sense. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The context of "before a to infinitive" seems like a really bad way to isolate a single word. Anyway, you can use be about to by itself, without any verb following. Keep or move to be about to. DAVilla 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep or move. I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Why close this? There were no outright keeps, rather 2 keep or move, 3 deletes with redirects. This would seem to merit a {{look}}. DCDuring TALK 02:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

*shrug* -- Liliana • 02:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that interprets a command line. Anything further is an encyclopaedic red herring. Equinox ◑ 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not something that interprets "the text prompt presented to the user in a command line interface". Either command line needs a new definition, or your statement is wrong.--Prosfilaes 00:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The former, I suppose. The command line can be the text a user types at the prompt. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that the multiple meanings of interpreter make it difficult to parse as sum-of-parts? See, for example, parts interpreter. ---> Tooironic 07:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not here. I'm not sure how to define it, command line or command line interface (and I'm definitely uncomfortable with the definition for the last), but interpreter in this context is obviously the definition tagged computing.--Prosfilaes 22:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. The command line interpreter is interactive, which the definition at interpreter does not clarify. Apparently it's also called a command-line processor. DAVilla 06:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sole preposition sense:

(often as "part (something), part (something else)") partially composed of
- 1919, Henry Seidel Canby, Ph. D., Making of America Project: New Books Reviewed, page 711:
  " We cannot make a plodding and sensible community—a Holland or a Pennsylvania—out of a national personality which, whether by harsh circumstance or native tendency, is now part genius, part fanatic, and part hard-headed materialist."

I think is is more readily interpreted as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more adverbial to me. Can be defined as partially. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the usexes they provide, most dictionaries call it an adjective when it is part of a predicate NP and an adverb only when it modifies a true adjective. But "partly" and "partially" both seem like acceptable synonyms in US English at least. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Or noun. Essentially short for "one part genius, one (not necessarily equal in size) part fanatic, one (possibly different in size again) part hard-headed materialist", like a recipe for a cocktail.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think of hypothesized ellipses as cheating, suitable only for such more speculative realms as etymology. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really mean it's short/elliptical for what I wrote. Hence "essentially". I meant only that part can be understood here as a noun as in a recipe for a cocktail: "part genius, part fanatic" is like "this cocktail is one part Kahlúa, one part rum". I don't know, though: I can't imagine anyone using that construction with any other unit of measure (contrast "three acres corn, one acre soybeans" with *"three acres corn, acre soybeans").—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

all and fractions do the same thing: "he's half man, half ape"; "he's all ape"; "he's one-third man, two-thirds ape". I agree with Jamesjiao that it's adverbial, though I'm not sure if it's an adverb per se, or just an adverbial noun (as msh210 says). I'm leaning toward the latter. —Ruakh_TALK 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost all OneLook dictionaries have the adverb sense usually illustrating it with an expression using an adjective: "It is part red". RHU, MWO, AHD, WNW, and Encarta have the adjective sense illustrating it with a noun: "He is part owner". The PoS label seems hard to assign and limit and yet people speak such expressions without hesitation or objection from others. For us to add the possibility of "preposition" seems to be a needless and unjustified addition to the mix. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I see part as an adjective qualifying "genius" (in that example), so the sense to me is "a partial genius" and not "partially a genius". Consider that "part-man" often has a hyphen and can itself be a noun phrase in a sentence: "The part-man, part-genius, has done it again!" Ƿidsiþ 09:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a suffix, just bot as the final part of several compound words. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Isn't that what a suffix is? suffix (plural suffixes)

1. (linguistics) one or more letters or sounds added at the end of a word to modify the word's meaning, such as able, which changes sing into singable, for example

Not just any letters though; rework isn't re suffixed with -work. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely sum of parts, though I'm not sure what entry we should have, maybe the crap to go with the fuck and the devil (so to speak). We also have beat the shit out of, and you can change the initial verb; kick to the crap out of; kick the shit out of. Probably many other examples, I'll happily do a Google Book search to see what the numbers are. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think it's sum of parts? ---> Tooironic 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Because one of the senses of crap#Noun is shit. That is relevant because crap is a euphemism. The plausible construction of a phrase involving "crap" that cannot be managed with a literal sense, would be interpreted with the euphemistic sense. If someone can't interpret it metaphorically we have beat the shit out of. We could have entries for every non-euphemistic word that can fit into the "shit" slot, such as "stuffing", "tar", "daylights", "hell", "Jesus", "fuck", etc. (and relevant synonyms, especially euphemisms. Or we could have an appendix for the construction "to V the NP out of" and explain what can fill the V and NP slots. Note that it is an NP not just a N and there are all kinds of subtleties as to which adjuncts can modify the various nouns. For example, "living" doesn't work so well with "stuffing" and "tar", but reasonably well with the rest and excellently with "daylights". Treating each possibility lexically is absurd, though I'm sure that there are many lurking newbies who would volunteer to give their best efforts to making new entries of this type. DCDuring TALK 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The SOP allegation is hard to understand for me: the allegation seems to rely on the existence of "beat the shit out of". In any case, this is non-literal language, and cannot be decoded by a non-native speaker by reading the component words of the phrase. Also, this idiom is very common by Google hits. At worst, this should be a redirect to "beat the shit out of".--Dan Polansky 09:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You probably should have read my nomination in full then. It goes way beyond those two, as DCDuring says you can beat many things:

Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? How do the searches in Google books prove that this is a semantic sum of parts? Sum of which parts? Which of the six listed search terms would you keep, if any? --Dan Polansky 13:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

None of them. Maybe to non-natives speakers it's quite difficult, but for a native speaker this is way off idiomatic. I haven't decided what the parts are (that is, how to express it in Wiktionary terms). BTW I'd rather keep the entries than have this redirect to beat the shit out of. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not sum of parts, but I don't think it's the job of a dictionary to explain the metaphors involved. Maybe it is? Not sure. The earliest form seems to have been "beat the stuffing out of" someone (as though they were a scarecrow or doll); then "beat the shit out of" developed as a more expressive and vulgar version. Then apparently the "the shit" bit was taken as simply intensive, leading to non-literal variants like "beat the fuck out of", although they are still less common. I would delete it personally, as this seems beyond the remit of a dictionary. Ƿidsiþ 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's a formula: "X the Y out of" where X is a verb and Y is a noun, usually a vulgar word. Remember X one's Y off? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Just for the heck of it, I tried google:"crapped the shit out of", and whaddaya know, it gets over a dozen relevant hits. —Ruakh_TALK 00:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"crapped the shit out of" seems unattestable: google books:"crapped the shit out of" and google groups:"crapped the shit out of". The hits given above by MG are from Google books; on the Google web, some of the above six phrases are very common.

The formula "V the NP out of" does not allow any free combination. So far, only two verbs have been attested on the V position. Another thing is, many non-SOP terms follow the formula "<adjective> <noun>": fitting into a formula alone does not make then exclusion-worthy. --Dan Polansky 18:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? There are hardly any two nouns and verb that combine without some semantic limitations. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick Books searches show ample hits for slap, punch, and thrash, and even two for eat ([18], [19], plus [20] on Usenet).—msh210℠ (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Now added to Appendix:Snowclones. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Appendix:Snowclones is a good place for this. WP, quoting Language Log, defines a snowclone in part as a "quoted or misquoted phrase or sentence that can be used in an entirely open array of different variants"; "X the Y out of" can be used in an open array of variants, but it isn't quoting or misquoting anything. All of the other items on the list would be meant or understood as allusions to the given original quotations; "beat the shit out of" is not an allusion to "kick the shit out of" nor vice versa. I'll have to think for a while to figure out where this does belong... — Beobach 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

NB that this entry previously existed at X the Y out of, and was moved to this form because it was the most common form: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/06#X_the_Y_out_of. — Beobach 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We should get back to that. Really what we have here is "verb the noun out of", for which almost any verb and noun can be used. Understanding that the verb portion can be infinitely substituted, what we are left with is "verb the X out of". bd2412 T 04:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re 'Really what we have here is "verb the noun out of", for which almost any verb and noun can be used.' You do not really mean this literally ("almost any"), do you? From the set of all the possible pairs (verb, noun), only a tiny fraction forms an attestable phrase when substituted into the scheme "<verb> the <noun> out of". The set of all verbs that can be used on the first position is already a small fraction of the set of all transitive verbs. Furthermore, while the construction "<verb> the <noun> out of" is fairly common, not every use of this construction is idiomatic. Again, the discussed phrase is such that its meaning is unobvious from the meanings of the component words. --Dan Polansky 11:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, almost any. I'll wash the X out of my veggies, then dance the X out of a pair of shoes, then sing the X out of a song. It is obvious that to do something, anything, such that you do "the X out of it" means to do it thoroughly and vigorously. bd2412 T 16:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Going over the same ground on this is beginning to bore the living hell out of me. The subject has been discussed to death. We've milked it for all it's worth. Our lexicographic entry paradigm has run its course. It is time for soemthing new. I would welcome suggestions for something more general than snowclone and more specific than grammar to include such expressions. w:Construction grammar is the framework, but I'm not sure what a good entry would look like. Suggestions welcome. DCDuring TALK 17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The set of counterexamples to the "almost any verb and noun" claim is huge. To give an idea of what these counterexamples look like: "dig the sun out of", "chew the monkey out of", "damage the mushroom out of", "mind the business out of", "bend the integer out of", etc. Instead of "almost any verb and noun", you possibly mean "many verbs and several nouns".

I do admit the point that there are many attestable phrases that fit the pattern. (A common one not yet mentioned is "scare the hell out of".) I do not see how the maniness makes the phrases non-idiomatic, though. --Dan Polansky 08:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

One more afterthought, maybe an aside: not every phrase that fits into "<verb> the <noun phrase> out of" fits into the discussed snowclone cluster or whatever it is: "let the cat out of the bag", "get the camera out of my pocket". Some interesting searches with wildcards: google:"get the * out of *", google:"pull the * out of *". --Dan Polansky 13:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the point I was going to make; not every combination of "get the * out of *" will be attestable where *1 and *2 are nouns. But that's not a reason to include the ones that are attested. I wouldn't want an entry for I want a biscuit because I want a polymorphism isn't attestable. Dan, I just think your logic is bad in this case. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not get what you are talking about, or how it relates to my previous post. I have not suggested that every attestable non-idiomatic rendering of "get the * out of *" should be included, which you seem to imply in your response. I am saying that every attestable and idiomatic (non-sum-of-parts) rendering should be included, such as "let the cat out of the bag". Above all, I reject the claim that "let the cat out of the bag" has to be excluded because it fits "<verb> the <noun phrase> out of the <noun phrase>". --Dan Polansky 14:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've been unclear to which of your comments I'm responding. My argument is simply that this isn't idiomatic. It's fully transparent to a native English speaker. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are understating the case. I would expect that anyone who hears or reads colloquial English usage and has good (EN-2?) knowledge of English generally would have no trouble getting the meaning of this expression, especially with access to a non-prudish dictionary. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of sleazy class of phrase and I think that muddies the water. Maybe a separate thread under rfd: beat the stuffing out of would help bring the issue into proper focus?Geof Bard 20:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This sense:

(meteorology) Of wind, from the north.

seems wrong to me. We frequently describe winds by their source direction, but it doesn't "feel" to me like that's a property of all the various possible source directions ("north", "north-northeast", "land", "sea", "desert", etc.). —Ruakh_TALK 16:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's OK, except for the meteorology tag. Historically though you're right. In OE, the word was just an adverb. It appeared either alone as an inflected adverb, or as a stem-form in compounds. So north wind as a set term is attested much earlier than other more obviously adjectival uses (although there are plenty of them). Another way of looking at it, though: this could be kind of interpreted now as almost an attributive noun – "wind of the north", just like "wind of the desert" and your other examples. Ƿidsiþ 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A good place to put a usage note on this would be nice, but I don't know where. Maybe at all the nouns that collocate with the direction words: wind, breeze, etc.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

rfd-sense: (Australian) An Australian lager beer.

Presumably needs to meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw this referred to consistently as Brass Monkey Stout, so I don't know if the right kind of citation would really be possible. DAVilla 07:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, delete. The stout cannot be cited independent of the single brewery that produces it.

By the way, Brass Monkey is a common name for a bar/pub. DAVilla 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfd sense: a state of living without illness, both mental and physical; healthy. --Mat200 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge the entry as a whole. The second definition seems to be completely redundant to the first one. -- Prince Kassad 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are toasts an appropriate sense as an ordinary entry? For the phrasebook? to the Queen? Our country...may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!? to the bride and groom? DCDuring TALK 15:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Delete all current senses.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the noun senses (they're SoP) but keep the interjection sense, though I would imagine it should be tagged as dated perhaps. ---> Tooironic 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Noun senses deleted. Interjection sense tagged. Discussion below should be about the latter.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

sop. it's a center for science Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that science centre existed for years. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really sop, as it could have several meanings from its parts. But it needs a better definition than it has at present, and should really be listed as an alt spelling of science centre which has a better explanation. Weak keep for now, unless you feel both need RFV.--Dmol 00:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your line of reasoning would imply that we should assume our users are so stupid that they cannot make an inference from context as to which of the senses applies. This may be an appropriate assumption for those users that are machines. Few humans fit the description.

Your line of reasoning would also imply we should have entries for any attestable sentence with a polysemous word. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's polysemous enough to warrant inclusion. Make it alt form of science centre as the latter's created first. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)\

Let me propose a few entries: nougat center, transportation center, student center, civic center, entertainment center, starting center, art center, trauma center, counseling center, profit center, fitness center, garden center, home center, distribution center, recycling center, visitor center, visitors center, rehab center, rehabilitation center, conference center, convention center, + some 80 more with more than 5 hits at COCA. Also the variants with "centre". And these are just the two-way combinations. So many polysemous words, so little time.

Do you really mean for all these to be entries? DCDuring TALK 02:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of these would actually make sense to have as entries. For example, an entertainment center is a piece of furniture. A profit center can be a complete abstraction (i.e. the most profitable product line). The word starting center, in a vacuum, can mean anything, but it is probably typically used to refer to the best athlete in that position on a football or basketball team. Most of the combinations above reference a specific meaning of center-as-location that is not necessarily intuitive. Wiktionary is not paper, why not eliminate ambiguity by defining each of them? As to the objection that this implies the assumption that "our users are so stupid that they cannot make an inference from context", we have no idea of context in which they will come across these phrases. bd2412 T 03:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think something we often forget, and I include myself, is that when we meet knew words they come in a context. While on their own as they are in a Wiktionary context, they may seem a bit opaque, often in running text they seem perfectly transparent. So, I'd like to see some citations. I suspect there's more than one attestable sense for this, too. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there is abroad in the land a fantasy that Wiktionary can overcome all limits and become the perfect lexicon: all senses of all expressions in all contexts in all languages. I think that the evolution of language and of the real world adds senses of expressions in context in current languages at a rate far greater than we can add them to Wiktionary. Focusing on single-word terms and true idioms (by some relatively narrow definition) enables us to achieve high quality and surpass other reference works. Casting a wider net will not. The only concern I have with the narrower focus is that many users are incapable of working on the fundamental terms and may not be willing to put in the effort without the motivating fantasy of the perfect universal lexicon. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Balderdash! Our capacity to keep up with developments in the language is limited only by the size of the community we can attract to do the work. We attract a broader community by being more useful than other resources, a goal that we can best accomplish by offering coverage of a broader swath of materials than can be found in other dictionaries. Cheers! 16:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep hope alive! Our actual number of contributors in English is clearly stagnant. I haven't noticed very many fresh faces generally. And many veterans seem to be losing interest. I'm not sure that entries like "science center" are likely to excite new contributors either. They certainly bore the living hell out of me. Why not go for catchphrases instead of compound nouns? Why not go for new kinds of entries, more essay-like. Sometimes paradigms run out of gas and need renewal. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, like a laboratory? No, keep. DAVilla 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What about science museum? ---> Tooironic 22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that it is always a center for science. Though center and science have different meanings, it could refer to any of the meanings of either of them, meaning that this could have dozens of definitions. Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At COCA about 90% of the usage is as part of a proper noun. I don't know what the rubric is for drawing inferences from such usage to the meaning of the common noun. The common noun cites are mostly ambiguous as to whether the referent is a building or an organization. I have included some cites that illustrate unambiguous non-building senses and generalized the definition to reflect the range of possibilities. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sum of parts. A bookkeeper who has full charge of the accounts of a business. SemperBlotto 10:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps - citations would be a fine thing, as I've never come across the term. What really counts is how it is used in running text. Hopefully Google Books won't throw up too many citations, and I can read all of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really seeing SoP, though not seeing a clear undisputable idiom either. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I really think full charge could be an entry, making this deletable as SoP. Otherwise I would wonder if it's a bookkeeper who didn't give any discount on his servies. DAVilla 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the entry (since I was the writer of it) - to solve some (most) of the issues mentioned above. Note: a "full-charge bookkeeper" is a job listed (advertised for) in multiple cities in the U.S.!

Fictional character. Encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete - totally pointless entry. SemperBlotto 10:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Something for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 13:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WT:NOT. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cited, deal with it. DAVilla 20:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an RfD. The three citations don't cover either of the two senses. Each sense should have three citations. I didn't think that we ever accepted citations for proper nouns that were similes, as two of the three offered are. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The three citations do cover one of the senses, namely the one of the protagonist. Your bit about similes is out of left field. I'm not sure we've ever accepted citations of proper nouns at all. We've never really had to. If you want metaphorical use then you should put it to a vote, but such vote pointed out earlier has failed, with you voting against it. We have in fact no criteria for specific entities. The criteria we do have, for fictional universes, is already met:

"With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense."

Apparently, these criteria do allow simile:

Wielding his flashlight like a lightsaber, Kyle sent golden shafts slicing through the swirling vapors.
our children […] looked at us as if we had just announced that we were from the planet Vulcan.

DAVilla 16:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Failed RFD; not adequately cited. Equinox ◑ 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Now further cited and restored one sense, letting the other fail. DAVilla 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thus reopening RFD per comments above: no consensus to keep. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The first 3 citations support the attribute "robot"/"robotic". Granting that "Boy" implies humanoid, the definition "humanoid robot" is supportable. From the very fact that there are the five citations without (I assume) Astro Boy having been explicitly defined previously in the work, "well-known" would be supportable. I don't see that there are any other attributes supported by three citations. This makes the other attributes seem encyclopedic to me. They seem like good candidates for inclusion in the definition, but would need support, by my lights. As with many such fictional characters, only a tiny subset of the attributes in an encyclopedic article could be assumed to part of the meaning in everyday conversation or writing.

Could "fiction" or "from fiction" be considered a context? DCDuring TALK 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The w:Peabody Award. Consensus on including this kind of proper noun. If so, why? If not, why not? DCDuring TALK 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If we delete this, we really ought to delete Nobel Prize as well. While the latter is much more well known, in linguistic terms they're no different. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Oscar and Emmy. Equinox ◑ 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Google Book hits for "the Peabody of", I would say that if anything we're missing senses. DAVilla 17:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

When we had the attributive use rule it was relatively easy (IMHO) to distinguish between proper nouns that had usage that implied meaning beyond the original referent itself. Opponents, however, deemed it too hard to understand and apply. Any thoughts about some basis for discriminating or are we to duplicate the content of Wikipedia articles, which increasingly have translations/transliterations into multiple languages/scripts? DCDuring TALK 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"the...of" is an easy wrapper to use for discovery of metaphorical use, the basis of my earlier proposal mentioned above. DAVilla 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

RFD for the adjective, which is really the proper noun being used attributively. DAVilla 08:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

How would the appropriate sense for the Proper noun read? Or is the user to make inference from the WP article. Do we need a sound example? DCDuring TALK 13:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Known for his voice." Updated. DAVilla 19:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Does our attestation support the update? DCDuring TALK 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not yet; the "very Donald Duck" citation seems to meet our CFI, but the "most Donald Duck-like" citation uses Donald Duck-like as an adjective, not just Donald Duck. I wouldn't accept that one. The remaining citations seem to be attributive use of the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Have the quotations been correctly rearranged to match the part of speech as you described? DAVilla 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An attack by a drone. Humorous definition too, though that's not a reason to delete it. Was gonna list this under #drone strike above, but I was afraid it would go unnoticed. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, if you agree with definition, I don't understand your reason to delete the entry: drone attack is not simply an attack by a drone. Please elaborate. --Biblbroks 09:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

An entry for "my car" would have the accurate definition "the car that belongs to the speaker". We would nevertheless not have an entry for it unless we had decided to be something very different from a dictionary. In principle, a dictionary does not include terms that are deemed to be decodable from the definitions of their component parts. It is difficult to make hard-and-fast rules about what is to be considered decodable, but hard and fast, for example, is considered an idiom, not decodable based on the current meanings of its parts. In contrast drone attack would seem to mean an attack by a drone. Someone completely unfamiliar with current affairs might have to look up "drone" in a modern dictionary, but, having done so would hardly need to look up "attack". I suppose an older "modern" dictionary might have an overly specialized definition that excluded the possibility of a drone being armed.

That someone could point to an arbitrary combination of definitions that are not what drone attack means in the most common context trivializes the process of human understanding of utterances. That computer algorithms have had difficulty in duplicating the way in which humans decode language expressions doesn't mean we need to compile a database for them. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Biblbroks, you've made my point for me, it is an attack by a drone. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

1912, British Bee Journal, volume 40:
It is possible that the good behaviour of the Metropolitan bees is a protest against suffragette tactics, whilst the drone attack recorded by Mr. Smallwood is an assumption of the rights of the male armour […]

Ha! DAVilla 07:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Mglovesfun (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Touché. :-) --Biblbroks 00:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How about if we consider the drone attack syntagma not just as a simple attack by a drone, but an attack with a drone? Would that matter? Is sword attack an attack with a sword, as well as it could be an attack by a sword? I am not that proficient in English, so this is more of a hypothesis. --Biblbroks дискашн 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

rfd-sense: Latin interjection "I forbid it! I protest!" Isn't this just the verb form? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The senses:

Country code for the United Arab Emirates.
At the age of; aged.
(mathematics) Almost everywhere.

The first one is obviously bad caps. The last one is already at a.e., where it belongs. The second one I think is incorrect as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The senses:

assembly language.
artificial life.
(networking) country code for Albania.
other things.
other persons.
autograph letter.

are all bad caps or otherwise at the wrong lemma. -- Prince Kassad 13:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose other persons or things would be al. as in et al. Dunno if al. is ever used without the et - probably. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW see Wiktionary:Entry titles which I recently created to clear up this sort of issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims to be a trademark. Is not cited at all, let alone for WT:BRAND. Encyclopedic. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Encyclopedic-only, time to clear out the crap. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the entry Academy Award and RFDed it (because I assume the nominator of the plural wants to see the singular gone, too, not because I do). I've also cited it, I think sufficiently to meet our CFI. (If not, it still may well be possible to do so.) Keep and RFV if desired, but convert the plural to a normal plural-of-noun entry.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what rules are being applied, but it looks like this passes (or could pass) the strictest of them. Keep both. DAVilla 02:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. It's a "Proper noun" but it's being defined as a plural common noun ("prizes"). ---> Tooironic 01:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The plural is a trademark for the set of prizes. Equinox ◑ 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it also the show where said prizes are awarded? DAVilla 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncited. Encyclopedic. Or does this get included under the abbreviation non-standard? There are pleanty more where this came from. Can anyone recall whether any have met a previous RfD challenge? DCDuring TALK 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you distinguishing this from (say) Genesis on the basis that it has multiple parts? Because if so . . . it meets WT:COALMINE, in that 1Chronicles is decently attested. (I did not support WT:COALMINE when it was voted on, and I still don't agree with it, but it's somewhat convenient when it forestalls the need to think coherently. Higher brain functions are hard work, y'know.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, name of a book. Albeit an unbelievably well known one. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even bothering to look at the CFI, there are ridiculous numbers of books and writings out there which say things along the line of "Genesis says..." or "1 Chronicles says..."; phrases which assume understanding of the term. If there are tens of thousands of books which assume understanding of a particular term I think it is safe to say that whatever our rules are we should probably allow that term. - TheDaveRoss 03:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there contexts in which I could safely use this or where I could not safely use this, assuming I want to be understood. Is it an abbreviation of something like the "first book of Chronicles" ? DCDuring TALK 11:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's an abbreviation, no; the abbreviation is 1 Chr, with 1 Chronicles being a normal prose phrase (also written I Chronicles; either way, it's pronounced like "one chronicles"). That said, unless I'm citing a specific verse, I'm more likely to speak of Chronicles than of 1 Chronicles. BTW, the coordinated phrase "1 and 2 Chronicles" also exists, though I'm not sure if that's an argument one way or the other. (It makes it seem like a less rigid proper name, but on the other hand, "North and South Carolina" also exists.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

nitpick: It's not "one chronicles", it's "first chronicles". Same for all the other 1 and 2 books. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 02:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, that is what I meant to write. Clearly I should be in bed. Thanks. —Ruakh_TALK 02:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep. DAVilla 18:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not dictionary material. I have a sneaky feeling (with no concrete evidence behind it) that this is actually a protest entry by DCDuring (talk • contribs) in an attempt to show ridiculous our criteria for inclusion actually are. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep; I think famous nicknames are includible, just not the actual people of their referents. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know this nickname, but it could be more acceptable than Mickey Mantle: a definition can be provided and help readers, while Mickey Mantle is any Mickey with Mantle as his surname. Note that Charlemagne, too, can be considered as a nickname. Lmaltier 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is your point about Mickey Mantle#Proper noun or Mickey Mantle#Noun or both? DCDuring TALK 11:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

the proper noun (and the common noun because I think that the figure of speech does not make it a common noun). Lmaltier 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If DCDuring is sincerely in support of the entry, I am too. If not, I probably would be anyways in the absence of specific criteria, but I could support strict criteria that would not allow this as well. DAVilla 02:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My sincerity is in believing that this low-quality entry is consistent with our current policies and practice, which I sincerely believe ought to be uniformly applied or modified in broad terms which can be uniformly applied. I think this entry is a typical consequence of our rules and practice. I also sincerely believe that we would be better served by rules and practices that were vastly more restrictive of the definitions of terms that are proper names, along the lines of our treatment of personal given names and surnames. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Equinox ◑ 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep under current rules. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: golf sense redundant to normal sense AFAICT (and that's the way it seems from w:mulligan (games) too).—msh210℠ (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Move to RfV. All OneLook dictionaries show only the golf sense. The extension to other uses follows the pattern of many other sports terms. We don't usually suppress the originating usage. Citations would be necessary, I suppose, to establish the priority on which my narrative is premised. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're right about the origin, then I agree with you about what we should do about it. (Use of {{by extension}} seems warranted in that case.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup (split by etymology) and RfV. Etymonline has etymology. Also see the WP page. Pingku 04:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Would the split be into three etymologies, each of them eponymous, but unknown? DCDuring TALK 12:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, what I had in mind might prejudice the review. I'm inclined towards etyms for the stew sense (presumably with the details tucked away in mulligan stew) and for the golf sense, both based on the name. For the latter, WP gives too many possibilities to be useful. For the stew, w:mulligan stew (food) gives an interesting theory. Pingku 16:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an almost unlimited number of parliaments around the world, both at federal and state levels. Why should we spell them all out - isn't that for an encyclopedia is for? ---> Tooironic 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is actually used as such (i. e. capitalized) I don't see why not. But that is more a question for RfV. -- Prince Kassad 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that we could possibly delete the entry. I think we can only delete an individual sense if it is not attestable under our current rules. I think this problem arise from treating such proper nouns as if they merited encyclopedic senses. IMO, a wiser approach would be to treat such an entry the same way that we treat given names and surnames. DCDuring TALK 01:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See World Cup, I'd take that approach. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But the World Cup entry seems wrong. "World Cup" is an unofficial proper name. It is not a common noun any more than any of the uses of "Springfield". DCDuring TALK 12:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously WP covers the various entities with the name or nickname "Parliament" much better than we do. Their list of entities at w:Parliament (disambiguation) and of individual parliaments at w:Parliament#List of parliaments, thought not complete, seems adequate. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

delete. But not because it would be encyclopedic. The word is capitalized to mean the parliament of the State. Isn't this rule a general rule for the use of capitals, applicable to all words, when meaningful (e.g. in the Capital)? Capitals have several meanings, several standard uses (e.g. beginning of a sentence, newpapers titles, taxa, etc.), this is one of them (but the State page is justified by a different meaning). Lmaltier 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that nicknames of entities are sometimes not themselves proper names? Or that only official names are true proper nouns? DCDuring TALK 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. Parliament is not a nickname. The reason is that parliament is a normal noun, and that nouns may be capitalized in some standard cases, which does not make them different nouns, just for the same reason we don't create You as a page: this is a standard use of capitals. Lmaltier 06:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge senses and modify the definition to be more general. --Yair rand (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Was listed at RFV with the comment, "Needs attestation of use as true adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives." However, AFAIK there's no policy requiring such attestation. In general it's good to apply this sort of test, but I think this might be an exception.

The issue is simply that Christofascist is rare — b.g.c. gives less than twenty hits — and the majority of the b.g.c. hits are formally ambiguous between noun and adjective readings. (In some cases the noun readings are a bit, um, implausible — "christofascist people" clearly doesn't mean "people of christofascists", and a "philosopher kings"–type reading seems far-fetched — but Wiktionary:English adjectives makes no concessions on that point.) A few hits are predicative and therefore clearly adjectival, but these are secondhand — things like "those right-wing Christologies to which Dorothee Soelle has referred as 'Christofascist'" (mention) and "Some of the pluralists speak derisively of the high Christology of trinitarian dogma as christofascist and […] " (arguably use, but basically mention IMHO), "It would be unfair to apply the term "Christofascist" to this approach, […] " (mention, and also hard to definitively prove as adjectival, though IMHO an attributive noun couldn't be mentioned this way).

I say keep: there are plenty of reasons to think this is an adjective, and no reasons SFAICT to think that it isn't.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sense "the action or result of a verb". Was listed at RFV for several months in search of examples; the only one was baptism, which isn't a great example in that it's a wholesale borrowing (and not formed from, say, baptize +‎ -ism). I think we should just delete this unless people come up with more examples, but even if we keep it, I don't think it should be listed first. —Ruakh_TALK 19:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only think of one other catechism, but I see that that also comes from Greek -ismos. 71.66.97.228 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a phrasal verb to me. --Downunder 21:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Debatable, to drill does mean in sports, to hit the ball/puck hard. So that could be drill + in. How about the sense drill something into someone? That would surely meet CFI. So... not sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In sports one could "drill a ball/shot/puck/serve/ace/liner/line drive/drive/spiral/pass/rocket/fastball", all with a sense that seems basically the same to me, whatever the sport. Usually this would be followed by a prepositional phrase with an adverbial function. But one-word adverbs like "fair", "foul", "out" (out of bounds). I find it hard to see how "in" is different or that any of these cause a semantic change. Delete. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition is inaccurate, you can drill the ball in and not score - it might be saved or blocked on the line. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a phrasal verb because in doesn't have an object. Keep but correct definition. DAVilla 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a sufficient condition? That would seem to indicate that any verb followed by any word that can be both adverb and preposition is a phrasal verb. We have never had the benefit of any adequate definition of what a phrasal verb was, let alone criteria. DCDuring TALK 10:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If in is an adverb in this case, then which sense applies? DAVilla 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

in#Adverb sense 2 is the best wording we have for it. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case I'm not so sure. DAVilla 06:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Dan Polansky 08:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? DCDuring TALK 10:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The sense of drill used here does not require the word "in," and neither does "in" change the sense. Pingku 14:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So how do you explain the existence of that particle? The up in grow up, tear up, wake up doesn't do anything either, nor out in trying out something new. DAVilla 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would explain it away as an optional adjunct in this case, adding some precision to "drill". "Out" and a vast number of prepositional phrases could also add analogous precision. I would argue that up changes the meaning by changing the lexical aspect of the associated verb in at least grow up and tear up. There is an element of completion (telicity ?) to the growing in the phrasal verbs not present in the verbs without the particle, just as in the use of explain away vs explain in the first sentence. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"A parallel format of cable used between personal computers and storage devices." It is NISOP: a cable used for IDE. Compare SCART cable, USB cable, RS232 cable. But we should probably have more at IDE to explain what this actually is. Equinox ◑ 11:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a cable used for "integrated drive electronics". It's one of two cables that connect an IDE hard drive to a computer, the one that doesn't carry the power. Part of this is that our definition at IDE is useless and wrong at points; all modern hard drives have integrated drive electronics, but only some of them are IDE.--Prosfilaes 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Prosfilaes, but I'm not sure the def is entirely correct. Isn't an IDE cable within the computer, taking data between the internal hard-drive and the motherboard.--Dmol 09:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, IDE cables are within devices, for connecting components together, not for connecting devices together. - TheDaveRoss 15:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

rfd-sense X 2: Unlike 3two other senses in the entry these don't seem idiomatic to me. Get is sense 16 "understand". "It" is just anaphoric in the examples provided (Note the other anaphoric "it" which has the same referent>), as in any usage I can find in the two (redundant ?) senses:

idiom To understand, comprehend, or grasp.
If they aren't getting it, explain it a different way.
(idiom) To realize or understand why a joke is funny.
I thought it was hilarious, but she didn't get it.

There is already a sense line for a literal meaning, which should be replaced by {{&lit}} to allow for all possible senses of transitive "get". DCDuring TALK 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Right.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. DAVilla 09:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they should be merged (e.g. "To understand, comprehend, or grasp something (esp. a joke)."), but it seems silly to remove them entirely from this page:

These two senses are the ones that have a dedicated contraction: geddit? geddit?
Two, even: geddid? geddid?
Dedicated interwikis, too: fr:get it (for this sense only, the most useful one for someone looking up a dict).

And so, they're precisely the two ones you wanna delete? I just don't get it... 62.147.11.118 21:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant:

(impersonal): It beats X Y = X cannot understand Y, where Y is an indirect question.

(said by Fred Dibnah): It beats me how she [= the Queen] keeps tabs on everybody

This seems to be a particular use of the "overcome"/"defeat" sense and/or it is idiomatic in beats me/it beats me. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the latter: it's idiomatic in beats me. (Not in it beats me, though, as "How he did that beats me" works well. It can redirect, though.) (I'm reminded of why transcripts, which don't include tone of voice, are, well, lacking: Attorney: And what does your husband do every night at nine o'clock? Witness: Beats me.)—msh210℠ (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

RFD sense: An epithet for Michel Foucault. --Downunder 00:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Under our current policy isn't this an RfV matter? DCDuring TALK 12:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. There whould be a page WT:RFX for things we're not sure whether we want to delete or we doubt we can verify (which, if not, would lead to delete). --Downunder 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

An odd one. Seems to me to be the literal name of a symbol, it's comparable to having an entry on, say, black sun with rays. We probably don't want such entries. -- Prince Kassad 21:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We certainly don't want the current ==Translingual== ===Symbol=== entry, but maybe it warrants a ==Tibetan== ===Noun=== entry? —Ruakh_TALK 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the name of a punctuation symbol, like comma or apostrophe. It doesn't have a good translation in English but it is needed for Tibetan. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've turned it into Tibetan, now keep per Stephen G. Brown. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it meets WT:FICTION well enough to be in the mainspace. Though, it could be moved to an appendix. TeleComNasSprVen 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You do realise it survived the RfV process? ---> Tooironic 10:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, not dictionary material. Surviving RFV does not make an entry immune from deletion at a later date. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Look at the citations. It has a distinct meaning that goes way beyond its fictional world. ---> Tooironic 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we are missing the by extension sense of child or diminutive person. - TheDaveRoss 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The citations provide support for the existence of a term, but not for the several attributes of the encyclopedic definition with which the entry is saddled, to wit: "Any of the fictional dwarves who manufacture candy and sarcastically dispense songs of advice in Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."

I would look for support for dwarf, candy manufacture, sarcasm, advice-giving. The reference to the author and work would seem to belong only in the etymology. But from the last three cites I could get the attribute of "orange", which is not in the definition. From the Grossman and Trewin cites I could get "small". I can't get any particular meaning from the other citations. IOW, the citations only support a sense of "small orange human-like thing".

One problem is that we seem to lapse into definitions not descriptive of usage when we define proper nouns. That is, we depart from a linguistic project and instead embark on an encyclopedic one. Another is that the citations required to prove that a term is eligible for inclusion under WT:FICTION (or WT:BRAND, I think) do not necessarily show very much about the meaning. DCDuring TALK 05:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard people compare the complexions of John Boehner and the cast of Jersey Shore to Oompa Loompas, so I would not be surprised if "orange-skinned" were as significant a sense as "dwarf". — Robin 03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

space + tourism? --Hekaheka 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT it's sum of parts, but I'm not as sure as I would like to be. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt our definition is right: travel for business purposes is "tourism"? If, as I suspect, it just means tourism in space, then delete. Equinox ◑ 16:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hekaheka, I don't agree with your edit summary. :) It is a reality, although not as common. You don't like my Finnish translation requests? Keep this entry. We do have sex tourism and extreme sport and other types multipart words and the space tourism is hard to describe as just tourism. It envolves a lot of long and special training, extreme danger and a heavy price tag. Feel free to rewrite the definition. --Anatoli 22:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with fi translation requests. I do about 20...30 of them every week. I'm against SoP entries. Btw, can you give a quotation in which traveling to space for business is called "space tourism"? If not, this is unattestable usage and should not enter Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 22:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Sex tourism" isn't the same. It isn't tourism to sex or in sex. It isn't even tourism for sex, because it isn't truly tourism. It's something more. Equinox ◑ 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: "sex tourism": But tourism is used in a number of such compounds, including sexual tourism, medical tourism, health tourism, surgical tourism (rare), and business tourism. Perhaps tourism is not used alone with such meanings, but even so, we'd be remiss if [[tourism]] didn't cover it. —Ruakh_TALK 01:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the summary too quickly "...to space is quite unlikely in near future". I see what you mean. The definition was from Wikipedia, as I said we may need to rewrite it. --Anatoli 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It's not tourism to the wide open space of a steppe or some other place one can go when they 'need some space'. Arizona is seeking to become a space tourism hub because you can launch rockets beyond the atmosphere from there, not because you have room to stretch and spin around. bd2412 T 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: Used to indicate temperature. Tagged but not listed, see the previous discussion at rfv (on the talk page) for details. Also, people in the chat think that sense 5 isn't really any distinct from sense 4, either, but I haven't tagged it so far. -- Prince Kassad 22:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

5 ("Used to indicate that the subject and object are the same: Ignorance is bliss") from 4 ("elliptical form of "be here", "go to and return from" or similar: The postman has been today, but my tickets have still not yet come; I have been to Spain many times.")? Really?—msh210℠ (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. What I meant is the senses: (transitive, copulative) Used to indicate that the subject and object are the same. and (transitive, copulative, mathematics) Used to indicate that the values on either side of an equation are the same., where I really fail to see the difference. -- Prince Kassad 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to which? 18 ("Used to indicate weather, air quality, or the like: It is hot in Arizona, but it is not usually humid; Why is it so dark in here?")?—msh210℠ (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from that RfV discussion, which I think is what you might be looking for: This seems like it might be converted to an "rfd-redundant sense". The last five senses all seem to be instances of using "be" with a bare number (not exactly a noun or adjective) to indicate a count or measurement. The senses above (5 and 6, I think) that give non-gloss definitions of "be" as link a subject to an adjective or to a noun phrase. Is what is needed here {{non-gloss definition|Used to link a subject to a count or measurement}}? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) -- Prince Kassad 09:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I now tagged all relevant senses with {{rfd-redundant}} (or at least I think I got them all) -- Prince Kassad 22:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged are "14. Used to indicate age", "15. Used to indicate height", "16. Used to indicate time of day, day of the week, or date", and "19. Used to indicate temperature". Of those, I agree that 14, 15, and 19 can be combined into one, perhaps with the wording quoted above from DCDuring. As to 16: Its usexes are "It is almost eight" and "Today is the second, so I guess next Tuesday must be the tenth", of which the first uses the impersonal it and the second does not, so either (1) it should be split into two senses, one of which uses the impersonal it and the other of which should be subsumed into "9. Used to indicate that the subject has the qualities described by a noun or noun phrase: The sky is a deep blue today" or (2) we include impersonal-it senses with others so that "18. Used to indicate weather, air quality, or the like: It is hot in Arizona, but it is not usually humid" is redundant to "8. Used to connect a noun to an adjective that describes it: The sky is blue". Or is there difference I'm not seeing between the issue of splitting current-16 into theoretical-smaller-16 and subsumed-into-9 and that of splitting theoretical-larger-8 into current-8 and current-18?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This refers to the senses "Used to indicate X" where X is "age", "height", "time of day, day of week, or date", and "temperature". I agree: there is no end to these. (For example, it could indicate weight: "I am 75 kilograms".) So delete. Equinox ◑ 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

gener ("son-in-law") + sororis ("of the sister") to mean "son-in-law of the sister". Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Our definition, requiring that the heap be for agricultural use, is I think wrong, and this is SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, it is a heap of dung. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Could pass on WT:COALMINE if more common than dungheap. Equinox ◑ 12:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically CFI doesn't protect single word entries, they also have to be attested and idiomatic. There's nothing in CFI to prevert dungheap being deleted. Just, it's very very rare for someone to nominate a single word entry for deletion as sum of parts, see also User talk:Dan Polansky#faceguard. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. WT:COALMINE makes the implicit assumption that closed compounds ("headache", "dungheap") are kept per being written solid, without space. This implicit assumption has so far been heeded in common practice. I see no need to question the assumption that "headache" should be included in Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 08:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

People tend to misinterpret COALMINE. They forget the 'significantly more common bit', not just attestability. So we need to crunch some numbers. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts as currently defined. A number of citations really back up the sum-of-partsiness, by speaking of other types of fascists in the same breath. In the past the entry has had various non-SOP definitions, or at least less-SOP definitions, but they've all failed RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, delete. Ƿidsiþ 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it, but it's used in such a range of ways it would be very difficult to explain. And I think they ways it's used roughly correspond to the different ways that fascist is used. Reluctant delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just realized we have Islamic fascism. Keep and reword the definition to link to Islamic fascism (a proponent of Islamic fascism). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Though hard for me to justify. It just 'feels' like an idiom, but I can't back it up with 'evidence'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Urge proceed with caution, be wary of rush to judgement.Geof Bard 07:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DELETE. Are we going to let Fox News rewrite the English language? There is absolutely nothing that the entry informs readers of which is not already explicit in Sum of Parts. Rick Santorum doesn't know Jack about either Islam or fascism. The former is a revealed religion of the Abrahamic tradition which has a long martial tradition which in its current phase is engaged in tenaciously opposing Western powers and one might find them mean or scary or reprehensible - but that is not "fascism". The latter is a phenomenon of a mass party, a single charismatic dictator; idolatry of the State; State ownership of the means of production. Islam rejects idolatry of State and dictator; it has the umma but no mass party; nor does it entail fascist corporativist ownership of the means of production. Furthermore, the futurist-vitalist element of fascism contradicts the absolute idealism of Islam. The Holy Qu'ran is a pre-existing transcendent, much like the "Word" in John 1:1. As such, it is Absolute. Mussolini took the exact opposite view:"From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology."

Just because Rick Santorum likes to string two words together, that does not make them idiomatic, but even if it "feels" idiomatic - seriously, this is not a flame, at all- or even becomes idiomatic due to Fox New$ et al, it would still be Sum of Parts. It's just name calling.

Geof Bard 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea what this means. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, keep Islamofascist, but delete Islamic fascist as SOP. — Robin 03:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep - fried egg and plenty of citations and quotations to support its usage. WritersCramp 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- How does it meet the fried egg test? Surely any fascist that's Islamic is an Islamic fascist, or no? -- Prince Kassad 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant. The music senses are exactly the same as the others AFAICT, but tagged {{music}}. I think the senses should be removed, the tag should be converted to an explicit categorization, and the etymology should mention that the term was originally used in music and is still more common there. Thoughts?—msh210℠ (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the term, but if sotto voce is fairly widely used outside of music, I would do exactly that. If it's almost always music, I would use {{chiefly|music}} and combine the sense, unless they are distinct in a way I don't know of. Like I say, I don't know the term so I will trust others' judgment. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It definitely isn't used only in music, and more surprising (to me, when I looked it up), it wasn't even used first in music. I think two senses are justified, because in the non-musical sense it means 'in a low voice', ie only of speech, whereas as a musical term it doesn't only refer to singing but anything – you can play a piano piece sotto voce, for example. Which I never realised. Ƿidsiþ 20:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

w:Social ecology + theory. NISoP. Also, the kind of entry to which WT:BRAND ought apply. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete (we should probably have social ecology though). Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
But our definition of this term doesn't match WP's explanation of social ecology at all AFAICT.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As a dictionary we are supposed to be focused on usage. I am not entirely sure what WP's choice of terms and definitions reflects. Possibly the weight of all authority, possibly just select authority. A dictionary is not an abridged encyclopedia. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably SOP, but the point is moot until social ecology is defined. DAVilla 06:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

looks curiously like come + together. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is idiomatic, maybe just not in the way presented. I'll look into it when I have some time. DAVilla 06:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It's a set verb phrase. "Come" has so many meanings that a non-native-speaker would be bound to look it up. ---> Tooironic 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: "Having, or shining with, the colors of the rainbow: iridescent." redundant to "Multicoloured". Am I missing something here? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Latin section (not English), taken from rfc. EP thinks these are not formative suffixes in Latin. -- Prince Kassad 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's not proper Latin, then I agree, it should not be in the "Latin" section. But let's not delete the content, let's move it to "English". So, I don't think this should be a deletion request, it's more of a reorganization. And one that a proper authority should just go ahead and do. PatrickFisher 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please leave here as many users will look here.

Although I'm not sure if it's productive, there are plenty of nouns formed this way. e.g., artificium (< artifex), auspicium (< auspex), arbitrium (< arbiter), etc. These are all of the form <person who does something> + ium → <thing person does>, but that might not be the only thing -ium is used for. My Latin isn't amazing, so I could be missing something obvious about this, but it seems to me it should be kept under Latin, maybe with the note that it isn't productive (unless it is - I don't know). 124.169.231.62 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] uncountable noun

Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it is the reverse of SoP, are countable and uncountable used to describe anything other than nouns within the scope of grammar? I know they can be used on their own, but do those usages imply while eliding the word noun or are they truly independent? - TheDaveRoss 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if they are only used for nouns, you could still say "this noun is uncountable"; you are not bound to saying "uncountable noun". —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, translations could be at mass noun and count noun if these two got deleted. Most of the translations seems to be SoP anyway, I think one of the French ones is wrong to the point where I couldn't get three citations for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Unfortunately I don't see how this is keepable under our current CFI. ---> Tooironic 03:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not idiomatic, but I don't see what would be so terribly wrong with keeping the most common collocations for words like countable in this sense. DAVilla 06:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, this may be idiomatic; you can count "money", and it's a noun, but it's not a countable noun (at least, not normally). ---> Tooironic 06:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep or merge. "Count noun," "non-count noun," "countable noun," and "uncountable noun" are very definitely terms used in ESL textbooks, and in the classroom, as well as on Wikipedia The fact that they are essentially professional jargon as far as most native English speakers are concerned does not make them illegitimate. And no, they are not idiomatic. See the Wikipedia article. "Money," isn't a count noun, but "dollar" is. A merge is probably a better idea, but I don't know which would be the better title. "Countable/uncountable" seems to be more common, based on Google, and is definitely more grammatical, but it seems like the official linguistics terminology is "count/non-count." It could be that "count/non-count" is the linguistics term and the one I use in my ESL classes. --Quintucket 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Someone suggested that the similar thread is "not the remit" of this kind of online dictionary and IMO there is a good case that can be made for that. If anyone cares to narrow the issue without the distraction of vulgarity, this thread would be the place for it. IMO the key question is what is the role of "the X out of". To "beat" is non-idiomatic; everyone knows what it means to "beat". Non-natives, etc., might figure out that the expression means "to beat" and that the rest is superfluous. Obvious, no one takes it to mean, literally, stuffing, but a non-native speaker might puzzle over it. (My English it is not so good. This stuffing - what means that?) If for simple utility for ESL/ENthL: Geof Bard 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Catering specifically to non-native speakers is dangerous. On the French Wiktionary, there might be a term nominated as sum of parts, and everyone agrees but me as I don't know what it means. This could be putting the 'needs' of the minority before the 'needs' of the majority. In the above example of me on the French Wiktionary, it might be that my understanding of the individual terms is poor, but when I do understand the terms I will understand the (non-) idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to beat the something out of, keeping the redirect. Substitutes for "something" are not just synonyms for "stuffing", "snot", and "crap", but also synonyms for "piss", "fuck", etc. Moreover, many noun phrases can also fit in the "something" slot, eg "beat the living bejesus out of" (52 raw hits at bgc). I suggest that each of the most common variants that are built on one-word synonyms for "stuffing" be made into redirects and that the usage notes at "beat the something out of" suggest that vast range of possible variation. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It works with other initial verbs, too, as described above in [[#beat the crap out of]].—msh210℠ (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, also "kick the stuffing out of". Mglovesfun (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We could have some of the forms based on other verbs either as additional redirects or as other lemmas. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Add an extra definition at "stuffing" and I don't see what the problem is. ---> Tooironic 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep at least as a redirect; my comments on the subject are at "#beat the crap out of". --Dan Polansky 10:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to something the something out of if kept. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

rfd-sense: (UK, in combination, capitalised) Particular lakes in the Lake District.

If this is only used to form proper nouns (i. e. only occurs in uppercase), it should be at capitalized Water. Otherwise, I can't quite figure out what it's supposed to be. -- Prince Kassad 10:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete, it's a just a use of the existing 'body of water' sense. Ƿidsiþ 10:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete, but create at Water. Part of the name and should be caps.--Dmol 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's just an opinion but those "classical element" senses somehow strike me as unnecessary. Though that may be just me. (they aren't tagged yet) -- Prince Kassad 15:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I wouldn't create water unless you also want to create Stadium (in English) for Wembley Stadium, Bridge for Standfor Bridge and Tower for things like Tower of London, Leaning Tower of Pizza and Willis Tower. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep somewhere. This seems an unusual use of water or Water. I don't think, for example, that it is ever used in the US. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

DCDuring, there is a countable sense for water meaning 'body of water' per Widsith. That's what it refers to in the title of various lakes. In fact their not lakes at all - they are waters. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the definition inaccurate, in that there are "waters" outside the Lake District that have proper names that include "waters"? Is there anything in real life about the "waters" of the Lake District that is distinctive? Is this use of "waters" something regional, so someone from the Lake District would call "waters" bodies of water of similar characteristics that had a proper name not including "waters"? DCDuring TALK 16:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep until such time as someone adds a "body of water" sense that would account for this. Preferably with a cite or two. Note that we do currently have a "body of water" sense, but it's tagged as "in plural", and its sole cite is not terribly convincing IMHO. —Ruakh_TALK 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have copied a sense from MW 1913: "A body of water, standing or flowing; a lake, river, or other collection of water.", with a citation. This might subsume the "plural" sense mentioned above. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we should keep it. Reword it, ok sure, but not an outright keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There exists a plural-only sense that means something like, "water that is in a body of water"; see google books:"the muddy waters of the * River" for lots of examples of it. Our current "in plural" senses seem like failed attempts to capture that sense. —Ruakh_TALK 23:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are onto something. Some OneLook dictionaries have something like it, but don't seem to quite duplicate what you suggest. I don't think your sense includes the other plural senses though. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Extended content, or what this means for other Greek numbers

Greek number SoP series, listed into the thousands. Presumably, if one knows ͵ (thousand) and Α (one) then one should be able to construct a Greek number 1000 by putting them together easily. (If this is kept perhaps the ones beginning with commas should be redirected as alt-forms-of this ͵ symbol and a usage note put at the end of the appropriate entry.) TeleComNasSprVen 16:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

keep. Are 10, 100, 1000, etc. SoP as well? -- Prince Kassad 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 10 is SoP in linguistic terms as 1 then 0. Part of an infinite series indeed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize ten and thousand as legitimate, separate idiomatic terms, but its other variations are SoP, that is, 1000 = one + thousand, 4000 = four + thousand, 2468 = two + thousand + four + hundred + sixty + eight. TeleComNasSprVen 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks sum of parts to me. -- Prince Kassad 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (addendum: it's not attestable either.)

The definition of 调 doesn't even say it can be used to mean "flat". From just the sum of its parts, I wouldn't know if it meant C flat or C sharp or C an octave up. Rspeer 07:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's because 降 means flat. (see w:zh:降音符) Though our entry currently only subtly suggests it, so it should be fixed. -- Prince Kassad 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno how to judge SoPness in Chinese languages; on the other hand there are 4 Google Book hits for it. Just, I can't read them. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

beacon + interval. -- Prince Kassad 15:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It is a well-known English idiom. I don't think it's a sum of parts any more than a lot of common phrases are (e.g. angle of attack, ask the question). Probably should be categorised in Category:English idioms though. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the idiom. It means just what it seems to mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It's not a set phrase - see on Google for other examples of that structure - "shock for shock's sake", "love for love's sake", "beauty for beauty's sake". Anyway that definition is just one interpretation of what "art for art's sake" could possibly mean - beauty is just one possible criterion of such a description. ---> Tooironic 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's X for X's sake where X is anything that's attestable per CFI (so, rather a lot). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep. It may not be a set phrase because of its interchangeability with other words nowadays, but the meaning of the phrase is unique in the sense that, as Tempodivalse said, it is an idiom. It may be treated nowadays as a snowclone, but it certainly has an acceptably unique origin. Eug.galeotti 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Evidence that it's 'unique in the sense that […] it is an idiom'? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  - Firstly, I see you directly quoted me above, which makes me think that what I said was unclear (on second reading, that too didn't signify anything). Apologies. I say it's unique, because I have only ever used and heard of the phrase in the original form; never in any "X for X's sake" form. The original phrase has been in greater use and longer existence than the other phrases you've presented. In my opinion, this is a case where "art for art's sake" has fallen victim to the snowclone. I tried what you recommended about checking on Google, and for "shock for shock's sake", I only found 2 results, both linking to an article on TIME. "Beauty for beauty's sake" revealed 2 results with "beauty", while all other results were "X for beauty's sake". "Art for art's sake", by comparison, arrived as far as the end (page 78) of Google results with the original phrase. Eug.galeotti 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: to eliminate completely = to completely remove leaving no trace. I should probably have "speedied" this but whatever. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done it boldy, but tagged the computing sense with rfd-sense "To completely erase a file, document or directory from a computer system." which just seems like the above sense in a computing context, with no deviation whatsoever. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose having entries for any Roman numerals apart from the individual symbols like I, X, V. This is no more includable than 31. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep, for now. This is worth a BP discussion, rather than recommending this one entry for deletion, as there are many similar. That's procedurally; substantively, I think (though I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise) keep any found without context to prove it's a Roman numeral (though I'm not sure what would qualify), as people will look it up. (Note my previously stated similar opinion about such chemical formulas as include no numbers, symbols, or sub- or superscripts, like KCN.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Numbers fall under a sort of compromise anyway. Do we want 31 also? The pronunciation in French is not obvious since et is sometimes used and sometimes not. Certainly some numbers like 360 we can find reason to include, and some we probably never will, but the rest is just compromise as there's a rather course line that's not worth fighting over. DAVilla 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we keep this one, and perhaps the first few thousand Roman numerals on the basis that they may refer to calendar years; and redirect the rest of those which are not single letter forms or coincidental words in other languages to Appendix:Roman numerals, so users can figure that out for themselves. bd2412 T 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This would seem to be a vocabulary used for defining or that defines, especially as it is only used in the "lexicography" context. DCDuring TALK 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO it depends how accurate the definition is. Better wording would certainly help, as currently, I'm not really sure what it means. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep given it is attestable, which seems to be the case: google books:"defining vocabulary". The current def reads "A relatively small set of words used to define all other terms in a dictionary", which is at least in part comprehensible even if a bit incomplete or worthy of further explanation. The definition can be read in several ways. It can be (a) a set of undefined terms in terms of which all other terms can be defined. Alternatively, (b) it is a minimal set of terms such that all other terms are free from cycles in definitions. This can be understood in terms of the dyadic relation definitionDependsOn(Term, Term), which generates a directed graph, but one that is not necessarily acyclic. If "cat" is defined as "a meowing animal", then definitionDependsOn("cat", "animal") and definitionDependsOn("cat", "meow"). On yet another reading, (c) it is a set of terms allowed in definitions, so no other terms are allowed in definitions. Whatever the definition of "defining vocabulary", it cannot be directly inferred merely from reading the term "defining vocabulary" word per word. --Dan Polansky 09:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost a technical term, no? Seems idiomatic as well, per Dan, if weakly. Overall I'd say keep. DAVilla 05:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

sense: "State of sleep from which it is difficult to wake." ie sleep that is deep. There may be a missing technical medical sense. DCDuring TALK 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect deep SoPness. Despite entry 11 at deep (which I believe is superfluous); deep = profound Deep sleep = Profound sleep. Also, cf. He was deeply asleep. Or.. Later his sleep was even deeper, as the drug took effect. -- ALGRIF talk 16:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

But if we keep deep sleep as in artificial hibernation, shouldn't we have an entry here for the most common use of the phrase? Otherwise people could look up deep sleep and be misled as to its meaning.--Prosfilaes 21:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We've been using {{&lit}} for that purpose in many idiomatic entries. Do you think it is adequate? DCDuring TALK 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That would work, yes.--Prosfilaes 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know we did that. DAVilla 05:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A tip o' the hat to msh210 for that. DCDuring TALK 09:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a suffix? Ƿidsiþ 13:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say actually. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a suffix. Compare the two: starcraft (star + craft; = a craft/vessel of outer space) and starcraft (star + -craft; = astrology/star-ology); also statecraft (--for demo purposes. --there is actually no such term to my knowledge) =state + craft "a craft of the state"/"state-sanctioned craft" and state + -craft "art of statesmanship", which is a word. It's not necessarily literal. It's analogous to other suffixes which began as combining forms, like -ship (=shape). There were other forms in Middle English, such as -creft, as in wicchecreft, stefcreft, and had we chosen this form we might not be having a discussion. However, it's been reanalyzed in form in Modern English due to craft. Leasnam 00:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sense marked with (fiction). As we explicitly do not allow things only used in the context of fiction, this merits speedy deletion IMO.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If that were the case there are a few people here who might consider marking a lot of entries as fiction in the hope that each entry would be deleted, and speedily no less!

Labeled or not, it has to pass WT:FICTION. DAVilla 04:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Was gonna say move to RFV, it's actually already there. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed it as RFV-failed, it had been at RFV for about two months. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: An acknowledgement of the success, appropriateness or superiority of an argument, sometimes used sarcastically to mock one's opponent's absurd logic = Used in a conversation or debate to concede a point as true, often in response to a successful counter of one's own logic. An anonymous user on the talk page suggests that these senses be merged. The difference seems to be that one is used against oneself and the other is not. Also, one mentions sarcasm while the other does not. These two senses don't seem to be very distinct. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are, in my opinion, very distinct. One touche is sarcastic/mocking, and is also said during an argument to acknowledge superiority of an argument. Another is completely different; it's the acknowledgment that your opponent has won the discussion that is at hand. I find it completely unnecessary to merge these two definitions. Keep Zamoonda 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The following conversation is no longer live.

It has been archived here from [[{{{source}}}]] and removed from that page.

Rfd-redundant —This comment was unsigned.

I agree. Delete. Sense 2 covers it. Equinox ◑ 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken from below, this was a duplicate section. I'd have removed it outright if people hadn't voted already. -- Liliana • 19:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No way - keep it you Philistines!!! I've used it in this sense many times

Rfd-sense: to work hard. Redundant to the sense to work off, which I corrected because it's not restricted to debts but is used in all kinds of contexts. -- Prince Kassad 19:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"To work off" is restricted to debts, at least in my mind. I don't see "to work hard" being a subset of "to work off" at all.--Prosfilaes 22:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess the sense needs improving. abarbeiten can be used in quite a lot of situations, such as working off hours in a job, processing a to-do list, etc. The reflexive sense is really just an application of the other sense, but if it's written that badly, of course nobody will understand it. -- Prince Kassad 22:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it's currently worded (that is, the English translations), I can't see how it can be redundant. But I don't know the German word. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, my dictionary has this: abarbeiten (Verb) 1.) work off (Schuld), work (Überfahrt, Vertragszeiten), run (Computerprogramme), execute (Befehle) 2.) slave away. -- Prince Kassad 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

After de:-ab this seems to be a differnet meaning of the prefix: [2a] ganz und gar, bis zur Erschöpfung, bis zur Untauglichkeit, bis zur Tilgung - to do something completely until exhaustion, incabability, extinction.Matthias Buchmeier 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. -- Prince Kassad 10:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, obvious from its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep. While terms like "juvenile prostitution" or "infantile prostitution" have been used, they are an order of magnitude less common than this. It's the standard term for the phenomenon in English and, as far as I'm concerned, a set term. Ƿidsiþ 10:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase, but the def needs work. It needs to make it more clear that there is exploitation of the children, not just that they are children working as prostitutes (which WOULD be SoP). That said, I can't think of better wording at the moment, so feel free to tweak.--Dmol 11:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have something there, seeing as I imagine a lot of child prostitutes (should we have an entry for this?) don't get paid, hence are not prostitutes in the technical sense of the word, and are thus being exploited. ---> Tooironic 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I've split the sense of child "minor" and "pre-adult human being" as they are not strictly synonymous. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Prostitution of children" is SOP. I don't see how two nouns next to each other can be sum of parts. Do you think it's obvious that AB = B of As? In that case why is a child prostitute not a prostitute of children? Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes A B is B of As; sometimes it's other things. Do you really think we should have plastic fork (B of A) or lawyer-accountant (A which is B)?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Plastic fork" is not two nouns. (The fork is plastic, compare *the prostitute is child.) As for lawyer-accountant, yes in principle I see no reason to delete it if someone creates it. In fact I personally have no idea what it means.. Ƿidsiþ 17:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure plastic fork is two nouns: the first happens to be non-count, is all. A plastic fork is not merely a fork which is plastic (adjective: pliable): it's a fork of plastic (noun: a substance). If you don't like that example, though, consider table waiting (B of A), ball juggling (B of A), or school construction (B of A). All are amply attested (search with is following to eliminate things like "at the table waiting for").—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, true enough – noun-noun combos can be sum of parts. I suppose the difference for me is the 'setness' – I just see child prostitution as a single specific real-world phenomenon which is referred to as this, whereas I see 'school construction' as not a specific phenomenon at all. Same with ball juggling. Although "table waiting" means nothing at all to me, so I wouldn't mind seeing that one defined. Ƿidsiþ 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

my + fellow + Americans? ---> Tooironic 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Delete: it sounds too gimmicky. Plus, some people omit 'my'. I do not see any loss in deleting this. --Pilcrow 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a formula for speech introductions in the US. I thought we liked to have such speech-act idioms (or was that just DAVilla?). Are we starting to dispense with monolingual considerations of idiomaticity in favor to the translation rationale? If so there are many entries in Category:English idioms worthy of prejudicial review. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't quite understand your logic. ---> Tooironic 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, seems like a clear SoP. Not an idiom because the meaning doesn't change when the individual words are put together. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

SoP in linguistic terms, but it has some cultural mileage. You can't just replace 'Americans' with any nationality like "my fellow Scots", "my fellow Englishmen". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Has a specific cultural meaning (not well defined though). As I understand it, I normally associate it with the State of the Union address. As said above, you can't swap other nationalities for American. Set phrase also.--Dmol 10:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course you can replace it with any nationality; Americans don't have monopoly on it. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. ---> Tooironic 12:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep and fix. As Tooironic has inadvertently demonstrated, the stereotypical American usage is rare-to-nonexistent with other nationalities. But our entry doesn't clearly explain the stereotypical American usage. (On the other hand, Talk:mistakes were made has established a precedent of deleting idioms that have cultural resonance.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rare-to-nonexistent? Did you actually have a look at the Googe Book hits I provided above? There's plenty to go around. ---> Tooironic 20:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I did look at them, and they're exactly what motivated my comment. I only saw two or three non-American examples of vocative use; and to my mind, the vocative use is what really sets this apart as borderline-idiomatic. (And even in non-vocative use, the non-American hit-counts were not impressive.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What Ruakh said. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I get what you mean. It's just strange that we would have this in a dictionary. That being said we do have entries for to whom it may concern, God Save the Queen and ladies and gentlemen so I guess it's not that weird. ---> Tooironic 22:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Err on the side of keep per Ruakh and also per Tooironic's examples: "for to whom it may concern", "God Save the Queen" and "ladies and gentlemen". (Talk:mistakes were made ended in 7:4 for deletion and should not have been deleted anyway.) --Dan Polansky 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh, delete. Ƿidsiþ 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think CFI would say delete as it's obvious from the sum of its parts. The additional information is really usage notes not definition material. Personal I don't feel strongly either way; perhaps slightly favor deletion of keeping, but by a tiny amount. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep and improve. --Anatoli 06:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: "askance, sidelong". Seems the same as the "towards one side" sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete, please. --Pilcrow 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, Nelly. We lack the figurative sense of askance as a meaning of "sideways". Check OneLook for MWOnline's, AHD's, RHU's, and other views before jumping on senses. Our definitions often don't cover meanings very well compared to what professional lexicographers have. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 30 March 2011.

Oh, is the figurative sense of askance what was meant here? That's... unclear. Perhaps it just needs a rewrite, then. (If such sense exists.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the literal sense of askance is even current. Encarta, for example, doesn't include it. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

google books:"glanced askance" gets a fair number of recent hits, most of which seem to be literal. —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Perhaps that etymology is required, firstly? --Pilcrow 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Also: ex-boyfriend, ex-stepdad, ex-stepmom, ex-stepfather, ex-stepmother, ex-stepparent, ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, ex-husband, and plurals.

SOP. (See ex-.) Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete all. SemperBlotto 07:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, SoP, WT:CFI#Idiomaticity (that is, my understanding of it) also says delete as the meaning is obvious from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
On the face of it, keep. It's a single word, so I can't see any justification for deleting it. Ƿidsiþ 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- We never considered words joined by a hyphen "single words", to my knowledge. This is different from compounds which are just written together. -- Prince Kassad 13:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  - When two words are joined by a hyphen, they're a single word. Surely you wouldn't say ex-Scientologist is two words? "Ex-" is hardly even a word at all, on its own. The problem is you think the meaning is obvious (you're right). But that's not grounds for excluding a valid word. Looking at the list above, there are anyway good reasons for including many of these terms. ex-wife for one has a lot of cultural connotations which may show up in citations; and ex-stepparent looks weird enough to me that I would like to see citation evidence for it. Ƿidsiþ 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    - If you want the CFI take on the matter (which to be honest, we usually don't) CFI doesn't mention the issue of word/not a word, it just says "attested and idiomatic". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
      - That's a good point. Something like "cat" is obviously not SOP (what are the Ps?), but the CFI specifically give the example of "megastar" as an expression whose non-SOP-ness must be justified. One more nail in the "all words in all languages" coffin. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 14:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    - Widsith, anything attested hyphenated is inclusible, you say? Look at all the different "words" you'd then include at google books:friendcum.—msh210℠ (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      - Really? I don't see anything there that meets CFI. Apart from the obvious nonsense on the first page, I see "friend-cum-translator", which has no other b.google hits, "friend-cum-grand-nephew", which has no other b.google hits, and "friend-cum-nurse", likewise. (Besides, "I" wouldn't be including any of them myself -- I have no interest in words like this -- I am just arguing that someone else has apparently found it worth entering and we have no grounds to delete it.) Ƿidsiþ 14:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        I was unclear; sorry. I didn't mean that all those words have sufficiently many cites. I meant only that if they would have, then you'd say they should be kept; they're idiomatic (as idiomatic is used in the CFI). Really? Note that these terms are, inter alia, friend-cum-housekeeper, friend-cum-translator, friend-cum-nemesis, friend-cum-landlord, friend-cum-murderer, friend-cum-grand-nephew, friend-cum-stalker, and friend-cum-fashion-consultant. Friend-cum-enemy actually does have sufficiently many hits at bgc, as do journalist-cum-novelist and, doubtless, more.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        Yes, if they can be cited (as I said below) then I see no reason or need to delete them. Though god knows who would add those in the first place. I'll admit I do see cum as a more marginal case than ex-. Ƿidsiþ 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write delete, but then I checked that a simple Google search gets more than 300,000 hits for ex-Scientologist, albeit with all possible spellings (ex-scientologist, ex Scientologist, ex scientologist etc.). Ex-scientologists even have their own therapy groups, websites etc. --Hekaheka 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but we have ex- and Scientologist to cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We also have -s but we don't exclude perfectly transparent plurals. I think if you allow a word X then you have to allow the various permutations – WHERE CITED – of Xs, preX, Xful, and indeed ex-X. Not all of them will be valid, though – ex-Scientologist is clearly a real thing which is talked about a lot, whereas ex-elbow doesn't appear to exist. As you'd expect. Ƿidsiþ 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruakh and Ƿidsiþ both make good points. I'm on the fence, leaning at deletion. - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW yes, these are indeed good points. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Widsith. I would like to see hyphenation as word-forming, so attestable strings of words that are joined only by hyphens and not by a space should be included regardless of how sum-of-partish they are with respect to their component words. Another thing is, "ex" is only a stand-alone English word by means of derivation from "ex-*" words, which makes the case stronger. The definition of "ex-" as a prefix is suspect: it lists "ex-husband" as an example derivation, but that would imply "ex-" (prefix) + "husband" rather than "ex" (first component of a hyphenated compound) + "-" + "husband". The megastar-thing above is just a jocular reference to a broken paragraph of CFI, right ;)? For previous discussion on the subject, see also Talk:ex-stepfather, December 2009. --Dan Polansky 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- See my comment, above, in this section, same timestamp.—msh210℠ (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  - I am okay with including "friend-cum-enemy" and "journalist-cum-novelist", as they are attestable even if rare. But again, the case of "ex" is even more special per its unclear role: when combined into "ex-wife", is "ex" a word or a prefix to be joined to words using a hyphen? Is "ex-wife" a word formed by prefixing or is it a hyphenated compound? I don't know answers to these questions. --Dan Polansky 10:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

WT:COALMINE applies to at least ex-wife since exwife and possibly others can be attested. I'm not sure about Scientologists though. DAVilla 06:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: A character from Lewis Carroll's book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I don't think we want these as definitions. -- Prince Kassad 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. (Wrong caps, too, incidentally.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete especially per msh210. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an empirical question, not suitable for a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right! "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense." Sorry! Keep here and move to RFV if citeability isn't obvious.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So, it is correct caps? -- Prince Kassad 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of Hearts

Delete also.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an empirical question not suitable for a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete proper noun sense, delete the common noun as just queen of hearts with unneeded capitals. See one of the citations for pæninsula with a capital letter that we accept for the lowercase form. Oh and it's not yet cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it sum of parts? You can re-express it as "a twist in the plot" so it doesn't seem particularly set to me. ---> Tooironic 21:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Our current standard line of reasoning focuses on encoding not decoding, however wrongheadedly. As a result, if "plot twist" is deemed unexpected in the fact-free opinions of voters here, this kind of readily decodable expression (assuming that the decoder is aware of more than the literal sense of "twist") is often not deleted. In this we are boldly going where no lemming has gone before, unless we are to think of Urban Dictionary as our peer. As you must know UD includes almost any common collocation that appeals to its target market. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Twist has a meaning synonymous or nearly synonymous with plot twist. Although I think plot twist is a set phrase, I am tempted to agree with Tooironic and DCDuring that it is SOP. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree; my hesitation being that the relevant sense of twist is as yet unverified. As things stand, for all we can tell it might be there only on the basis of the collocation plot twist. — Pingku^dimmi 06:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

These are interesting:

1986, http://books.google.com/books?id=aZZZAAAAMAAJ, page 54:
The plot has enough detection and plot twists to satisfy classic mystery fans, as well as those readers who prefer the unusual in suspense.
1989, http://books.google.com/books?id=EoCqO6zw_twC, page 881:
Great dance sequences submerged in a plot rife with defections and unlikely plot twists.
2002, Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers, page 51:
The story combined these elements with a murder plot with another ironic plot twist of a crime catching up with you in the end.

It seems like these writers must think "plot twist" has some meaning that bare "twist" does not, because otherwise the usage would be redundant, no? (Contrast "Every fall, the oak tree loses all of its oak leaves", which sounds ridiculous.) But I'm open to other interpretations.

—Ruakh_TALK 12:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Maybe this is why RFD commenters usually don't invoke cites: real-world usage tends to muddy more than it resolves. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 18:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think "the plot has enough plot twists" does sound as ridiculous as "the oak tree loses its oak leaves". See also Citations:kangarooette. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Ƿidsiþ 14:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? ---> Tooironic 00:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep, because if I pointed to a corkscrew-shaped tract of land and said, "look, a plot twist", you'd get the joke. bd2412 T 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you pointed to a long hot dog and said "look, a big red dog", I'd get the joke, too, but that doesn't make big red dog inclusible. If you pointed to a person who was sitting on a desk and whose job is programming applications (software) and said "look, a desktop computer application programmer", I'd get the joke, too, but that doesn't make desktop computer application programmer inclusible.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  - Getting the joke for a "big, red, dog" doesn't require the collocation; you could point at the hot dog and make any joke about it being an actual "dog" (a "dirty dog", a "barking dog", a "stray dog"). With a a "plot twist" you would need to use only the complete set phrase for the other party to realize that you were using a figurative expression as a literal reference. bd2412 T 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep. For what it's worth, I just came upon this entry while wondering what the usage of "plot twist" was, and precisely how it differed from "plot development". I found the words "expected outcome" especially helpful. Gunslinger47 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 超～神

This is apparently not a word. Talk:超～神な. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If anything, the tilde is wrong, it should be 〜 (see usage notes). -- Prince Kassad 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Japanese isn't space delimited like English the lack of a white space ([[ ]]) doesn't mean this is a 'word'. So I think the nomination is intended to say 'this isn't a word, it's really a phrase and it's sum of parts as extremely godlike would be in English. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't know anything about this word. I just know that someone had marked this with {{delete}} and the case for its deletion looks plausible. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a strange tag. --Porelmundo 10:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

strong delete, see doesn't one and Appendix:English tag questions. -- Prince Kassad 10:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, make into into a 'soft redirect'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This seems vastly more useful than many of the terms we deem mistakenly idioms, when we even bother with that figleaf. It should be the target for hard redirects from wasn't he, wasn't she, wasn't I, weren't you, weren't they. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The point of the appendix, and redirecting to it, thus deleting the content from the entry, is that such information is better handled by an appendix. This should soft redirect and all the ones you just listed should also. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a demonstrated inability/unwillingness to add such appendices. Should we just 'fess up to our inadequacy and make the soft redirect to WP? (See w:Tag question.) That could easily be accomplished using {{only in}}. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we do show an "inability/unwillingness to add such appendices" but not in this case of course, as the link is listed above. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete. This is trying to describe a general grammar through a single example that shouldn't be necessary. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sense: A sculptural form featuring a representation of the subject riding a quadriga.

I did not read the citations as referring to the figure of the person, rather than the chariot, the team of horse, or both together. Whether it also clearly refers metonymically to the charioteer as well would be unsurprising, but hardly entry worthy. Further, quite apart from the apparent circularity, which could be remedied, to include this as a separate sense would be a precedent for including additional senses for every noun used to refer to something represented in an imagined or represented world (painting, sculpture, computer game, advertisement, film). Thus man ("a form representing a man (sense 1), as in film, photography, etc."). DCDuring TALK 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC) IFYPFY.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, delete. --Hekaheka 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep - this refers to a class of scuplture known after a particularly famous one. I would normally agree with deletion completely, along the lines that "lion" defined as "a scultpure of a lion" is an unnecessary definition. But a quadriga seems to be a special case of a class of sculptures, like nudes, busts, etc. I say "weak" keep because (offhand) I can't think of another class of scultpure so narrowly focussed ("landscape" comes to mind in painting), but in modern English "quadriga" more often refer to a sculpture than to an actual chariot team, which is the reverse of most other concrete nouns that might be rendered in art. --EncycloPetey 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete: this seems like (as I recently mentioned re catgirl) having a sense for tree meaning "a model of a tree made of metal, plastic, etc.". My vote is "weak" because I don't really know the word and EncycloPetey seems to know something we don't. Equinox ◑ 21:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As per the talk page, this is just a combination of the words "orange" and "up", although I'm not sure which meaning of "up" applies here. Anyway, if this is allowed, we could have red up, blue up, mauve up etc., which is clearly unnecessary. Interplanet Janet 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added orange#Verb. up#Adverb has a sense "thoroughly, completely" that would seem to apply. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also grease up, oil up have the same meaning of up. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I think, after DCDuring's additions. DAVilla 17:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Haplology (talk • contribs) tagged this with {{delete|usually we don't have pages for -te form verbs.}}. This seems like an unusual reason to speedy delete something, so I brought it here. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that he is saying that this is the Latin alphabet form of a Japanese verb form (sort of gerund?), and we only normally do Latin forms of the lemma form. (But what do I know?) SemperBlotto 21:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- This form is listed in 揺れる under 'key constructions'. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As for me, I find Rōmaji entries are of low value, compared to the actual Japanese entries in kanji and kana. They are taking the useful time off creating full-fledged Japanese entries. We do have non-lemma forms, though. --Anatoli 09:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that's a long step away from saying we should delete the ones we already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs to meet WT:BRAND, based on the same merits as Talk:Wikisource and Talk:Wikimedia. TeleComNasSprVen 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion as it mean Wiktionary and Wiktionary has been deleted. But I don't think that logic works, or not every time so I'm bringing it here. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that logic doesn't work at all. (It's the contrapositive of the argument that English entries be kept because their translations are inclusible, which, likewise, doesn't work.) This is an issue for RFV, where it will, I guess (not having looked for cites), be deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

¶ Considering that the English version — which is the most popular translation — does not succeed as a part of Anglic lexicon, would it be irrational to assume the less popular translations also fail in their lexicons? ¶ Regardless, I don't care anymore if this entry will be deleted. I do not understand how entries like Victionarium are still permitted but Wiktionary is not, but I have no interest now. --Pilcrow 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WT:BRAND doesn't seem to apply, not a 'physical' product. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is physical: it exists in bits on servers. We applied WT:BRAND to Wiktionary.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I rescind my previous statement. --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, because according to your reading, all products are physical and "physical product" is a pleonasm aka redundant wording. --Dan Polansky 08:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. More accurately I can't think of a product that couldn't be described as 'physical'. It does depend on what you interpret 'physical' to mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a sum of parts. --flyax 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

By your logic, so is pagina principală, მთავარი გვერდი, and anything else you could think of. TeleComNasSprVen 08:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for other languages. If there is no idiomatic use, then, yes, I do believe these entries should be deleted too. --flyax 08:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

These things vary from language to language, not far to compare say, Quechua with German. In short, we need the opinions of editors who speak Greek at a competent level to make a decision on this. So... I'm out. --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a prepositional phrase ~ in ("denoting a state of the subject") + denial ("mostly senses 4/5"). Seems best converted to a redirect to [[denial]]. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fix [[denial]] and redirect (per nom). Senses #4 and #5 are both trying to cover this sense, but neither is quite managing. —Ruakh_TALK 20:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect per nom.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Noun sense. Looks like the present participle, in its role as gerund. Is there a reason to keep this? Does it predate the verb? — Pingku^dimmi 05:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. If it is attestable we should have it, whether or not any implied verb lemma exists. Does it have an attestable plural? Is the implied verb lemma attestable? DCDuring TALK 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no citations claimed for the noun, which is marked uncountable and defined such as to be indistinguishable from the participle. I've added a couple more citations for the verb (not using the participle form), but you might want to look at them if this is going to be contentious. There is another available if I can locate the Dylan Thomas source. — Pingku^dimmi 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't look carefully at the entry. I'm confused about the appropriate venue for fundamentally empirical questions such as whether something can be shown to meet the criteria for being a noun rather than merely an -ing form. I don't see why pluralization should be the sole criterion. It certainly makes for a bias against uncountable de-verbal nouns ending in "ing".

As to formal tests for nounhood, "bridesmaiding" does not seem to attestably form a plural or accept modification by determiners or adjectives. But, unattestably, it does seem to do some of those things: "Happy bridesmaiding". "The bridesmaiding was exhausting." DCDuring TALK 18:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, this is here because Wiktionary:English nouns (such as it is) seems fairly clear about not (or not "normally") listing the -ing form as a noun when the matching verb exists (though an argument better than "that's the way things are done" would seem desirable). The meta-discussion should be somewhere else (TR or BP?). That process is likely to take a long time. In the meantime, is there a reason for keeping this noun? I had been thinking along the lines that bridesmaiding as a noun usage might demonstrably predate the verb, or even constitute one step in the verb's creation. Does this sound feasible? Does it constitute a provable/disprovable hypothesis? [Oops, I seem to be arguing against my own proposal; but then I'm not really a deletionist. :) ] — Pingku^dimmi 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

@DCDuring: You write of "the criteria for being a noun", but no such criteria appear in WT:CFI. That means that this is not an empirical question, but a policy question. If, as, and when the policy questions are resolved, then this will (presumably) be an empirical question. —Ruakh_TALK 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to be making any proposals for a vote. I suggest criteria to be applied in this case. If these are accepted in this case, I and perhaps others may feel inclined to apply them in other cases. This is a common-law approach. I have an experience-based distrust of our ability to either properly draft policies or to effectively revise policies when the defects become manifest. In the meantime I suggest that we try out the criteria CGEL offers, of which those above are part in individual cases. (Verb behavior: transitives have objects, modification by adverbs. Noun behavior: plural form, modification by determiners or adjectives.)

As the scope of this is limited to the English language, perhaps the policy discussion, should there be one, should be at the talk page for Wiktionary:About English. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

rfd-senses:

Used imperatively when one wants a partner to have sex with oneself, often in a rough manner

And rfd-redundant, 2&3 are the same

(vulgar, slang) An expression of dismay at undesired events happening to oneself.
(UK) expression of surprise, contempt, outrage, disgust, boredom, frustration.

My first though seeing the first definition was to add this to Category:English phrasebook which I suspect would have met with opposition. Nevertheless, I don't object to a "used literally" definition with the phrasebook cat, while vulgar I can see why this would be useful to holidaymakers in anglophone countries; I'm merely sensing that this might not be uncontroversial enough for me to do with without further consequences. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RFD proper noun sense: An open-content online encyclopedia conglomerate.

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, how it would differ from the first sense. DAVilla 16:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree; the wording as at best ambiguous and it seems to just mean the same as the first sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the first sense only refers to the sense of Wikipedia solely as an encyclopedia, afaict. The sense i added was an attempt to address that somewhat newly apprehended meaning of the term Wikipedia - as not merely an encyclopedia - but as a project to build one and all that surrounds it. I understand that the wording is not most fortunate, and it could be improved of course. Perhaps it could be useful if the history regarding this edit of mine and my talk page regarding this entry, is examined. Maybe even my contribution at article_in_question's discussion page could help to illustrate my point. What i am trying to state is that it appears that User:EncycloPetey didn't object to my second addition of the third sense, and that then perhaps this change was somewhat understood and therefore accepted. Regards, --Biblbroks 08:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright; keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Just means get + pissed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. SoP. (Also means "get angry" in American dialect.) ---> Tooironic 00:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete or redirect to pissed.—msh210℠ on a public computer 14:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW searching for 'get pissed' has get pissed as the first result and pissed as the second result, which will become the first result if/when this is deleted. So a redirect isn't necessary IMO. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

SoP. Frog from Titicaca? TeleComNasSprVen 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Telmatobius culeus. Toss an American bullfrog into Lake Titicaca, it doesn't become a Titicaca frog.--Prosfilaes 23:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep per above argument.--Dmol 23:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying "A Chinese toy with a "Made in China" tag in America is not American" to justify the inclusion of 'Chinese toy', or saying "If I shit in Australia, it doesn't automatically become 'Australian shit'." TeleComNasSprVen 23:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit like saying that a fox that is red is not necessarily a red fox. It's a specific species, not any frog from the area.--Prosfilaes 04:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is one of several minimalist entries by the same anon user. They all need improving. I have improved this one, but have better things to do with my time. SemperBlotto 07:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See w:Titicaca Water Frog. I don't know if it can be simply called a Titicaca without the word 'frog'. It could be sum of parts in that case. If not, it isn't sum of parts. By way of analogy, google books:"German Shepherd Dog" gets 13 500 hits, but it's sum of parts because of German Shepherd. We don't have a noun for Titicaca, so we must keep this until there is such a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Prosfilaes (unless, as Mg notes, it's actually called a Titicaca, in which case delete).—msh210℠ on a public computer 14:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Prosfilaes unless it's frequently called a Titicaca. - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I think Titicaca frog meets the CFI's attestation requirements, but it's not nearly so common as Lake Titicaca frog. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SoP, physiology associated with neural synapses. TeleComNasSprVen 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsure. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts (and song title?) SemperBlotto 10:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Does look like sum of parts; not just repulsion after orgasm but specifically at the sight of sperm. Might not be attested though, I have no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks unattestable. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts. This is more like the sentence "We wish (you) a happy new year." rather than the interjection "Happy New Year!" TeleComNasSprVen 01:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

keep, phrasebook -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Disneyana

Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Not sure if this is more appropriate for RfV or not, but I posted here first anyway... TeleComNasSprVen 05:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Disneyana" is not a brand or trademark. It's a regular word for Disney collectables. Equinox ◑ 09:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct; keep that one outright. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

= in + the year of our Lord. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, redirect. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect is fine, but somebody should take a look at the page year of our Lord. if I find it rather cryptic it must be incomprehensible for most non-natives. And is it really an adjective? --Hekaheka 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm losing confidence. This is basically a set phrase, the calque of Anno Domini. The exceptions to its setness involve enhanced piety, appending epithets to "Lord". They are relatively rare AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that "year of our lord" is seldom if ever used without a designation of a number of year in one form or other. It is the name of a band and it appears in a song title and in the lyrics of a song, but these are the only examples of independent usage which I was able to find. In addition to "in", at least the preposition "of" may be used as in: "Today is the first day of the year of our Lord, 2006!" Other elements may be included as "in the good year of our Lord 1991". Thus, the original SoP claim may be valid, but I repeat my question: what is year of our Lord's POS? --Hekaheka 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim of =Adjective= in the entry year of our Lord can only AFAICT be supported if a sentence like The year of our Lord 1096 saw tragedy along the Rhine is cast as {{The year of our Lord}=ADJ {1096}=N}=NP etc., which I think is nonsense: the correct way to cast it would be {{The year}=NP {of our Lord}=PP}=NP [viz] {1096}=N etc. (MHO.) So the year of our Lord would be a =Noun=.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

How would you parse "The year of our Lord 1323, there was a truce taken between the King of England and Robert de Bruce, King of Scots..."? DAVilla 15:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

1323 and year of our Lord would seem to be apposites, each an NP. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think modification of year of our Lord by a determiner (this/that) as in these numerous examples from bgc is conclusive that year of our Lord is an NP, as years are not normally modified by determiners. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're definitely noun phrases at some level, but how can a noun phrase modify an entire clause? Are they together not acting as an adverbial phrase? Is it an ellipsis of sorts? DAVilla 06:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

nominal ("(economics) Without adjustment to remove the effects of inflation") + dollars. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete (or redirect to nominal if this a very common collocation).—msh210℠ (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Entry creator used the summary "A word used in a New York Times article". Of course pure attestation of a collocation doesn't make it dictionary worth, see for example my mom's car. Anyway, delete, unless I'm missing something, your logic seems to be entirely correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

= waning + gibbous. Otherwise, it seems encyclopedic. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep as a set phrase, one of four phases.--Dmol 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought we'd been through this already. DAVilla 15:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Dmol. bd2412 T 17:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

sense: (hardware) a solid, elongated bar whose shape is a square prism.

Does anyone really want to call this an idiom? DCDuring TALK 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Not I. Nor the other sense ("unit of area... Equal in size to a square with sides 1 rod in length"). Delete the lot. (But the unit-of-area sense is not nominated, so that's out of order.)—msh210℠ (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You could tag that sense as well, perhaps after this debate if only to avoid confusion. But yeah strong delete for this definition. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But we have square mile, foot, inch, kilometer, metre, centimetre. DAVilla 15:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actively searching out all such possible mistakes, just those I stumble across for other reasons. We have worse problems than too many non-idiomatic entries. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(chemistry) any molecule that has very many atoms

I'm no chemist, but this seems NISoP. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The phrase is in use to mean macromolecule, including several book titles, but I would agree SoP. SpinningSpark 09:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems like a useful definition of macromolecule. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dunno really, let's ask SemperBlotto. Seems by its wording to be not SoP, as giant means "having many atoms". But, perhaps in reality the two are equivalent, that molecule size is purely down to number of atoms. Like I say, dunno. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit marginal, but there are plenty of hits on Google books. I would just change the definition to macromolecule. SemperBlotto 11:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this term, but if I understand the meaning correctly, I don't think it's SOP. Steroids and triglycerides have a lot of atoms, but they aren't giant molecules. Change the definition, as SB says. DAVilla 06:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I neglected to mentioned that we are the only OneLook reference that has this. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Adjective section. I see no evidence that this is an adjective, rather than a form of call to the bar#Verb. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. One would not say that someone is "a called-to-the-bar lawyer". bd2412 T 19:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep if our definitions are correct (verb: "To admit (someone) to practice in the courts", with no particular court specified; adjective: "licensed to argue cases in a superior court" specifically), which I doubt; otherwise, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't really object to an rfv, but essentially, yeah, delete. Redundant to the verb form. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. DAVilla 15:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

pseudounipolar + neuron --Hekaheka 08:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete, now that pseudounipolar is actually defined. ---> Tooironic 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is SoP by reading the definitions, but if neither of the definitions is wrong I could still be missing something. DAVilla 15:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A cockpit like a greenhouse. Also appears as "greenhouse-like cockpit", "greenhouse canopy", "'greenhouse' cockpit", "cockpit greenhouse", "greenhouse Plexiglass cockpit". Other glazed parts of an aircraft can also be deemed greenhouses, though the word is usually used attributively. DCDuring TALK 12:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A cockpit in which plants are grown? Keep unless greenhouse truly has another meaning. DAVilla 15:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It just a metonymous attributive use of greenhouse. The attributes of a prototypical greenhouse would be invoked whenever greenhouse is used attributively. No dictionary could possibly be useful to a human who missed the specific attributes invoked. If we are serving extraterrestrials or those trying to develop natural-language processing capabilities in machines, this argument does not apply.

For humans, I think this contrasts with a more legitimate entry such as greenhouse gas, which has been used so commonly for so long that it is fraught with specific meaning beyond the original metonymy, even though it is not a set phrase. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaning towards the keep as the argument to delete the entry is not strong enough. Can you for example, have a 'greenhouse car' or a 'greenhouse living room'? --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"greenhouse front" (mostly) and "greenhouse room" (sometimes) are also used with the relevant attribute/sense (glazing type). Greenhouse front comes up in describing a storefront or a mostly glazed wall of a house or other structure. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And "greenhouse wall". DCDuring TALK 21:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(law) the jurisdiction of federal law

That would seem NISoP. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This appears in Black's Law Dictionary, Abriged Sixth Edition (1991), p. 424, but as a synonym for federal question jurisdiction. I agree that the current definition is NISoP, and am not sure that the definition offered by Black's is attestable outside of legal dictionaries. I would delete the existing definition, and am up in the air about whether we should bother to add the other. bd2412 T 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Noun, both senses. This would seem to be a form of the lemma verb (phrase) square the circle. I could not find the putative plural "squarings the circle" on the Web. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, presumably it's uncountable if a noun. I doubt it is one, but I'm not sure what criteria to apply.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Modification by adjectives (but which ones?) or determiners (the ones appropriate for uncountable nouns: "some", "any", "much", "enough", "more", etc. I'm not sure about "no".). It is possible that we should have quantitative criteria comparing "squaring the circle" with "squaring of the circle". Note that "squarings of the circle" would be attestable, though not entry-worthy. DCDuring TALK 04:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NISoP, = all#Adverb intensifier + square#Adjective "even, tied". DCDuring TALK 04:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep CFI: "Compounds are generally idiomatic, even when the meaning can be clearly expressed in terms of the parts. The reason is that the parts often have several possible senses, but the compound is often restricted to only some combinations of them." Square in this definition is distinct from its main sense, that is, the standard geometric interpretation. TeleComNasSprVen 04:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
If so, Wiktionary is at least several million English attestable lemma entries shy of completeness. I don't think I'll be signing on for working on any of those entries. Good luck to the rest of you. DCDuring TALK 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- CFI is highly inclusionist in this form about these certain types of phrases, and I'm not saying I like that, because I don't. But that would be a good reason to change it rather than challenge it. TeleComNasSprVen 04:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep - definitely idiomatic in my opinion. And we might even be missing a sense e.g. ""I think Master Jack is making it all square with Sophie Mellerby." from Trollope "An Eye for an Eye". SemperBlotto 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it has a certain setness, I can't imagine someone saying "the teams were entirely square with only five minutes to play" or "totally square". --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
How does it do on tests of setness?

Are SB and MG suggesting that Wiktionary needs to be able to help folks encode the common collocations rather than merely help people decode them? Shouldn't we then have more statistical information about collocation of senses of words? The answer to that is that, because current freely available resources don't come close to allowing us to say anything about collocations of common polysemic words like all and square, we can't say anything likely to turn out to be accurate. Thus our very selective inclusion of collocations (consisting of the idiosyncratic interests of a small number of contributors) is a new form of prescriptivism. The relatively few collocations included being presumed more worthy of inclusion than the vastly more numerous collocations excluded. At best we will be favoring catchphrases and cliches. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I wouldn't look this up in a dictionary myself, or if I did, I'd like up square before looking up all square. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep argument: you should be able to simply remove the all ("intensifying adverb") without changing the meaning: "the two teams were square with 5 minutes left to play" sounds really wrong; it makes them sound 'uncool' or 'composed entirely of straight edges'. Something like "the game was all over with five minutes left to play", that works if you take out the 'all'. So I'd find it hard to make a credible argument that this is SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a few citations at square#Adjective to show usage of "square" in the sense of "even", "tied". DCDuring TALK 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm not disputing that. If I were you, I'd be trying to argue that all isn't an intensifying adverb, but something else. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. SOP. Like bank parking lot, this is used for other senses of all and square that make sense in combination: [26], [27], [28], etc.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

= class ("A group of students who commenced or completed their education during a particular year. A school class.") + of. NISoP. DCDuring TALK 05:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete, not even correct, the noun is class, class of isn't a noun in itself, just a noun followed by a preposition. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If I thought that was the only problem, I could have changed "Noun" to "Phrase" (in our L2 sense). By the logic of those who favor ambiguous encoding as a rationale for inclusion, perhaps we should have this because, after all, how would someone know that the right preposition after "class" was "of", rather than "for", "at", or "in" or that one doesn't say "1969's class". Of course, it is not at all clear why a user would look this up rather than the constituent words or why a usage example including "class of" in the entry for class isn't sufficient, indeed, better than sufficient. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably better as an example. DAVilla 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete I don't think this is suitable enough for inclusion. There are two very strong senses for this: the "class" that encompasses or groups several objects together, or the academic sense. It seems that therefore these sense are easily distinguishable enough that they do not warrant a standalone entry with another word. TeleComNasSprVen 04:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

One sense: The residues of dead plants and animals in various stages of decomposition. This seems to be wrong. Linseed oil or my sandwich are organic matter whether decomposing or not. If one tries to correct the definition, it seems to become the mother of all SoP's. --Hekaheka 09:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was just matter that's organic. Inorganic matter google books:"inorganic matter" gets 368 hits, suggesting this isn't a set phrase either. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This might be a keeper. It looks like organic matter is more commonly used in this specific sense of decomposition. Of course there is the broader sense you both speak of, the antonym of inorganic matter which is not at all idiomatic, but if this phrase implies a certain state in the life cycle then that's worth noting. DAVilla 06:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts. The form <x>-balled, where <x> can represent anything "hard" such as a rock, can be used to denote something done courageously. TeleComNasSprVen 04:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree a little, WT:CFI says "An expression is "idiomatic" if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Idiomatic. --Dmol 11:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts. kǎo (verb) ("roast") + páigǔ ("sparerib"). Absolutely no hits on Google or Google Books anyway. ---> Tooironic 12:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Send to RFV then. But IMO keep w.r.t. the claim of SOP: since we keep Mandarin pinyin, and since pinyin puts spaces between words, any word spelled joined-up should be treated like any word spelled joined-up in any other language that puts spaces between words, i.e. kept. However I write this without a knowledge of how pinyin works, really, so maybe I'm missing something.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts. --Avenue 10:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Does it mean any frog from New Zealand which is also primitive? Primitive in what way? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly a crap definition, but doesn't seem to be sum-of-parts to me. SemperBlotto 10:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I interpret this from the wikipedia article as any primitive frog that lives in North America and New Zealand - primitive as in not as developed in the evolution chain as modern frogs. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 10:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of Wikipedia article:

Family Leiopelmatidae = New Zealand and North American primitive frogs
Genus Ascaphus = North American primitive frogs
Genus Leiopelma = New Zealand primitive frogs

However, this does not seem to be a universally accepted naming standard for these frogs. Freedictionary uses the words in another order: "primitive New Zealand frog". On the other hand the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand maintains an excellent site [29], which does not even mention the term "New Zealand primitive frog". Instead they speak of native New Zealand frogs of the genus Leiopelma (a.k.a. pepeketua) which exhibit a number of primitive traits. Based on this very limited background research I would suggest "New Zealand primitive frog" is not an established zoological nor common language term. Rather, it is simply a phrase, New Zealand + primitive + frog, appearing in Wikipedia. Several other websites have copied these words from there. My conclusion is delete. --Hekaheka 02:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Three senses:

(Biblical) God's promise to humanity after the Flood, symbolised by the rainbow.
(Biblical) God's promise to Israel in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that He would redeem the nation of Israel, give Israel the land of Zion, and "appear in his glory" and "come out of Zion" when "all Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11:25-27).
(Biblical) God's general promise of salvation to the faithful as taught in the Bible.

Rational is that these aren't definitions of the word 'covenant' but rather three examples of covenants, covered by our other definitions at covenant. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Move these senses to Covenant#Proper noun and RfV. Also, change context to {{Christianity}}. Christian religious literature is full of special uses of terms like this. Unless we would treat evangelical Christian religions differently from other religions. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New International Version, Luke 1:72: "to show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant,", so it's not capitalized here, I suppose it may well have been capitalized in earlier English versions. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Just because, say, someone understands what I'm talking about when I say "I'm going to the store", that doesn't mean we need to have a sense at "store" for the particular one in my town. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 19:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"A fictional giant red dog named Clifford." Sequel to Talk:Lassie, I suppose. Apparently fails WT:FICTION because no citation is independent of reference to that universe — i.e. they are along the lines of "my dog looks like Clifford". Equinox ◑ 15:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WT:FICTION expressly mentions "Wielding his flashlight like a lightsaber, Kyle sent golden shafts slicing through the swirling vapors." as an appropriate citation for lightsaber.

However, many attitudes from Talk:Lassie suggest that people disagree with the policy, despite the huge number of citations in favor of defining the entry as a fictional dog, so this may be an opportunity to change the policy to be less inclusive. --Daniel 15:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply excluding those citations that did not convey meaning, as opposed to mere existence, might suffice. Applying standards like those for persons might also suffice. Allowing "like X" sentences without other restrictions would permit almost any well-known fictional character (or real person) and many not so well known. I've always found it interesting that we don't include the meaning that "Cato" had to readers of Plutarch, which helps in reading many political writings, but do include this term and even devoted some effort to inferring that attributes that a reference might allude to (apart from "big", "red", and "dog"). DCDuring TALK 16:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Not dictionary material (IMO). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually we have specific language at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Fictional_universes concerning attestation of fictional characters that already would seem to exclude someall of the citations provided, to wit:

"With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense, for example:

2004, Robert Whiting, The Meaning of Ichiro: The New Wave from Japan and the Transformation of Our National Pastime, p. 130:
Irabu had hired Nomura, a man with whom he obviously had a great deal in common, and, who, as we have seen, was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball.
1998, Harriet Goldhor Lerner, The Mother Dance: How Children Change Your Life, p. 159:
Steve and I explained the new program to our children, who looked at us as if we had just announced that we were from the planet Vulcan."

Emphasis added. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I abstain. I'm not particularly interested in spending much energy defending the attestability of this entry. And I can even assume that a number of people want and/or wanted, in good faith, this rule of "attributive sense" to apply to all fictional characters, in an exclusionist manner, regardless of the exact words of the policy. But, you know, "as if [...] we were" is like "like" and Clifford the Big Red Dog is not a name of person or place... --Daniel 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously the "name of a person" in good faith. Whether a "person" is a living human being, or a dead one, or a living animal character, or a dead one, or a living teapot (as in some Disney animations, e.g. Little Mermaid), or a dead one, is immaterial: they are all "persons" in the sense which matters, of being an animate creature. Equinox ◑ 23:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, person should probably be improved with another, more comprehensive, sense meaning anything who has a "mind", "reason", "sentience", etc. But the distinction remains: I don't think Category:Fictional people should be deleted as redundant to Category:Fictional characters, and I don't think that the entry dog should be added to Category:People.

I'd prefer not having to engage in this philosophical discussion about the meaning of "person", when we can simply add "character" to the policy, to make it clearer.

Does Clifford even do humanlike things, like talking? Does it matter? It doesn't, because the current citations allow even the most personlike fictional person to be attested. --Daniel 12:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet the CFI for fictional characters. bd2412 T 03:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Nobody actually said how it doesn't meet the CFI for fictional characters yet... "My dog is like Clifford!", without explaining who Clifford is, clearly meets WT:FICTION. Many people, however, seem to disagree with the policy. If Talk:Lassie is any indication, RFD is pretty democratic actually: it does not really have to be a tool for enforcing formal policies; it, rather, is a tool for gathering ad hoc opinions about an entry. You may notice a high number of "Delete" and "Not Wiktionary material" regardless of what the policy says. As I said before, if the policy does not reflect the opinions of people, it may be the time to change it. --Daniel 12:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- "My dog is like Clifford!" would be a citation for "Clifford", not "Clifford the Big Red Dog", but even for citations including the full name, such usage suggests that the subject is something that you would look up in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. A citation wherein the author stated that "I own a Clifford the Big Red Dog" would suggest to the read a type of dog, leading them to look in a dictionary. bd2412 T 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong delete. None of the citations actually mean anything apart from the fictional character itself. This term is nothing like Darth Vader, et al. ---> Tooironic 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a bad comparison. Both the citations of Darth Vader and Clifford the Big Red Dog mention characteristics of a fictional character who is not explained (it is implied that the reader should already know who it is). --Daniel 15:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed my vote to keep. If there is a convincing reason to delete this entry, given the current citations, practices, policies and other entries, I just didn't see it. Apparently, the reasons for deletion can be narrowed down to gut feeling, like how a sense of Lassie (see Talk:Lassie) was deleted following a number of barely explained "Delete!" votes even after being vigorously cited (see Citations:Lassie). --Daniel 15:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete.--Makaokalani 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, the Google image results ([30]) seem to suggest this refers to all kinds of things. Ƿidsiþ 16:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But... it doesn't seem very sum of parts. Does it mean this? I've certainly never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick search shows that it is used in hair-extension adds (along with Rapunzel hair), but also in many other contexts. I'll say it's sum of parts (hair like in a fairytale).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 17:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But there are lots of types of hair in fairy tales. If this is the correct definition, keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Creature from fictional universe. Like having an entry for Xann, protagonist of 1980s video game Terminus, or Dumbledore, wizard from Harry Potter. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We do have Charizard and Pikachu, though, and cited. I think it would be better to move it to RFV, because the common practice is attesting or deleting senses defined as fictional characters. --Daniel 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an issue for RFV.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's common practice, but perhaps erroneously. Something which is not dictionary material can still be attested. If moved to RFV, and if it passes, It might then get tagged with rfd again. But sure, rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The attestation process exists to check whether an entry is dictionary material, doesn't it? --Daniel 14:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. If that were true, entries that pass RFV wouldn't then later fail RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Why would entries that pass RFV be put to RFD in the first place? DAVilla 15:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Feels like just some of the possible sense of man + on + man with the spaces replaced by hyphen. Surely man-on-woman and woman-on-man are also attestable. Delete, obvious to the reader from the sum of its parts, also doesn't function as a single unit. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep sports sense. Clearly widespread use, distinguishes from the alternative "zone" play (wherein each player protects a particular area of the court, irrespective of where opposing players go), and is also used in womens' athletics. See, e.g. "U.S., China, Russia dominate medal race", ESPN (August 23, 2004): "Coach April Heinrichs said she simply played her best man-on-man defenders, and that took precedence over Chastain's strengths as a possession player and on-field leader" (referring to the U.S. women's soccer team). bd2412 T 18:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep all. I don't think a non-native speaker with a basic level of competence could understand these terms and their extended meanings even if he/she knew the individual parts. "on" has 25 senses after all! ---> Tooironic 00:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep sports sense per bd2412. Delete the other, I think. (In which case, replace it with {{&lit}}.)—msh210℠ (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's hardly literal. If someone says to you, "Do you like man-on-man?" they don't mean "Do you like man plus man?" or "man on top of man?" ---> Tooironic 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] girl-on-girl

Same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It is probably instructive for people to know that of all the possible meanings this phrase could conceivably had, the implication that most people would understand it to have is of sexual activity (and between adults, not "girls" in the adolescent sense). Consider the non-native speaker who might erroneously use the phrase in reference to an entirely non-sexual interaction. bd2412 T 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I always dislike hypothetical objections. You're not saying that anyone ever has made this mistake, or that it's likely, just that it's possible. Having said that, there does seems to be non-sexual use, such as "girl-on-girl crime". In this sense, it doesn't seem to mean "lesbian". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"girl-on-girl crime" gets ten Google Books hits. "girl-on-girl action" gets 611, and a quick glance through them suggests none is about crime (unless you live in a country where lesbian sex is illegal). Moreover, those discussions of "girl-on-girl" crime or violence are largely directed towards behavior of "girls" - that is, adolescent females; the sexual conduct that constitutes the vast majority of "girl-on-girl" mentions is between adult females. bd2412 T 18:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Well "girl" does mean adult female, so that's hardly surprising. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case, what is the source of the distinct dichotomy between the girls involved in "girl-on-girl" action and those references to "girl-on-girl violence" as occurring on the playground or in the classroom? bd2412 T 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] woman-on-woman

Same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] boy-on-boy

Same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Adjective and noun senses —This unsigned comment was added by 75.104.157.95 (talk • contribs) 18.48, 5 June 2011.

Move to RFV. There does seem to be a countable sense of ranching which we lack, meaning either a ranch, a farming area or something similar, evidence by a couple of valid hits for ranchings. Some of those hits are scannos or not English. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think more than 2 are "valid" (not, eg, scannos that missed an apostrophe). The really seem mistaken. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

NISoP: = fully + loaded. Many adverbs substitute for "fully". DCDuring TALK 02:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The first definition is entirely SoP, the second one doesn't seem quite right, but if you read the use example, it refers to a car that's loaded fully, hence SoP, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic 00:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts, at least as it stands now. — Pingku^dimmi 13:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Idiomatic because, of the many possible senses of "loaded", the only one that would be correct in relation to loaded dice is that of being designed to influence the outcome. Although the definition at loaded currently specifies dice, that only evidences the commonality of this collocation; in fact, any game of chance can be said to be "loaded" in the same way. bd2412 T 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Other lexicographers have not followed Webster's 1913 in having this as a separate entry. Roulette wheels and coins can also be "loaded". As these are the principal analog randomizers and as this sense (unfairness in randomizers achieved by physical manipulation) applies to all three, I don't think BD's argument stands without, at the very least, some quantitative support or some supporting arguments. DCDuring TALK 01:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at this, and I think the idiom is more often expressed as "the dice are loaded (against someone)" (and having nothing to do with games) and other forms rather than "loaded dice." Doing a straight search on the latter, I had trouble identifying the idiom, which I suspect more properly belongs with the verb load and adjective loaded. There are also instances of expressions like "the dice are more loaded," which seems only to be used figuratively. — Pingku^dimmi 01:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete, apparently. Though I'd always considered this idiomatic until this very moment. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Then delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One of as many possible instances of w:Shm-reduplication as there are nouns - and not just in English. DCDuring TALK 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So? There are 2,500 words in Category:English words prefixed with un-, the vast majority of which are trivial. Every word modified by shm-reduplication is as eligible as every word prefixed by un-. My biggest concern here is that Google Books shows work schmerk punctuated several ways, so perhaps this should be under just schmerk.--Prosfilaes 03:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Would seem to belong at schmerk, if for no other reason than the existence of "jerk schmerk".—msh210℠ (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, entry schmentry! Delete. As User:DCDuring notes above, the schm- schtick can be done with virtually any noun in the English language. Wiktionary already has a nice tolerable entry for schm- and that's all that's needed. It would be unreasonable to start allowing any or all of the individual constructs. · 19:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that this meets any tests of being a true noun in our sense. DCDuring TALK 07:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it's a true noun, but it's harder than you might think to draw a line here. Do we also delete rowing#Noun or swimming#Noun? --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most forgiving test imaginable is modification by determiners (like "much", "little", "more", "less", and most inclusively no), which allows for the possibility of an -ing form being an uncountable noun. I think this might be too forgiving to prevent us from having to duplicate most of the senses of the verb lemma. Modification by an adjective might be better. Verb phrase -ing forms, in particular, have a hard time meeting such tests. A difference in meaning is always grounds for including an -ing form as a noun.

But, one thing at a time. I couldn't find an adjective modifying "pumping iron" in the 95 hits for "pumping iron" at COCA. Nor any hits for "frequent", "occasional", "heavy", or "light" "pumping iron" at bgc. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Iron pumping would look more like a noun than this. At least "heavy", "light" and "some" work as modifiers. Delete. --Hekaheka 05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Here is a recent book title in which pumping iron is placed in a parallel list along with two other items that are clearly nouns: "The Body Shop: Parties, Pills, and Pumping Iron"; and a quotation that places it in parallel with a clear noun: "To steal a New Age term or two, yoga and pumping iron are symbiotic". --EncycloPetey 20:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

By that test few English -ing forms would fail to be at least one of adjective and noun. As such, we would then, in principle, need to define each in all of the senses of the lemma. I would be happy to create an entry at "going" for each of its 59 senses to demonstrate the consequences, and then proceed though the phrasal verbs and predicates derived from go. We could than RfV each of them to make sure I hadn't cheated to prove a point. And then there are the -ed forms. I see no special reason to treat MWEs more laxly than single-word English -ing forms.

The bad consequence of excluding the noun section would be that someone has to click to the lemma and possibly de-lemmatize the senses and usexes to compare to the form they were looking up. I don't see the point on including repetitive PoS entries when we have only some 200,000 English lemmas (including spurious entries for -ing and -ed forms). DCDuring TALK 20:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Deciding whether to keep entries for the "noun" sense of English participles can indeed be a tricky thing. What do you make of this quote I found on b.g.c.? "Too much pumping iron jarred his brain." Would you call that a clear noun use in accordance with the earlier part of this discussion? --EncycloPetey 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that accepting modification by determiners is an attribute of a nominal, as is modification by an adjective. Pluralization is a sufficient test to me, but is biased against -ing forms with only uncountable meanings that have other noun-like features. The obvious thing would be to use "much" which selects for uncountable senses. However, I think that almost no -ing form would be incompatible with "much". COCA has more than 1000 -ing forms modified by "much". To test this, I will run a pseudorandom (last entry on each page or last of each column) sample of -ing forms from Category:English present participles to see how many cannot be found with "much", especially among those with more than 100 raw bgc hits for the -ing form. If I am right that almost any -ing form will accept "much", then another test seems appropriate. The only one I can think of is acceptance of modification by an adjective. This has the disadvantage that there is no single list of adjectives that would work for all -ing forms.

I'm open to suggestions about "just-right" tests, not too many inclusions requiring duplicative entries, not too many exclusions of legitimate terms that behave like nouns, not purely subjective (ie, voting or "expert" judgment). Even a purely semantic test (an -ing form sense not present in the base/lemma form) is difficult in practice as we do not (cannot ?) have canonical forms of definitions to facilitate objective comparison. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: "A fictional monster that arises from an ordinary man when he experiences extreme emotional stress, most famously anger." From a quick glance at Google Books this doesn't seem to have merit as an entry that needs to meet WT:FICTION and is not used outside of the Marvel Comics Universe context. The only other form I could think of is already covered at Hulk which has its own entry. TeleComNasSprVen 07:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh, if you delete it then it needs to go in the etymology for the other definition. Is the other definition a proper noun? Most cocktails I'd have though are common nouns, unless they are copyrighted, as I think all copyrighted nouns, we treat them a proper nouns even when the thing is clearly countable (like a Pepsi). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Should not be a sense. Move to the etymology as a brief mention of what the term originated from. Equinox ◑ 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Adjective PoS. Seems to be intended to cover attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Common, but easily deconstructable. DAVilla 06:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well#Adverb + underway#Adjective. Though it is common as DAVilla says. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it for euphony that "well" is the intensifying adverb that most often modifies this?

Are we explicitly rejecting relatively high frequency of a collocation as a sufficient reason to include such collocation? I think we should, except in the extreme case of a set phrase. Thoughts? DCDuring TALK 01:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not abandoning the collocation, which is not policy, but I'm not making this the posterchild nor even objecting to its deletion. DAVilla 19:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Purported adjective with this capitalization. Seems more likely that usage is interpretable as attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted adjective sense. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. 善意 ("good intentions") + 第三人 ("third party"). ---> Tooironic 23:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't pretend to be any kind of expert on Chinese law, but from what little I know, my sense is that this is a set phrase, i.e., that other combinations appearing to have the same meaning would be seen as incorrect. bd2412 T 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Google hits: "善意第三人"

Google Books: "善意第三人"user:ddpy

sense: # (in Washington, DC) the National Mall: a large, open-area national park in downtown Washington, D.C., which provides pedestrian access to various national monuments.

I'd bet this is just the definite article with "Mall". It would not seem different from "the Mall", which would be a way of referring to any proper noun headed by Mall in a context where the specific referent was clear. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a prefix, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a prefix, then it means that adjective+participle compounds can be formed freely and productively. new+born would have to be parallel to other combinations with different words. I'm not sure if it is, though. —CodeCa t 16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. If someone's a bit aware of Russian morphology, I could parallel this with such words as близлежащий or вперёдсмотрящий: formerly, they were created with two roots, but the left of them has been gradually tending to serve as a prefix. I can't recollect the exact term — maybe "prefixoid".hm. Oh, I could presume that all prefixes might derive from formerly notional words:) Josh L. 15:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It also may be unproductive now but have produced such adj-participle compounds in the past in English.

BTW, we don't have any treatment at all in English of the idea of a word being productive or unproductive in combination currently - or ever. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Or "new-" may never have been productive in this way in modern English. newborn, newmown, newfound, and newfangled got their prefixes before modern English. DCDuring TALK 17:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a remnant of a formerly more pervasive adverb new ("newly")? (We actually have such a sense at [[new#Adverb]], but I can't think of any other examples of it that would sound normal to me.) It feels less prefix-y to me than compound-y, though obviously that's a tenuous distinction. I would write new-mown or new-found with a hyphen — ditto new-hewn and new-minted — and then only because I tend to hyphenate multiword prenominal modifiers ("tennis shoes" vs. "tennis-shoe woes" and so on). B.g.c. shows that many writers are happy using a space in such compounds. And of course, many are happy using newly here. Personally I think we might as well redirect to [[new]], or maybe [[new#Adverb]], and add a usage note there; but I don't feel strongly about it. —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I think with this sort of affix, the test is can it stand alone with the same meaning. And I'm not sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What additional evidence would make you sure?

I have modified the entry to attempt trying to make it clear to non-academic users that this has not actually been used lately to form words, though "new" has. A word like newlaid was a relatively uncommon alternative form of new laid (equivalent to "newly laid"). It is so rare as to seem a misspelling and not a common one at that. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If we follow the train of thought which states: "if it cannot stand alone as a word, then it is a prefix", then perhaps it is a compound. More likely though, it is an older prefix re-defined/re-aligned as a compound in recent times. However, if we follow the train of thinking which states: "if it behaves like a prefix (i.e. functions like other prefixes which cannot stand alone--being based solely on function)", then it's a prefix. Functionally, it is no different from mis-, under-, over-, etc. So, which is it then...? Leasnam 15:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be that there were some true prefix formations in EME. If there were a few (whether or not attestable), that would indicate that it was a productive English prefix. We are maintaining the fiction that Middle English is a different language for most lexicographical purposes, so formation in ME (attestation before 1470) doesn't count. OED? DCDuring TALK 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For EME candidates, consider newmodel, newfashion, newcreate. All were formed in ModEng (and are still relatively current). Leasnam 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither OneLook dictionaries nor Century (1911/2) show this spelling rather than the hyphenated form (if the hyphenated form is shown, as it usually isn't). But with attestation and information about earliest use (ie post-1470) (and recent use?), these could be good evidence confirming Modern English prefixation by new-. Other possibilities might be solid-spelled forms of new-minted, new-styled, new-baked, and new-leafed, all of which are to be found in COCA. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. At Talk:newminted, Talk:newstyled, Talk:newbaked, and Talk:newleafed I have placed {{google}} (type=books) showing sufficient cites, though I have not created the entries. As they are rare relative to the corresponding hyphenated forms, are they to be considered misspellings (including typesetting errors) or alternative forms of the corresponding hyphenated versions? DCDuring TALK 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about it further, I think part of the reason this doesn't feel "affixy" to me is that it's always stressed: NEWfangled, NEW-minted, NEW-mown, and so on. Admittedly, affixes are sometimes stressed in English — -ation is always stressed (maybe because it's really -ate + -ion?), and Greek combining forms like tele- and micro- are stressed unless a later suffix causes the stress to move rightward — but somehow I don't think that's the norm. (Contrast Leasnam's examples: misMANage, underRATed, overESTimate, etc. The only thing I can think of that seems comparable is self-, and that one can also be viewed as forming compounds.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stress isn't a reliable indicator of whether something is an affix or not. Already in Old English, many prefixes had two versions, one stressed and one unstressed. But the distinction was not whether it was a compound or a prefix, but was determined by the part of speech. Nominal prefixes were usually stressed, verbal prefixes generally weren't. Compare stressed æf- and unstressed of-. If this situation already existed in Old English, I don't think we can apply it to modern English. (Unless these stressed prefixes have suddenly become compounds in the last thousand years?) —CodeCa t 10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Stress isn't a reliable indicator of whether something is an affix or not": Granted. I don't think I implied that it was. But thank you for the information about Old English; that's really interesting! —Ruakh_TALK 13:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether newmodel, apparently an alternative form of new-model, doesn't have an atypical etymology, from Cromwell's w:New Model Army (1645-1660). Other Modern English "new-" words, especially those recently formed or at least used commonly might make for better examples, even for pronunciation-based reasoning. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur: stress is affected by POS, so the verb newmodel I would pronounce as newMODel, but as an adjective, NEWmodel. Leasnam 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

For the same reasons we don't have or need entries for least happy, most favorite, and least preferred. Equinox ◑ 13:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As defined it seems indeed to be least + favorite. I wonder whether its use to mean "most disliked" is a distinct idiomatic sense or an example of litotes or of some general pragmatic phenomenon. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a convenient opposite for "favourite", is there? "My most disliked film" sounds awkward. Equinox ◑ 14:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Kill it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a graceful one that leaps to mind. "Most disfavored" is about 0.5% as common as "least favored"/"least favorite". DCDuring TALK 16:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The term least favorite, if read as a SOP, would mean "among the favorites, the least". I don't think that entry means that. A least favorite is not a favorite. Is it? --Daniel 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One usage example would be "I like all of those flavors, but pistachio is my least favorite.". Another would be "He is one of my least favorite cousins.". In the latter case, the social discouragement of straightforwardly expressing dislike of a person, especially a relative, probably leads this to mean "I dislike him the most of all my cousins.". Is that part of the meaning of "least favorite" or do we ascribe it to pragmatics? The same analysis might apply to "least honest". It seems that its mostly the ready availability of "dishonest" that makes this seem different. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. "Least beautiful" doesn't mean "among the beautiful, the least"; it can refer to something downright ugly. That applies to all adjectives I can think of. And surely you wouldn't argue that "the least happy man on Earth" is happy? Equinox ◑ 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep, and create [[most favorite]]. The most beautiful painting in the world is more beautiful than any other painting in the world; but my most favorite painting in the world is not [my] *more favorite than any other painting in the world (with or without the "my"; neither way works). Similarly with least/less/least/*less. —Ruakh_TALK 17:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, b.g.c. suggests that some people are O.K. with "more favorite"; but google books:"one of my more favorite things" gets only one hit, whereas google books:"one of my most favorite things" gets well over a hundred, so clearly there's something special about the latter. "Favorite" strongly prefers superlatives, not comparatives. I suppose [[favorite#Usage notes]] could be used instead, if we do delete this entry. —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep, per Ruakh. Deleting this entry would be my least favorite option. bd2412 T 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Ruakh, Equinox.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Ƿidsiþ 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete, I've never analysed this as an idiom, but always as least followed directly by favorite (or in my case favourite). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Analogous to least liked wherein the object is neither liked. DAVilla 19:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"A brand of tools" Equinox ◑ 22:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this an RfV matter? bd2412 T 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think so, but I am no longer certain what the appropriate venue for items is. In any event, it would seem that WT:CFI#Brand names should apply to attestation. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no it's not really a simple question of attestation, it's more about interpretation of quotations rather than if such attestations exist. Nobody's saying this isn't attested in English texts, what we are saying is that it's not dictionary material. I'd rather all such candidates be posted here, as I don't see how an RFV can handle this sort of entry. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no citations to interpret. If we had some then we examine the citations using the company and brand standards at WT:CFI. WT:BRAND is helpful in showing what it takes for a brand name to convey meaning. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time digging up quotations as long as Mglovesfun is saying that policy isn't policy. DAVilla 19:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved to RFV.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Tea room#big phat.

Defined as "an adjective that limits a noun".

The definition would seem to be NISoP. It seems to exist to be a hyponym. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No non-wiki reference at OneLook has this. It looks like big + fat to me. Even if the spelling bigfat is attestable, I'd bet it's pronounced with stress on both syllables and is arguably a misspelling of "big, fat". But, I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would delete it, but I got my knuckles rapped for deleting big phat! SemperBlotto 08:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note speedy delete big phat if this fails

As a reply, I don't see this as sum of parts. A 'big fat liar' is usually a childish way of calling someone a liar. The person doesn't have to be big or fat, even in figurative senses of big and fat. I don't see how this could ever be sum of parts. My question to DCDuring and SemperBlotto is what meanings we would need to make these sum of parts? --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of Talk:fat-ass. Equinox ◑ 10:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The sense of big in this collocation is about the same as that in the even more common collocation "big old" or dialect "big ole". This spoken citation from w:Dan Rather shows productiveness of "big" in this intensifying adverb use: "RATHER: That would strike a lot of people as big ugly." This transcription is an interesting contrast of adjectival and intensifying adverb use of "big": "I mean, sometimes it's a big, huge, big huge moment in your life.".

As to "fat", I think it is the sense shown in google books:"fat liar" -"big fat liar", excluding the odd scanno and the occasional literal use. "Fat" seems to be be an intensifying pejorative adjective that occurs with negative valence nouns.

IOW, I think "big" and "fat" are productive in the relevant senses. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Archaic adjective: "clean". It seems like archaic past participle corresponding to "washed". Is it a true adjective in modern English, or Middle English, for than matter. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think. To me a sentence like "I have a washen heart as well as washen hands"^link would be awkward if "washen" were a participle there; compare "I have a clean[ed] heart as well as clean[ed] hands", which only works with adjective "clean", not participle "cleaned". (By the way, that same book regularly uses the form "washed" as the participle, even in figurative use. In both sentences where "washen" appears — not a large sample, I admit — it's as a prenominal modifier. That's not definitive, but I find it highly suggestive.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As to awkwardness, I think that the "clean/cleaned" case seems awkward only because of the availability of the adjective. Could you explain the point of your "clean[ed] X and clean[ed] Y" example? In any case, we are mostly interested in avoiding needless redundancy where there is not much indication of semantically or syntactically distinct behavior of the term. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem redundant to me to list a participial adjective separately, if it's best analyzed as an adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 22:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Then could you explain how the example supports your point? DCDuring TALK 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I said, I think the example would be awkward if "washen" were a participle there. I think the most natural reading is as an adjective. (Additionally, the same book only uses "washen" as an adjective, preferring "washed" whenever a participle is needed; but the sample size is too small to draw a firm conclusion about that.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the name of a PoS or grammatical function assigned to a word by linguists or grammarians makes any difference whatsoever to its being "natural". If "washen" met some tests of adjectivity, .... BTW, Websters 1913, the only original OneLook reference to have "washen" defines it solely as an obsolete past participle of "wash". DCDuring TALK 23:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, 'washed' doesn't mean 'clean' anyway. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. It often happens that archaic past participles remain in their adjectival function long after they've lost their verbal function. Some examples from modern English are shaven and molten, both of which are now only adjectives, not past participles. So I can well imagine that at some point, washen was still in use as an adjective, while its verbal function had already been replaced by washed. And I can well imagine that that point happened during Early Modern English, which is a stage to be labeled ==English== and marked "obsolete" or "archaic". Washen might still be a past participle in Middle English, though, but that would be a different heading in the entry. —An gr 20:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good summary of the underlying hypothesis behind the Adjective PoS. I wonder why Webster 1913 didn't treat it as an adjective. Does the OED's treatment help on this classification question? DCDuring TALK 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not much, no. The OED gives it as an arch.[aic] and dial.[ect] adjective, with the etymology "str.[ong] past participle of wash v.[erb]", but I don't see any explicit indications of why they consider it an adjective. My own assumption would be that their reasons are similar to mine above, which already failed to convince you. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 20:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

MW 1913 and those who follow it don't have "clean" as a sense. The OED does, I take it. DCDuring TALK 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Its subsenses are (a) "Washed. Also with adv.[erb] prefixed, as clean-washen, ill-washen, new-washen, well-washen." and (b) "washen leather n.[oun] Obs.[olete] = wash-leather n.[oun]". It has a bunch of senses for the adjective washed, but none of them is exactly "clean". —Ruakh_TALK 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep as an adjective; I analyse the "washen hands" book the same way as Ruakh. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I've nominated this for deletion I don't have any special feelings about it. It just seems to me that if we keep this we'd have to create entries for second place, third place, fourth place, fifth place, etc, which doesn't seem prudent. ---> Tooironic 03:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete but keep in the first place. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact the definition doesn't make any sense, I think this is SoP of -ify an -er. The only derived term is quantifier which is surely quantify + -er and not quant + -ifier. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, this should be deleted. —CodeCa t 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is productive in a sense in English. Though "logically" it is clearly as MG says, I think that individuals produce nouns ending in "fier" by suffixation of -fier to adjectives and especially nouns, rather than a two-step suffixation process or necessarily thinking of the verb ending in "fy". Following w:Anatoly Liberman, the most telling evidence of productivity would be rare instances (even hapax legomena) of forms ending in "fier" (or, better, "fiers") without corresponding forms ending in "fy", "fies", "fying", and "fied". Unfortunately, I know of no tool that allows wild-card searches of big fat (?) corpora (or even Wiktionary !). DCDuring TALK 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

NISoP. acid-fast + bacillus. As there is a WP article, this could be replaced by {{only in}}. DCDuring TALK 16:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WP redirects to Acid-fast. Prefer to just delete. DAVilla 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Says it's an adjective, but spelled as a prefix. We now present words beginning with "second-" as compounds. DCDuring TALK 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete, even the entry seems satisfied that this isn't a prefix. Didn't first- get deleted earlier this year anyway? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

First- was deleted in 2010, not 2011. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

public + sex. NB we don't seem to have a sense at public#Adjective to cover this. Nevertheless, SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings on the term in question, but I have added the relevant sense at public. Ƿidsiþ 11:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly seems non-idiomatic. I doubt that it is a set phrase. DCDuring TALK 21:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to fail the set-phrase coordination test, often appearing in expressions like "private/semi-public and public sex". DCDuring TALK 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legal term in any way? DAVilla 19:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This particular collocation is one of many that involve hit the fan. But there are many variations (eg, "if" for "when", various direct and sanitized synonyms for "shit", different inflections of "hit", inserted adverbs "really", etc). We clearly need some way of properly handling searches that have forms of "shit hit/hits/hitting the fan". Why not make all of these be hard redirects to hit the fan? Even the challenged entry could be a redirect. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't shit hit the fan more often than other things? Maybe the entry that ends up staying should mention that. —CodeCa t 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It does IME, but I haven't searched. If so, perhaps have the main entry at shit hits the fan, with hard redirects from the others.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

The usex at hit the fan (not the citations at the moment) includes shit hitting the fan. Moreover, I strongly suspect the etymological research (and common sense?) would suggest the priority of "shit" as the subject. I just don't think that there is any form containing any words beyond "shit", forms of "hit", the second "the", and "fan" that belongs here. An entry at shit hit the fan might be desirable. DCDuring TALK 21:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

IOW, I think I agree with msh. DCDuring TALK 21:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But is 'shit hit the fan' itself actually proper English? Normally, verbs are prefixed with 'to', so wouldn't that make it 'for shit to hit the fan'? —CodeCa t 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a number of entries in Category:English non-constituents, which I created to keep track of the multi-word entries I was finding that did not form grammatical phrases. Some of these had strong support in deletion discussions. They are not my favorite kind of entry, but they often seem lexicographically useful, better than the obvious alternative ways to presenting the material. We could add an extra rule to CFI prohibiting non-constituents if the ungrammatical nature of such collocations seems inappropriate as a general rule. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I think "for the shit to hit the fan" would be a poor representative of the construction, which verges on being a snowclone. "For" is a rather uncommon collocate of the other words in the construction and we have been trying to avoid use of "to#Particle" in both entry names and on inflection lines. I am open to alternatives or arguments in support of that form. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is really that we're trying to combine a subject with an infinitive, but infinitives have no real subject by definition... —CodeCa t 22:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. It is not natural English to form lemmas of multi-word entries using the base form of the verb with a subject. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just passing through. Personally, I have never heard of anything hitting the fan other than shit or some euphemism thereof. I would therefore query the attempt of hit the fan to make this into a generic expression. The non-shit example given, "They were just clowning around, when suddenly it all hit the fan", doesn't mean anything to me, other than a polite version of the "shit" expression. 86.176.211.230 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the origin of the expression hits the fan was through a bowdlerized back-formation of the shit hitting the fan. bd2412 T 00:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems highly likely. But the issue in my mind is what the appropriate lemma should be. I'd be perfectly happy to show common forms of sentences with "shit" as subject and "hit the fan" as a predicate as usage examples and in etymologies for some suitable lemma. But I don't see the RfVed entry as a good lemma, nor is any other particular clause an obvious choice. DCDuring TALK 02:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, but am of the same opinion as T and 86.176, that the other hit the fan-phrases are dodges of the one up for deletion. Usage for this sort of thing is hard to come by, but search Google Books "when the shit hits the fan" (2,210 hits),"shit hits the fan" (4,240) and "hits the fan" (9,570). Add to this items hitting the fan like "chic", "chocolate", "$hit", "shift", "bleep", "you-know-what", "crap", "bullshit" etc. "Shizzle hits the fan" once. Salmoneus Aiolides ^χαῖρε 07:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

When I run Google books searches many more hits for "hit|hits|hitting the fan" (36K) than for "when the shit hit|hits the fan" (3.63K), so "when" doesn't seem part of the lemma. Even subtracting "shit" and "crap" still yields 14.3K, so shit is less than essential to the idiom. Furthermore we have no evidence of what the earliest form of the construction is. For example, it could be "then the shit hit the fan", "the shit really hit the fan", "when the shit hit the fan" or the same involving "crap" instead. OTOH, I might have to defer to the aggregate weight of all the "gut" intuitions on this page. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My gut still has the profane version (with or without when, if, etc.) being the origin for the whole dodging (imho) system, but DCDuring's convinced me re: lemma issue and broader usage—hard redirect to hit the fan.Salmoneus Aiolides Χαῖρε 16:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added an etymology and usage notes at hit the fan. Please take a look and improve it. If we can make that entry good enough and provide enough redirects, users won't be misled by our inability to come up with a satisfactory lemma that includes shit as subject. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The earliest use that I can find of the cleaned up form is:

1945, Raymond Henri, Jim Griffing Lucas, W. Keyes Beech, The U. S. Marines on Iwo Jima, p. 45:
A great pillar of flame went up at the base of Mt. Suribachi. "The garbage hit the fan on that one," said a captain.

This precedes the earliest published use (to be found on Google Books, in any case) by six years:

1951, James Jones, From Here to Eternity, p. 28.
Where were you when the shit hit the fan?

In the interim, there are various reports of "stuff" hitting the fan, and references to a line in an anti-Japanese "irreverant song" popular among soldiers during the war, "the Shinto hit the fan". bd2412 T 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks sum of parts to me. And the definition given seems to be only one possible interpretation of the meaning behind a "funny" feeling. ---> Tooironic 02:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But "funny feeling" should probably appear in usexes at [[funny]] (strange) and [[feeling] (intuition). DCDuring TALK 03:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In my experience funny feeling means "a suspicion" (perhaps "a sneaking suspicion"), and have a funny feeling means "to suspect". I think we should have an entry for the former, at least, if not the latter. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, "funny feeling" appears in no OneLook reference. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience matches Ruakh's. The CFI don't mention Onelook.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

CFI doesn't mention OED either. But I generally have respect for the fact that professional lexicographers have made judgments about includability words. OneLook includes idiom dictionaries and glossaries which are highly inclusive. Introspection by amateurs is a poor substitute for such judgments, let alone for some corpus-based evidence. We still don't have as many English lemmas as AHD, RHU, and MWOnline. We might have as many as WNW. If you subtract our flaky and erroneous entries, we are farther behind, despite our alleged advantages. [BTW, Encarta is no more.] DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely cites rule. Impressions don't, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Really you didn't. The value of "authorities", aka lemmings, is that, at least for common collocations, their lack of support for what someone has proposed as a term might give us pause. This is also true when the term falls within the purview of a reference that purports to cover idioms or use of a term in a particular field. Lately our biggest RfD problem is probably collocations common in some context (readily attestable in the sense given) that involve an unusual word or unusual sense of a relatively common word, that may have been heard by and been memorable to more than one contributor, especially not en-N. I still have trouble noticing some "mild" forms of idiomaticity, so a non-native perspective is useful. But forming a judgment is not always easy. So the opinions of authorities/lemmings has some evidentiary value. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English glosses "funny feeling" as "strange feeling"^[31] — which may be evidence of SOPness, insofar as one sense of funny is "strange". (Indeed, DCDuring recently added a "have a funny feeling" usex to [[funny]] under just that sense.) To this I'll add that "odd feeling" and "weird feeling" also seem to have roughly the same sense. There's something funny/strange/odd/weird going on here, but maybe it's some figure of speech rather than actual idiomaticity. —Ruakh_TALK 20:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it has more to do with feeling. Delete. DAVilla 06:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

sense: To travel by means of; go by. Usex: In order to get to town, I decided to go on the bus .

Clearly "on the bus" is an adjunct prepositional phrase and go on is not a phrasal verb in this case. There may be other phrasal-verb senses missing. DCDuring TALK 03:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I recently made some edits to this entry. I think it should be deleted. It's just "go" in its usual sense plus "on" in its usual sense, not a special use of the combination "go on". 86.176.211.230 13:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, delete. Ƿidsiþ 06:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Same. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sense deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't this just like go bowling, go swimming etc.? Ƿidsiþ 06:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

go+gerund forms that you mention are used for (regular, occasional) recreational activities and IMHO these too are idiomatic and are usually translated idiomatically in most languages, and should be added just for that.

go wenching is interesting because of its extended meaning "engage in sexually promiscuous behavior" which you cannot easily deduce from go+wench. --Ivan Štambuk 07:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Standard use of go, standard use of wenching, by far the most common form of wench#Verb. I don't see the point of lexicalizing each of these for the benefit of those who don't want to learn the grammar of common English constructions. "Go philosophizing" would be attestable, too, though it lacks the hormonal interest of "go wenching". Perhaps, as a pedagogical device, we should include all English grammatical constructions in instances involving drinking, defecating, urinating, and the various flavors of sexual behavior. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The verb go has too many meanings, either alone or in idiomatic bindings, to have any kind of "standard use". It's far from clear whether go wenching would mean any combination of individual meanings of go with the standard verbal meaning of wench. In particular, it does not mean the same type of periodic recreational activity as is usually denoted in go+gerund constructions such as go bowling, go swimming etc. as it was suggested. If it was enough to fool a literate but native English speaker such as Widsith, it will fool many more ESLs.

Lexicalizing (and I conjecture that by that you mean choosing the word to be a dictionary-worthy material; usually that verb denotes a spontaneous process by which words emerge in the real language) should in particular be focused on ambiguous but common English constructions, regardless whether their meaning is a simple composition of the constituents or not, moreso in cases where the compounded phrase features more prominently in the corpus than their components. If it is the case as you suggest, that the verb wench is considerably more attested in form of go wenching, it is through go wenching that the verbal meaning of wench is most likely to be looked up. Language learners lack the intuitional capacity that is hard-wired in the brain of the native speaker, and even the apparently "obvious" phrases and compounds can be ambiguous. The purpose of a dictionary is not only to enumerate all the meanings of all words at the lowest lexical level, leaving it up to the reader to infer the meanings of all higher-level combinations thereof - its purpose is also to facilitate language learning, if necessary by providing superfluous semantic shortcuts of fairly common constructs, by listing them as headwords of their own.

Furthermore, there is the extended meaning "to engage in promiscuous behavior" which cannot be deduced from go+wench at all. That meanings with a corresponding citation is the reason why I added the term in the first place, because I had to look it up to understand it. It is obvious from the citation that it does not refer to the action or activity of frequenting prostitutes, but to the moral looseness and impropriety of sexually-related behavior in certain situations. --Ivan Štambuk 14:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Ivan, go bowling does not imply "periodic recreational activity". You can go bowling just once. Equinox ◑ 14:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well technically speaking, something occurring only once is still periodic with T=∞ (e.g. in DSP where you FT aperiodic signals into infinite sums). But now that you mention it - you can't really "go bowling" without knowing how to bowl, except for the first time when you learn about it. "go bowling" implies that you've done it already in the past. Nobody executes fishing/bowling/swimming or other types of recreational activities usually described with go+gerund constructs for a singular occasion - these are periodic ipso facto. --Ivan Štambuk 17:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ, DCDuring and Equinox said it all. Salmoneus Aiolides ^χαῖρε 06:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see anybody describing how the second and cited sense can be deduced from the SoP meaning "to frequent prostitutes", despite several of my inquiries to do so. It appears that the motivation to delete this entry is largely based on an instinctual desire to keep Wiktionary "pure" of lexemes which do not specifically have a rigidly confined and preferably unique meaning. Instead of collecting various semantic gradations and figurative usages which are the essence of using the language for anything other but basic communication, we focus on the existence of semantic reductionism, even if it means excluding common but non-obvious patterns. --Ivan Štambuk 17:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The second sense, it seems to me, is an implication of the first. To have it would suggest we should have buy a Porsche ("(of a male) experience a mid-life crisis"). I don't know how exactly we draw any line about such terms. In any event, wench#Verb should be the entry that contains the meanings under discussion, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be deleted until that change is made. DAVilla 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Our sole sense for "wench" is: "To frequent prostitutes; to womanize." DCDuring TALK 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have deleted this immediately, but I'm not sure if this word isn't used at all. I am quite sure the definition is wrong, though. —CodeCa t 10:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a sense that reflects the meaning in all of the first 10 bgc hits I found. The sense challenged should be at RfV if there is no a priori reason to delete it. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

More added, though not all may be be sufficiently citeable to be safe from RfV. Regarding the disputed sense, the verb sense of happen collocated with on/upon looks the only likely interpretation. The hyphenated forms happener-on and happener-upon are possibly the more common, though still hard to find, and I'm not completely sure how (i.e., where) they should be documented. — Pingku^dimmi 10:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that usage. If it is attestable it would seem to be happener-upon. It is awkward and therefore not common. Other similar phrasal-verb/agent-suffix terms exist and are similarly uncommon for the most part. If someone had a good reason why such awkward expressions don't meet CFI, I wouldn't miss them. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sense: "taking place". This does not occur as a true adjective, AFAIK. Semantically it is the -ing-form, having potentially any of the senses of happen (6 at MWOnline, 3 at [[happen]]). DCDuring TALK 11:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. - TheDaveRoss 12:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Of muscles involved in such breathing.

I doubt that this can be shown to be a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt also the existence of the noun. Nothing that I was able to find of "accessory breathing" supports the definition we currently have. "Accessory breathing muscle" for example does not appear to be "accessory breathing" + "muscle" but rather "accessory" + "breathing muscle". They are required when consumption of oxygen exceeds normal, such as during exercise. There's nothing unhealthy about stronger-than-normal breathing, nor is it particularly shallow. I say delete to the whole entry, unless proper citations are provided, or the definition is changed to something plausible. Some frogs use their skin as "accessory breathing organ", and in their case it might make sense to speak of "accessory breathing" to make a distinction with the "ordinary" breathing that takes place through the lungs. But, even that is suspective as SoP, because it is clearly "accessory" + "breathing". --Hekaheka 12:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the noun. Sometimes it is easier to read "accessory-breathing muscle" and sometimes "accessory breathing-muscle". I will try to find cites for the noun not used attributively. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I found such citations for the noun and added two of the most common collocations as usexes. Now to work on the noun definition. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Adjective: aged; usually in reference to cheese or liquor

Is this ever used to modify any thing other than a Spanish noun, so that it represents a part of a Spanish phrase embedded in English text rather than English. Also I don't think that we have Spanglish as a language code. We would not treat Spanglish as either Spanish or English would we? DCDuring TALK 16:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On the last point, all words in all languages means that if it's a word that's used, then it's to be included. If anejo composes Spanish phrases then why isn't it in any of the Spanish dictionaries? If it occurred in a Spanish context then it would be a Spanish word. Since it occurs in an English context, it's an English word. You may not delete it just because you find its use objectionable. DAVilla 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Adjective sense: against, opposed to.

The defining terms are both prepositions. The usage example shows it complemented by a noun, in the manner of a preposition. There already is a preposition L3 section. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Adjective: extremely awesome. Snowclone with capital S. DCDuring TALK 17:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked to be sure we had this in our Appendix:Snowclones; we do, but that page also links to terrible with a capital T in the main namespace. Should we delete that entry as well? I say yes. - -sche (discuss) 23:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now tagged it with {{rfd}} linking to this section.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please treat terrible with a capital T the same way. Equinox ◑ 22:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the Pope Catholic with a capital C? DAVilla 19:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Adjective: awesome sauce#Noun used attributively. Does not apparently behave like an adjective in any other way. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Of our two cites, one is attributive, and one is not. —Ruakh_TALK 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The other cite seems more easily read as a straight-out noun in predicate position. It provides evidence that "awesome sauce" is not a verb or adverb. DCDuring TALK 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like use of the uncountable noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In the noun section, why do we have the non-idiomatic awesome + sauce meaning? DAVilla 06:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

X 2: Adjective and Adverb

Adjective: Happening in the middle of winter.
Adverb: In the middle of winter.

Almost all time nouns can be used in each of these ways. For whom does this add value? It certainly subtracts from the utility of the entry for someone who wants a good English monolingual dictionary. OTOH, all such time nouns could use good usage examples and possibly a usage note. DCDuring TALK 04:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, if the word has several meanings, including all of them won't "subtract from the utility of the entry". Clear widespread use for both, keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't meanings, they are PoSes for the same meaning.

This is about the difference between what it is in the lexicon and what is part of grammar. It is a grammatical feature of all nouns that they can be used attributively without necessarily behaving in any other way as an adjective.

It is a grammatical feature of time nouns that can serve as an adjunct. How would you characterize "Wednesdays" in: "He races Wednesdays."? or "June 23, 1988" in "He last raced June 23, 1988"?

We usually don't subject our definitions to the rigors of "substitutability". That we happen to do so here is possibly part of a desire to inflate some counts of lemmas. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete the adjective as an attributive use of the noun as in "midwinter night", unless someone convincingly argues otherwise. Delete the adverb per DCD and his "He races Wednesdays" and "He last raced June 23, 1988". As regards the speculation on the motives, the senses were added in diff on 17 November 2004 by Paul G, and I doubt he had an ulterior motive to inflate anything; it just looked like a good idea to him back then. The rigor of substitutability is what I try to apply, though, finding definitions of adjectives that start with "Describing" worth rephrasing. --Dan Polansky 08:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In English the function that this would serve is actually served by the noun methyl. RHU, the sole OneLook dictionary that has methyl- calls it a combining form, not a prefix.

Apparently in Italian, at least, there is a prefix distinct from the corresponding noun. But there is no reason why an English prefix entry needs to be here for translations. The gloss of the Italian prefix could be the English noun and both the Italian prefix and the noun could be translations of the English noun. DCDuring TALK 04:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Acturally, no. In IUPAC organic nomenclature "methyl-" functions as a prefix, and not always in a way that would agree with the noun "methyl". Names like 3-methylhexane or 6,6-dimethyl-4-ethylundecane are not using "methyl" as part of a compounded name indicating chemical origin, but as a prefix to denote the existence of a sidechain. The IUPAC rules explicitly call these forms prefixes. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep per EP. I don't think IUPAC's use of the term "prefix" is binding on us — if they called it a "prefixed", we wouldn't be forced to adopt a ===Prefixed=== header — but it seems reasonable in this case. By the way, although I think the distinction between "combining form" and "prefix" is worth making, combining forms really are prefixes, just as proper nouns really are nouns, and so on. —Ruakh_TALK 21:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the other animal shit entries which have been defended as interjections, this is just a sum of parts noun. Ultimateria 21:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE, google books:"dogshit". (I still don't really agree with COALMINE, but it passed a vote, and hasn't been overturned, so . . .) —Ruakh_TALK 23:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes annoying isn't it? Keep, FWIW dogshit is quite common (as a word) so I think it's quite a clear keeper, unlike some that barely scrape three Google Book hits and get kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this COALMINE-logic. Do you guys mean that the only reason we don't have cat shit, catshit, cow dung, cowdung etc. is that it has so far not occurred to anyone to write them? --Hekaheka 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the solution is to also delete dogshit as sum of parts, but the community won't go for that. See talk:Zirkusschule among some others. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 04:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"One" + "too many". You can also say "a few too many"; for that matter, you can also say "a few" (as in, "he's an O.K. dancer once he's had a few to loosen up"). —Ruakh_TALK 02:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few of Angel drinks (talk • contribs)'s new entries seem SOP to me. —Ruakh_TALK 02:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you guys still bother with Wonderfool? -- Prince Kassad 02:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

When SemperBlotto's around he's generally more bold about deleting things that should be deleted. I just don't have the confidence to do the same. —Ruakh_TALK 11:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an adverb. It is a simple fused-head nominal construction, with the omitted noun potentially being anything. The idiom is that, in the absence of strong contrary context, the omitted noun is drink ("a portion of an alcoholic beverage"). It is also often an example of meiosis as the excess quantity is often more than one. It is euphemistic. The same analysis would apply to a few too many, except it is less meiotic. OTOH, the idiomatic usage may only rarely occur except after a form of have so it should perhaps be moved to [[have one too many]] (and [[have a few too many]] be added). DCDuring TALK 13:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably keep, it has implied meaning, the meaning DCDuring points out, and is thus "its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts. Nearly shot it on sight, but thought better of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why delete this and not drunk as a skunk and drunk as a lord? Are there quantitative or other criteria to distinguish them? DCDuring TALK 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, though that illustrates my sum of parts argument, as opposed to refuting it. Counterargument: cunts, skunks and lords aren't necessarily all that drunk. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill idioms and Cambridge Advanced Learner's have drunk as a skunk and drunk as a lord. "Drunk as a cunt" seems older, but we aren't ageist, are we? DCDuring TALK 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy if we simply had a rebuttable presumption that a simile is not an idiom. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That means a lot of deletions, though. For the moment I think we have to keep it. DAVilla 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This just seems to be last X where X is an integer. Last 64, 32, 16, 8, 4 and 2 are most common just because that's how knockout tournaments work; you can be in the last three as well (the gap between one semi-final and the next one, there are three competitors remaining). SoP, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO this ought to be at RFV, where it would need to be cited as defined (a particular round in a tournament) distinct from the number or group of competitors that make up the round. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Adjective. Doesn't seem to behave like an adjective, except for attributive use. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally I think there's another sense where it's used as a euphemism for (adjectival) fucking. "That clucking bastard!" Equinox ◑ 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should words ending in "man" be considered to have been formed by suffixation rather than by compounding? DCDuring TALK 02:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the stand alone meanings for man are not the same as the meanings for -man. So regarding the test I like to use "can it stand alone outside of compounds/derived terms with the same meaning?" no it can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a specific example? To me it seems that, in all apsects, including even the matter of loss of gender-specificity, "man" has all the meanings of "-man". As with the word "man" in an open compound, the precise relationship of "man" to the other element(s) in the compound is determined based in part on the specific semantics inherent in the other element(s) of the compound and in part on the context. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I'd consider it a suffix when it has a reduced vowel (as in fireman, policeman, bail bondsman, chairman, Scotsman, gunman). When it has a full vowel, I don't think it's a suffix — superman, for example, seems like prefixation, and milkman and fellowman (which we don't list) feel like regular compounds to me — though of course I'd be open to evidence/arguments otherwise. —Ruakh_TALK 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So, when a compound (say flag man) is first formed and "man" is stressed (as it almost always is in the case of flag man, in my experience) then man is the morpheme. But later, if the stress is lost, the morpheme has transformed to -man. How we treat this gets to the question of whether we are attempting to present historical etymology rather than morphology. In previous cases we have favored a historical approach. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: the specific topic: I don't think there's a productive process that would cause "man" to become reduced. If it were to become reduced in "flagman", that would mean that "flag" + "man" had become reanalyzed as "flag" + "-man". Re: the general question: I think I've always made my opinions clear on this point: there is no conflict between a diachronic and synchronic approach, because both are relevant. (The synchronic approach is usually necessary to explain the "why" of history.) The "we" you refer to has never included me, and I'm never going to be convinced by your perpetual appeals to it. —Ruakh_TALK 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The pronunciation of such words can differ between speakers, so that's not really conclusive. I pronounce milkman with a schwa in the second syllable myself, and I could easily imagine superman being pronounced the same way. —CodeCa t 21:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If you pronounce milkman with a schwa, then I believe you're treating its -man as the suffix, rather than as the noun. Similarly for any speakers who pronounce superman with a schwa. Contrast, say, *housecət, or *landlɚd. —Ruakh_TALK 21:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Otherwise we need -woman, -boy, -girl, -person, etc. There is nothing etymologically different, and any spelling difference is a result of phonological context, not of suffixation. A pronunciation change is not evidence of affixation, merely of phonological context. The regional pronunciation will vary. Also, all of the previously noted compounds have "man" as the main element with a preceding adjective or attributive noun, not the other way round. --EncycloPetey 21:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: your last sentence: That's true of most English suffixes. The head of "realization", for example, is the noun suffix -ation. —Ruakh_TALK 22:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'll preemptively vote keep for [[-woman]] and [[-person]]. —Ruakh_TALK 22:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that -ation determines the part of speech is irrelevant, since -ation derives from a Latin suffix -ātiō. In Latin, the suffix almost always determined the part of speech, and any suffix derived from Latin is going to have that same property. The word man is not from Latin; it comes from the Germanic origins of English, where words are formed by compounding existing words. This is thus and argument against keeping -man as an entry, just as we would not create a "suffix" entry for every German noun used as the final part of a German compound word.

An additional key difference is that -ation is not an independent word or morpheme; it only occurs as part of another word. Latin suffixes may determine the part of speech, but they add no lexical component to the root. By contrast, man, woman, etc. are all independent words whose original meaning is still clear and present in the compounded words formed. If there were no independent word man, or if the supposed suffix -man had a radically different meaning from man, then I'd agree that we should keep it. However, neither of these conditions is true here. --EncycloPetey 22:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete. Maybe I could be convinced, you could probably argue it either way. FWIW, the OED's recently-revised M section does not consider man to be a suffix. Ƿidsiþ 17:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW the French section (and also for -woman) should remain whatever; they are both formative suffixes in French, albeit for a small number of words (tennisman and rugbyman are two). Also there is no relevant French sense of man. I remain unconvinced that the same sense of 'man' in fireman can exist independently, so I'm still leaning towards a keep. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it signifies we may have a missing sense of fire, and not of man, since there is also firefighter, firehouse, and firedog (animal sense). Either that, or possibly fireman developed from a model of the construction of firefighter. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that it is a sense of fire rather than that there are alternative "case"/prepositional relationships possible between the head of a compound noun and its modifier. One kind of fireman tends a fire, another kind fights/extinguishes them. For firedog and firehouse perhaps it could be a "genitive" relationship: "of or pertaining to". The context probably determines which meaning is either pulled from the lexicon or constructed morphologically. DCDuring TALK 05:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep. What about bondsman? bd2412 T 20:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What about it? ="man in bonds"; no special meaning of "man" is required. --EncycloPetey 20:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any morpheme which isn't classifiable as an affix under this logic? Someone can always assert that some people, sometimes pronounce the compound with the appropriate stress to justify the assertion. We have negligible ability to verify such assertions unless we rely on lemmings.

Aren't we just making duplicative work for us and implying that any omitted senses in our affix definitions are in some weak sense improper? For inflected forms, for prepositional phrases, for nouns used attributively we try to avoid duplication. Why is this different? DCDuring TALK 21:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep, since nobody (in my opinion) has rebutted my argument above, I'll assume it's good. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"(obsolete) A brand of phonograph that introduced disk records." So it's the w:Gramophone Company? Ultimateria 00:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Might now be attestable in accordance with standards for company/brand names, because of genericized gramophone. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I only know it as a classical music magazine. Would that be OK? SemperBlotto 13:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's still a brand. Maybe that sense would meet brand attestation in some context. DCDuring TALK 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Should meet brand/company name requirements at WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs to meet brand name standards. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note there is a lower-case minidisc entry as well. Equinox ◑ 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That might even meet "widespread use" as the standards are lower for the genericized word, which may or may not be derived from the brand name. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The definition looks an awful lot like a scene that is deleted. It appears to have been inserted to advertise a WP article. {{only in}} would be an admirable replacement. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep, but only because this seems confined to the context of cinema. If the term can be shown to apply to theatre or other situations where a scene could be cut, then I'd agree with deleting it. --EncycloPetey 22:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. That's a good point. The phrase most often refers to a scene in a movie or TV episode that is filmed but that is later removed (during post-production), not to a scene that is removed during pre-production and is never filmed. That's why it's mostly confined to cinema: that sort of change is less common in television, and is impossible in a play or novel or whatnot. That said, I think part of the reason for this is that people don't usually talk about scenes that are deleted in other ways: usually you talk about a deleted scene if it's shown during the credits or is in the director's cut or on the DVD or in the trailers or whatnot. In the rare cases that an otherwise-deleted scene does get discussed, the phrase "deleted scene" does sometimes get used. For example, the play The Crucible was originally performed with an Act II, Scene ii that was removed early on, and google:"deleted scene" crucible shows that people do sometimes use the phrase "deleted scene" in reference to it. (Only once at google books:"deleted scene" crucible, though.) For another examples, writers will sometimes release "deleted scenes" from their novels (scenes that didn't make the published book) on their web-sites, as a sort of teaser or bonus for fans; examples of that are here and here. But one could argue that all of these non-cinematic uses are still just extensions of the core cinematic use. —Ruakh_TALK 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but actually — any restrictions on "deleted scene" regarding the type of deletion may actually be restrictions on "delete". Does a novelist or playwright or director or editor "delete" a scene, or do they "remove" it or "kill" it or "edit it out"? Maybe scenes just don't get "deleted" until post-production. If so, then it doesn't seem like the collocation "deleted scene" is actually an idiom, though it may be a set phrase. —Ruakh_TALK 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep and improve. Very often deleted scenes are available as a bonus feature on a DVD, and in some cases (usually in comedies) they are played as a background to the film credits. Therefore, a deleted scene is not only a scene that is deleted from the film and never again seen, but is sometimes a scene deleted from the body of the film, but made available in another form of media. bd2412 T 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not just improve the WP article, if it needs it? The deleted scene clearly must be deleted from something that has scenes by basic implicature. Do we have any evidence that the term is attestably used carrying all the encyclopedic baggage now in the entry or that would be added by "improving" it ? Sometimes purported improvements seem to be meant to add to the meaning that users actually ascribe to the words in favor of an expert's opinion as to what the words should mean. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Deleted scene is a commonly-used term in the entertainment industry, especially the film and television industry, which usually refers specifically to scenes removed or censored from or replaced by another scene in the final "cut", or version, of a film (including television serials). It is occasionally, but rarely, referred to as a "cut scene", but due to the usage of "cut scene" in reference to video games, the preference seems to be to call it "deleted" instead. A related term is "extended scene", which refers to scenes (such as fight scenes or montages) which were shortened for the final version of the film. Often extended scenes will be included in collections of deleted scenes, or also referred to as deleted scenes themselves". The variations in the meanings of these terms is significant as a matter of lexicography. The fact that this is covered in an encyclopedia article along with other information such as controversies over deleted scenes or parodies of deleted scenes does not detract from the fact that the term has a set meaning in a specific industry, which is the kind of information that belongs in a dictionary. bd2412 T 01:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Ƿidsiþ 17:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Video games could have deleted scenes too. Sum of parts basically. I've been thinking similar thoughts about good ending and bad ending. Equinox ◑ 19:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Claims to be an "Interjection". It obviously is an imperative sentence. It seems like piss on you, piss on him, piss on her, piss on them, fuck that etc. IOW, it is an example of the conventional grammar of invective. DCDuring TALK 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete on sight, if not sooner. · 05:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The existing definition is encyclopedic. Of OneLook references only we and WP have entries. Very many configurations of physical objects might be called a "plywood saw". If we had images, we would find how different they all were, an encyclopedic fact. What they have in common is that they are "saws" for "plywood", a language fact that suggests that "plywood saw" is compositional. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, a panel saw is a commonly used device for cutting plywood, but also other kinds of boards of similar dimensions. Also, a circular saw or table saw or radial arm saw fitted with a certain type of blade. I'm sure plywood factories have very large special-purpose plywood saws. It is also quite possible that there have been various designs of hand saws for the purpose. The changing variety of technologies is probably what makes it seem obviously encyclopedic to me and to the lexicographers of the OneLook references. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

None of these "Nation-Nation" words are useful and don't convey any additional meaning when compounded together, and some possible combinations seem implausible and unattestable (e.g. Nauruan-Luxembourgian, etc.) Full list available at Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. Delete as sum of parts. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against deletion of those mentioned in the header, but shouldn't we at least name beforehand those that will be deleted? I would think there are words formed according to this pattern that we want to keep, such as African-American, Anglo-Norman or Anglo-American, and probably also Hiberno English, just to name a few quick examples? --Hekaheka 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm voting specifically against those created by Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. I do agree there are certain very famous compound examples that need to be kept, but surely not these. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone would object to adding adjectives such as: "German-Canadian/German Canadian", "English-Canadian/English Canadian", "Italian-Canadian/Italian Canadian", "Indian-Canadian, Indian Canadian, Indo-Canadian" to the English-language Wiktionary. There is often a difference in spelling or form between the adjective and the noun when translated into other languages. Also in English we may say or write English-Canadian or French-Canadian when we actually mean "English-speaking Canadian", "anglophone Canadian", or "English-language Canadian" "this or that". (cf. de: deutschkanadisch/deutsch-kanadisch, Deutschkanadier, Deutschkanadierin; englischkanadisch, englisch-kanadisch, anglokanadisch, anglo-kanadisch, anglophon kanadisch; fr: canadien-allemand, germano-canadien, Canadien allemand, canadien anglophone, etc.) We need to add more words such as these (and their multilingual translations), instead of deleting them. Hans-Friedrich Tamke 00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pages mentioned in the title of this section seem useful to me, and I don't see how they could be considered as harmful to the project. Of course, such compounds should be included only when attested. Lmaltier 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

With all respect, how are they useful? And is it practical to try and attest them on an individual basis? To me it seems a standard sum of parts, i.e. several words that say just what they seem to say when combined. It appears similar to phrases like "quasi-[any adjective]", "semi-[any adjective]", etc. The biggest value I can see from these are for translation purposes, but I'm not fully convinced it's worth keeping them for that reason. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They are useful for definitions given. These definitions are not obvious at all. But we must check these pages, and improve them: the WP page is spelt w:Finnish Canadian: are both spellings used ? for both senses? I don't know. These questions show that useful linguistic data can be provided.

Of course, paper dictionaries don't include these words, and they are right: they lack space, and they use space available to them for more useful definitions. But this does not mean that these definitions are not useful. Lmaltier 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the compounded forms are clear as-is. This is perhaps a bit of a strawman, but: would Nauruan-Belgian or Monegasque-Tasmanian strike you as being useful at all, even if attestable for some bizarre reason? There are literally thousands of possible combinations to be formed. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Assume that somebody reads it on a website, and wants to know what it means (it's clear that the sense is not obvious: he might imagine at least two possible senses). He might select the word and use WikiLook to get a definition. But only if the page exists! I feel that you think that there are more useful entries still missing, and you are right. But why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? Lmaltier 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pages just seem unnecessary. Anyone with a decent grasp of English would probably think to search for Monegasque and Belgian separately. I've seen not infrequently the combination of two adjectives via a dash. E.g.: "the architecture was quasi-baroque" ... "I'm sorta-okay today", etc. The terms do not change their meaning when combined into a pseudo-compound word via a dash. They are still separate words. And if they're separate words, they should not be listed under the same combined entry in Wiktionary. That's called "Sum of Parts". That's my reasoning, anyway; feel free to disagree or attack my not infallible logic. I'm a minimalist, so that might influence my opinion. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're influenced by the fact that English is your native language. In addition to senses already given, you could imagine two other senses: person with a Finnish father (or mother) and a Canadian mother (or father). Or person with both nationalities. Yes, I can tell you that these pages are useful to people reading these words. And you don't answer me: why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? If you don't think so, then why do you propose to delete them? Lmaltier 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually am natively bilingual, although my userpage wouldn't indicate it (not enough practice in the "passive" language lately to be comfortable labelling myself with the native template. I may eventually switch it back). Why I think the site would be better without the pages? Not because it's necessarily "harming" the project (they aren't), but because I don't think they fit the project mission and are redundant. In all the languages I know, these compound words can be easily figured out by looking up each half individually (i.e., канадо-финский, or kanada-finlanda). I do see your argument and I think it's a good one, I'm just not sure whether I support it. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] in harm's way

I have created harm's way, which includes the sense consistent with all four prepositions that commonly collocate with it (in, out of, into, from) and other use (eg. as object of "escape"). The noun phrase can also accept modification by determiners, possessives, and a small number of adjectives, which is obscured by treating the full prepositional phrases as idioms.

I believe both in harm's way and out of harm's way (which we have) and into harm's way and from harm's way (which we do not) should be redirects (hard or soft) to harm's way, with one usex or citation for each. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all elements of this eminently reasonable proposal. · 05:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: the entry being nominated for deletion is that for the Unicode character U+034F, COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER.

WT:BP#Control characters DAVilla 16:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider control characters in scope of a dictionary like we are. We're here to define written terms - which can be words, phrases, and even symbols. This however is neither, so delete. -- Liliana • 21:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Either delete it or move it to an appendix. I created it to start that BP discussion linked above; after seeing the result, I think the main namespace is a poor place for control characters, but they can be defined nonetheless, for their technical interest. For comparison, we have Appendix:Unsupported titles/Tab and ^G, the latter created by me last year. --Daniel 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a single-page appendix for control characters. People will inevitably look them up. Probably shouldn't be in mainspace though. Equinox ◑ 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted in that small BP discussion, that entry is unclickable from the recent changes. And I can't even click on the title of this thread, which is:

 == [[͏]] ==

These alone are very good reasons for removing that entry from the mainspace. --Daniel 20:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To forestall any possible confusion: this is not a "control character" in the ASCII or Unicode sense. I'm pretty sure that bona fide control characters are not allowed in MediaWiki entry titles, and even if they were, we wouldn't want them. This character, by contrast, might legitimately appear in entry titles, though on its own it apparently does not make for a very good entry title. —Ruakh_TALK 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete the mainspace entry after moving the content to an appendix. - -sche (discuss) 05:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Adjective. I can't imagine it meeting any test for a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete this POS. These "senses" merely describe attributive usages of the noun. · 05:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe RfV. A possible citation here, though the "more" looks italicised. — Pingku^dimmi

Citations and other facts are allowed here. It is quite conceivable that there is some usage, preferably not in quotes, possibly in entertainment-oriented articles in News. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations and other facts are encouraged here! Pingku's citation ("The more superstar they are, they harder they are to get to because they're so protected by agents, bodyguards, managers, […] ") is interesting, because there "the more superstar they are" clearly means "the more they're superstars", such that superstar there means "being a superstar". That doesn't accord with either of our adjective senses, and it's hard to imagine anyone using superstar as an adjective with that sense in a more typical syntactic frame: *"she's superstar", *"she's so superstar", etc. ("She's superstar" does get one relevant-at-first-glance b.g.c. hit, but it's in "she's superstar enough to […] ", where I think other nouns work as well: "she's fool enough to […] ", "she's liar enough to […] ", etc.) So I'm inclined to chalk Pingku's citation up to speech error caused by complex syntax. Even after thinking about it, I don't know a great way to "fix" that quotation to not treat "superstar" as an adjective — I suppose "the more of a superstar they are", but it's awkward because the they there is a true plural they, not a singular they — so it's not surprising that the speaker failed. —Ruakh_TALK 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "too|very superstar" at News. "That dress is so superstar" seems plausible. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But not in the same sense as Pingku's citation. —Ruakh_TALK 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a form of lots? Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 06:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To me such reduplication seems to merit a usage example at lots and possibly a redirect to lots. This seems distinguishable from others of the form "X and X" in Category:English reduplications and/or Category:English lexical doublets. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious. There are parallel constructions like hundred and hundreds or thousands and thousands. But is this "not idiomatic"? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: The stop (clarification of this Translingual definition is being sought) function..

Directly below, there's the sense "The stop button.", which should cover the above. A symbol cannot denote a function by itself anyway. -- Liliana • 13:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The stop button where? The entry doesn't make any sense to me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

[32] —Ruakh_TALK 19:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. move to RFV -- Liliana • 13:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, the George Bush sense. I could call George Bush an asshole but that doesn't mean we need a specific sense at asshole to cover George Bush (tempting to make a joke, I know). RFV the other sense, to check it's a Russian idiom and not simply a citation from one author repeated on the net. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not totally familiar with current Russian slang but the second sense seems plausible as an insult, although I've never heard it. Stephen made the entry and Anatoli tagged it later. Maybe we should contact them for clarification. First sense should absolutely go though, I agree. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

NISoP: make it + big#Adverb. There are many adjuncts attestably compatible with make it, such as "to the top", "big time", "as a [role]", "in [field of endeavor]", "at any level", "to the finals/White House/red carper/A list/400". DCDuring TALK 03:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

...most of which I would not consider idiomatic. But that's like arguing that light bulb joke isn't idiomatic because there are light bulb sockets, light bulb glow, the light bulb business, etc. The use of big in this case is special. It eliminates several senses of make it as possibilities. DAVilla 05:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But these are just adjuncts that don't change the fundamental sense of make it, which needs no adjunct for the sense. The adjuncts just provide information about the extent or scope of "making it". Some contributor even offered that make it and make it big are synonyms. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I absolutely agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

NISoP: To reach a place. This is make#Verb sense 12 + it. (Other senses seem idiomatic.) DCDuring TALK 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah redundant to {{&lit|make|it}} (sense #1). Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure any more, though the idiom may be "make it to" and/or "make it as far as". DCDuring TALK 11:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't feel right to me to say that it is the place you've made it to. If I was running into work at the time I was scheduled but didn't get there quite fast enough to punch that time on the card, I would say that I had not made it on time. If it isn't the place, is it the punch clock, or the act of punching the card, or something else? I say none of these. It's just part of the expression. DAVilla 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. "Hey, come on in. I'm so glad you could make it." Seems to mean arrive at this place, my house, this party, etc. But you could never substitute and sound natural. I think this sense should stay as it is. It seems to be somewhat greater than its SoP. I think deleting this one sense would impoverish the entry. -- ALGRIF talk 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'm so glad you came." "I couldn't make the party".

The idiom is much narrower and often more figurative in its application. One can say "I couldn't make it to the party." for which the "it" must not be anaphoric. Meditating on this, my problem with the definition may be that the idiomatic use is not in reference to any place, but rather is further restricted to an event (at a place). I think that addresses what both Algrif and DAVilla are saying.

There is another usage, nearly synonymous to a sense of "get": "I couldn't make it to a TV in time for kickoff.", but I don't think the time element can be omitted. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We have the relevant sense of six#Noun. This is more like an example sentence for that; can be used with other verbs, such as "cover my six" (current example sentence). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Now at watch one's six. Is watch one's back not an idiom? DCDuring TALK 15:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is keep down with it. If we had a phrasebook,.... DCDuring TALK 00:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard this phrase with anything except 'it'... it seems part of the phrase to me. Keep —CodeCa t 00:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's how it works. One hears something in a common collocation and assumes the common collocation is the idiom. Many of our phrasal verbs have as a common collocation the verb + "it" + the particle. Perhaps those forms should all be redirects to the corresponding phrasal verbs. This should redirect to keep down. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect. My initial reaction was the same as CodeCat's, but actually the well-attested "keep your voice down" also sounds normal to me. —Ruakh_TALK 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention "keep the noise down". — Pingku^dimmi 08:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that contributors find so many of these "it" entries to be entry-worthy. Urban Dictionary has relatively high-quality entry for this particular expression. It is as if "it" is a grammatical term to convert normally transitive verbs to intransitive. There are many idioms in Category:English terms with placeholder "it" that have this form. Perhaps they have formed a pattern that has a life of its own. I think this means that we should create many redirects for similar "it"-forms for phrasal verbs and make sure that we have usage examples that include the imperative expression at the appropriate sense. Also, they might belong at some wiki that had or was a coherent phrasebook. DCDuring TALK 10:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete (or redirect), same reasons. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of 'keep the noise down', so I'm changing my vote to redirect. —CodeCa t 10:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like some of the other senses of keep down would work in the right contexts. Redirect or delete. DAVilla 05:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sense: To wait or delay. This seems to be sit on + it. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, redundant to {{&lit|sit on|it}}. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The usage example should stay, I think, under the {{&lit}}. DCDuring TALK 11:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but the first def would have to link sit on in addition to separate sit and on. DAVilla 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. I'll try to remember that in similar circumstances. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"A famous American comedy duo through the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s." Encyclopaedia topic. The entry offers nothing lexicographical. Equinox ◑ 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete or add Laurel and Hardy, Penn and Teller and the like. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

After preview, Laurel and Hardy exists :o(. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See #Fat and Skinny. This looks like a consequence of the nihilistic/anarchistic elimination of the much-reviled, but sorely missed, attestable-use criterion for proper nouns: Nobody seems to want to delete such entries, develop criteria for including them, provide a rationale for definitions of them, or just clean them up. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ 10:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Books has 72 search results for "the Abbott and Costello of". Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale "were the Abbott and Costello of junk cinema — forever riffing back and forth on this or that piece of pop culture minutiae." Keep. DAVilla 06:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd have this any more than British Army or Dutch Army. There are a few such ones, U.S. Army and United States Army for a start. And more I haven't yet located. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Easily guessable from its parts.--Dmol 09:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's easier to draw a line here than elsewhere. I'd be okay with all such entries getting zapped. DAVilla 04:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Convert to {{only in}}. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominating both definitions. The first definition listed does not define the term, it is rather an etymology. The second definition is plain wrong, it should be at ɿ. -- Liliana • 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the most useful comment, but I have absolutely no idea. If it doesn't mean what it says it means, what does it mean? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a third definition which should be correct, conversely I tagged the other two senses with rfd-sense. -- Liliana • 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

rfd-sense: Translingual, "Germany". Should be uppercase DE I think. -- Liliana • 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Lowercase "de" stands for German (the language). Just correct the entry. —An gr 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But language codes don't meet CFI, see Talk:jv. -- Liliana • 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What about Internet domains? Or is the period considered part of the domain, so it should be .de? —An gr 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you just answered the question yourself, just check .de... -- Liliana • 02:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. I'd delete it but I don't know enough Japanese. -- Liliana • 14:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Essentially -ou- is sometimes used to replace -ō- because it's easier to type on a keyboard. So the 'correct' form is mōfu. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a proverb at all, but pure SoP. -- Liliana • 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, delete. We shouldn't include phrases merely because they are common. Otherwise we'd start getting stuff like what languages do you speak — oh, wait. Equinox ◑ 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, would that someone, somewhere would host a meaningful phrasebook ! DCDuring TALK 01:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is common, and I found two books that describe it as an "old saying", another as a fortune cookie "proverb". I say keep. DAVilla 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It does seem to meet all the basic requirements for being a proverb, except for great age (about which I don't know and which isn't on my personal list of requirements anyway). Proverbs are either advice about courses of action or observations about general states of the world that amount to advice. DCDuring TALK 13:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal view is and has been that SOP proverbs should not be included. That is, those that mean more than the sum of their parts (a rolling stone gathers no moss, which is metaphoric) should be, but literal ones (like the one in question here) should not. For that reason alone I say delete. I do know others disagree with me, though.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A large fraction of proverbs don't seem to have any metaphorical interpretation whatsoever beyond whatever metaphors are built into the constituent terms, eg, forewarned is forearmed. Sometimes the prosody seems to make an expression seem like a proverb, so maybe the Rolling Stones made a valuable contribution to making this a proverb. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, commonness alone does not a proverb make. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What does? DCDuring TALK 12:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree (with DCDuring, 17:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)) that "[a] large fraction of proverbs" are literal a/k/a SOPs. I didn't say otherwise: I merely said that such should not be in the dictionary.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"(computing) a community-driven certificate authority that issues free public key certificates to the public." Specific organisation, no general dictionary sense, and not very famous like Greenpeace. Equinox ◑ 18:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes the Wikipedia article redirects to CAcert.org, seems to be the name of a specific website and of course the corresponding company. Delete or show that it has somehow entered the English lexicon with an additional, figurative meaning (very unlikely). Mglovesfun (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

NISoP, equivalent to high-heeled + shoe. Perhaps {{only in}} WP. DCDuring TALK 01:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 05:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete as it does seem to be the most common collocation. DAVilla 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Its presence is not necessary to understand the phrase when you read it, true. But a dictionary is not used only by readers. I feel that this set phrase is a true element of the vocabulary of the English language, and that learners of the language should learn it. Otherwise, they cannot guess that this is the phrase they must use for this kind of shoes. Lmaltier 05:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain your definition of set phrase - or is it ineffable? DCDuring TALK 13:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

An element of the vocabulary of the language, despite the fact that it's a phrase, a phrase worth learning in vocabulary lessons. I feel this is the case (and that high-heeled boots, sandals or pumps are not set phrases). Of course, I may be wrong, and it's obvious that you know better than me. But, if it's actually a set phrase, I think we should keep it. Lmaltier 16:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that your definition of "set phrase" or some frequently concomitant attributes of a set phrase? If an idiom allows for variation, can you call it a set phrase? DCDuring TALK 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there may be variations. A recent example on fr.wiktionary is tomber de Charybde en Scylla, that some editors want to delete (they want to keep de Charybde en Scylla). Yet, this is the actual set phrase, even is some other verb is sometimes used instead (or no verb at all). Lmaltier 19:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a useful definition of "set phrase" that simply contradict the ordinary meaning of fixed, rigid. Why not just call it an "idiom" and say that "high-heeled shoe" is an idiom because it is an idiom. DCDuring TALK 20:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By a less casual definition of set phrase "high-heeled shoe" is not a set phrase:

It has alternative forms: high-heel shoe, "highheel shoe", "highheeled shoe", "high heeled shoe".
It inflects (plural, comparison [higher/est-heeled))
It accepts terms in its middle (black, adult, woman's, women's, slingback, satin, white, basketball, court)
It accepts variation in each component while retaining the balance of its meaning. (low-, mid-; backed, arched, soled; sneaker, pump)

The first two might be acceptable for a reasonable definition of set phrase, but the others? DCDuring TALK 20:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. In g.books, I find also high-heeled boots, sandals and pumps. Even trainers and sneakers, though references to the former are few and to the latter seem mainly (but not solely) jocular. — Pingku^dimmi 07:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One can also find "low-heeled shoes" and "mid-heeled shoes", etc. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete per nom.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I just don't see how this can be a set phrase or an idiom. ---> Tooironic 23:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete per DAVilla. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

English: As used in ad hoc etc. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, since there don't seem to be any non-Latin coinages using it, and anyone who visits [[hoc]] should be satisfied by [[hoc#Latin]]. —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we handle these cases in this way. Delete, weakly should someone propose that we do. DAVilla 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

EncycloPetey has won my full vote. DAVilla 04:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep, because it's useful to readers (and to automated tools used by them, too). Readers looking for it don't know what seems obvious to you, they don't know where the phrase begins and where it ends. Lmaltier 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete; this isn't a word used in English to form English sentences. We wouldn't create cinco as an English entry just because Cinco de Mayo has gained widespread English use, and wouldn't create gallo as an English entry just because of pico de gallo. --EncycloPetey 20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Another example: I would add a sense (a soft redirect) in the French section of go, because tout de go is used in French, and that people are likely to consult go when they read it. Would you find this addition useless? We must keep simple (sound) principles, even when they seem strange at first view in some cases. Lmaltier 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've explained why not. It's not an independent English word. Just as blue is not a Spanish word despite the existence of los blue jeans in Spanish. Consider also that the Latin phrase caveat emptor is used widely in English. From that phrase, the Latin caveat has entered English as a word in its own right, but emptor has not. The fact that a phrase has crossed linguistic boundaries does not mean that the component words have done so as well. --EncycloPetey 20:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't have this as English. But Lmaltier has a point; perhaps {{also|ad hoc}} at the top of the entry would be a fair solution. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be a major change in the way we use {{also}}, and would lead to a huge list being added to the entry for ad. I don't favor the idea. --EncycloPetey 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think putting the phrases that have entered English under an "English" bullet point in a ~~"Derived terms"~~ "Descendants" section of the Latin entry would be the way to go. Not only that (that I think that's a solution if we want a link somewhere), but I think we should do so (that is, we want a link somewhere).—msh210℠ (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Ruakh/EP, but definitely link to the English phrases, as discussed above.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with msh210: delete, but list ad hoc#English as a descendant of hoc#Latin. - -sche (discuss) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, let me clarify something: I consider that including an English section for a word does not give it any status, does not mean that it's a true English word (e.g. it would be very difficult to me to consider that autoroute is an English word, or highway a French word, but the inclusion of an English (or French) section is justified nonetheless). It only means that the word is used, not only mentioned, in texts written in English. Again, people are likely to select them and use a tool such as Wikilook to get their sense in the language (I don't think that Wikilook selects the right section according to the language of the website, but it could). The only possible problem is the POS: a special POS could be used when no normal POS is possible. Lmaltier 07:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with that philosophy. Consider that the works of some English writers, such as Agatha Christe, will pepper their works with French terms in italics. In the context of the work, the words are themselves noted as foreign through italicization. With hoc we've got the additional issue that it's only part of a foreign phrase, and note that it could appear in the text of any language as ad hoc is a common Latin expression. It would be silly to therefore create a language section for hoc for every language in which the Latin expression is used. --EncycloPetey 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Silly? Why? Is it silly to be helpful to readers? Lmaltier 20:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You could have something like 'uiohuigh is not a word in English', and use that as a citation to justify uiohuigh. That's what springs to my mind. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, first because it's only a mention, not a use. And because we check that a word really exists before including it. Lmaltier 05:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Lmaltier, you would have a page for hoc with entries in Albanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Finnnish, German, Hungarian, Icelandic, etc., where the entry says effectively "This isn't a word in this language, see the Latin section that would have been easier to find without all this extra clutter"? --EncycloPetey 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Purported interjection, defined as: used to express despair when something terrible or inhumane happens, but frequently used ironically nowadays in frustration at far more minor things.

20,000 people died that year. Oh, the humanity!

We've run out of orange juice! The humanity!

In neither usage example is humanity itself used as an interjection. "O, our house" is an expression that serves to convey an emotion if the house is burning down, but "house" is not an interjection. The point of this is to try to memorialize allusion to "Oh, the humanity", memorably used during a famous radio broadcast of the disastrous destruction of the Hindenburg in the 1930s. I didn't think allusions and catchphrases per se met CFI and I see no good reason for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 04:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete the interjection POS per User:DCDuring. · 05:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! Delete. DAVilla 05:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But it does need to be covered somewhere, per Ruakh below. Can we agree that it refers to the human condition?

Only then delete. DAVilla 03:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep and fix POS. The usage warrants coverage. —Ruakh_TALK 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What would that PoS be? It might make a lovely usage example. It also makes a good "See also" item (w:Herbert_Morrison_(announcer)#"O,_the_humanity"). DCDuring TALK 13:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the "the", I suspect the POS is ===Noun===, just like the other senses. —Ruakh_TALK 19:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a similar sense to baby, which would be attestable in "my baby!". DCDuring TALK 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And what would you (Ruakh) say it means, other than "mankind, human beings as a group" (which is one of our existing senses)?—msh210℠ (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I really have no idea. To me it's always been an idiomatic use. I don't see how it can possibly mean "mankind, human beings as a group", and I'm very disappointed to learn that it doesn't have any more coherent meaning! —Ruakh_TALK 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete; this is a quotation from the destruction of the Hindenberg, not a novel definition of the word. It is possible that "Oh, the humanity!" has become a catchphrase in its own right, but that would be placed on a separate page. Sometimes a famous quotation will stick, but more often it's just a quotation. --EncycloPetey 20:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There might even be a morphological snowclone built on rhymes for "humanity", like "humidity", though it requires some atypical stress patterns - "stagey" intonation. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep/Delete: Keep "Oh, the humanity!" as an example of the usage of the noun, delete the interjection. Ruakh, msh210: perhaps "oh, the human condition" is a better interpretation than "oh, human beings as a group"? (If we can't figure out precisely where to put it, put it under a Quotations header...) - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete from here because "Humanity!" is not the interjection. Equinox ◑ 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, not an interjection. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sense: To remove or shape by cutting. Cut out the letters and paste them on the poster.

I have added {{&lit}} of which this seems an example. Out seems to be more like an adjunct in this sense. It can be replaced by away with little change in meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

rfd-sense: the existing gloss. This is a much-less-used form of add fuel to the fire, for which it should be one of numerous variations. It is not a variation found in COCA. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, rfd-redundant sense. To be honest, I'd have just done it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine a probably insignificant distinction between them, but even that doesn't seem to play out in quotations. DAVilla 17:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Adjective. This doesn't behave like an adjective, forming a plural, not accepting modification by "very" or "too", not working in attributive position. See the noun section. The expression seems not to be a constituent in many uses. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's not an adjective. Delete or show that it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] second innings

[edit] third innings

[edit] fourth innings

First, second, third and fourth is simply the order of the innings chronologically. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the definitions. SemperBlotto 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Like in baseball, each side bats once each innings, the follow on issue just changes the order that the sides bat. And like in baseball, sometimes the final innings isn't needed as one side has already won. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Err, looks like hard + to + handle to me. ---> Tooironic 06:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It is referring specifically to the "handling" (emotional management?) of a "difficult" person, but a sense at handle can (and I expect already does) cover that. Equinox ◑ 09:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, though I imagine it's the most common collocation of the "X to handle" range. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

even in it's alternative form of "hard-to-handle"? As in When a level transmitter is selected for a hard-to-handle service, the radiation type or the load cell might seem to be obvious choices, [...]? What is the difference then between this and a compound, or a phrase such as good to go? Just the fact that it is plain to make out? Leasnam 12:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete this form. It's #80 in the list of collocations of "hard to [bare infinitive]" at COCA. [[hard]] needs work. "Handle" is #117 in mutual information score with "hard to" there. Hard to see why it would be a redirect to either [[hard]] or [[handle]]. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that as hard to handle, as in He is hard to handle is sum of parts. But as hard-to-handle, placed before a noun as a modifier (e.g. He is a hard-to-handle boy.), it warrants inclusion? No? Leasnam 16:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not belong in my personal dictionary, but probably would be includable here in that spelling for some reason. But by a reading of WT:COALMINE some might argue that it be included, though I would argue that only a spelling like "hardtohandle" would warrant including hard to handle, even under the over-reaching readings of WT:COALMINE. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In my personal dictionary such hyphenated spellings that appear as predicates only with low relative frequency (arguably erroneous or idiolectic) would not be included, as is typical in dictionaries other than Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hard-to-handle is to me three words, just linked by hyphens, not spaces. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What then is the difference between hard-to-handle and other idiomatic phrases like against the law or after the fact? Leasnam 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mostly that we hadn't gotten around to RfDing them. Some are more different than others. "All to smash" appears in no current OneLook dictionary, though it does appear in an 1848 dictionary of Americanisms. OneLook also has no entry for "against the law", though it does have a redirect-type entry at Dictionary.com's legal dictionary. (I would have in a phrasebook-type wiki.) "After the fact" appears in a few dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides following our comrade lemmings in our treatment of these, we could rationalize keeping [[after the fact]] based on its use of an obsolete sense of fact ("deed, action"), [[all to smash]] based on its somewhat ungrammatical structure. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

take a fresh look now at hard to handle (if you haven't done so since my last edit), and see if there is anything salvageable in it. Leasnam 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the noun sense being there when the only citation has it hyphenated. Equinox ◑ 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To me it still looks like an instance of a general grammatical construction. Just as we don't have a real phrasebook with criteria, we don't have a wikigrammar. Something modeled on Appendix:Snowclones might be nice for showing such constructions/schemas/patterns (as in w:Construction grammar). This one is something like "[AdjP] to [Verbbareinfinitive]". Not every single imaginable combination or [AdjP] and [Verbbareinfinitive] is semantically possible, let alone attestable, but the meaning is NISoP decodable if the expression does not rely on obsolete senses and yet continues in use. I don't think we can solve the translator's problem of finding the most idiomatic translation using a dictionary format. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak move to hyphenated form. RFV the noun. DAVilla 04:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The unhelpful definition is "being hit up the middle of the field, usually around the second base area.", which is entirely correct. Sure a ball hit up the middle is just hit + up + the + middle. By way of comparison, would we want an entry for in the corner for a ball hit, um, in the corner? --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever entered all the {{cricket}} definitions clearly had a better ability to skirt WT:CFI. In contrast with this and some other {{baseball}} definitions, those definitions carefully avoid any obvious NISoP wording, no matter how NISoP or vacuous they actually are. See, for example, the cricket sense at [[middle]], which unwarrantedly enshrines what is either an ellipsis or a fused-modifier-head construction. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually we are missing a second cricketing sense of middle. See, as an example from Google books "... Little Dando, who took middle, patted the ground, and looked round at the fieldsmen ...". SemperBlotto 21:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also down the line (in baseball) up the line (in tennis), neither of which we have. Down the line has a different, idiomatic meaning. Referring to baseball pitches, you could have down the middle or on the corner. All of these I've just cited, seem to me to be just literal use of the words, but in a sentence. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Translingual. This term is used only in English. -- Liliana • 19:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also SOP. Any non-literal meaning is hyperbolic rather than lexical. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So is 110%. DAVilla 07:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but if 99.9% is used only (or, as far as CFI-meeting cites go, only) as a proportion of something (as in I'm 99.9% sure) whereas 110% is used alone (as in the the usex given, We busted our tails and won, we gave 110%), then the latter is more likely idiomatic (as the literal meaning of we gave 110% is, well, nothing: it makes no sense. You can't say I ate 110% without saying what you ate 110% of).—msh210℠ (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, it's just non-literal use as opposed to idiomatic use. Could also be used in the forms 99% or 99.99%, and so on. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Which would be fine if they were cited. RFV. DAVilla 17:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete: it's a numerical estimate, like telling the boss you've done about 75% of a piece of work. Equinox ◑ 20:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Three quarters does sound like a numerical estimate, and would probably not be misinterpreted in any language. Apparently, the 99% phenomenon is special in English, and 99.9% of the population uses it as hyperbole rather than numerical estimation. DAVilla 06:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 2.0

[edit] 3.0

Oh c'mon, please tell me you're joking. -- Liliana • 21:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, quite funny though. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See google news archives "Obama 1.0 OR 2.0". It looks to me as if the construction is used as a postpositiive adjective. I might stop at [[2.0]] though and do usage notes for both. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. They have meaning beyond the sum of their parts. Especially the way the decimal is placed, they are not intuitive to non-native speakers. ---> Tooironic 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure that older native speakers quite get it either. But is this Translingual? It would certainly qualify as English and would seem to meet CFI as meaning "version X.Y of" what is modified. Rather than having entries in non-intuitive "X.Y" format, having the two most common forms seems adequate to me, however logically unsatisfying or unsystematic it might seem or be. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete: formed according to a set pattern, and not language, merely a certain use of numbers; we do not have or need entries at 1 and 2 saying "number for the first, second house in a street". Does the creator not realise how versioning works? The zero can be meaningful and is not always zero, e.g. Windows 7 is version 6.1. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But numbers are a part of language too. And quite often the things which are described as "2.0" are not the things a reason person would expect to have different versions, e.g. Obama 2.0. ---> Tooironic 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The RFDed definition is purely for technology version numbers; your proposed additional sense is not there. (Incidentally it's just struck me that the defs are wrong: 3.0 is the third major version; the first three might have been, say, 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0.) Equinox ◑ 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my "keep" vote above. I have added and cited English (postpositive) adjective entries at [[1.0]] and [[2.0]] that seem valid to me. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer clear to me what's nominated for deletion, and which sections the above comments refer to. I think it would be a good idea to delete the translingual sections though. As to the English definitions, it hardly makes sense to define changes in a person as a "second major version". DAVilla 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep 1.0 and 2.0 in any case, as they heve bled out of the engineering world and into ironic commentary. bd2412 T 15:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks sum of parts to me. ---> Tooironic 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This phrase belongs to the vocabulary of English, and nobody would use it to express this idea without having heard it first (why not minister of defense?). This is a good reason to include it. Lmaltier 05:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard this argument before for an RfD discusion. "Minister of defence" and "minister of defense" do exist; each has a variety of connotations which mean no more than the sum of their parts. ---> Tooironic 08:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And how do you guess which one should be used, if they are not described here? A dictionary is not only used by readers, but also by "writers" and "speakers". Lmaltier 08:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are talking about is collocation which goes beyond the aims of a dictionary and Wiktionary's CFI. In Australia, we have a Minister for Defence and a Minister for Tourism and a Minister for Sustainable Population, Communities, Environment and Water, but it is not Wiktionary's job to make entries for these, that is the jurisdiction of Wikipedia. ---> Tooironic 08:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't indicate the appropriate English title and translations for each of the 193 current w:Member states of the United Nations that have such a position, subject to attestation, of course. Of course, the value of the information is only weakly correlated with attestability. For various reasons, I am more likely to meet the defense official of one of the 180 countries for which I don't know the English title than the 13 for which I think I do.

Wikipedia's inclusion standards are not limited by considerations of attestability and are more likely to achieve completeness than Wiktionary. I do still maintain the hope that we can eventually become a better source of information about English words other than proper nouns than either WP or competing online dictionaries.

Err, Wiktionary is a dictionary - it defines words and idioms. It is not an encyclopedia; that's what Wikipedia is for. ---> Tooironic 02:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just playing with the implications of LMaltier's line of reasoning.

I think there is a fundamental divide between those who believe Wiktionary should be a tool to help one decode (mostly written) material and those who think it can somehow enable user to encode into a foreign language any thought they might express in their native language. LMaltier represents the second tendency if I understand him correctly. He is not alone. I favor the first point of view. The second task strikes me as vastly harder and requires general cultural knowledge and knowledge from specialized spheres that is far more than even WP, let alone Wiktionary, is likely to provide in the near future. I don't think we have yet approached completion of the "simple" task of allowing English users to decode English writings. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't propose to create a page for Minister for Sustainable Population, Communities, Environment and Water. Don't you see the difference? Don't you feel that minister is the "normal" word, and that secretary is used (in this sense) only in some phrases, and that this is the reason why somebody has created this page? The creator of the page should confirm this reason. Lmaltier 16:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But yes, I know that dictionaries are used by writers, etc., and that they should be helped, too. Even writers using their native language use dictionaries. I agree that this is not the major priority, but, when someone creates a page with useful linguistic information, I think that it should not be deleted. It's more work to delete a page than to keep it. Lmaltier 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Don't you feel that minister is the "normal" word, and that secretary is used (in this sense) only in some phrases […] ?": I don't think so. The U.S. uses secretary for all such positions; we never use minister, except in reference to other countries. Other countries that have a "secretary of defense" (or "defence"), such as Australia and New Zealand, seem to use "secretary" for other such positions as well — "secretary of finance", "secretary of the treasury", "secretary of health", and so on. (But Secretary of State, which you mention below, may well be a special case, since it's used even by countries that otherwise have "ministers".) —Ruakh_TALK 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The UK has a Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. Having said that, I don't feel particularly strongly about this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that is is not the same sense at all than in the US. Is this use not the same as the French secrétaire d'Etat? And this is a good reason to include Secretary of State. Lmaltier 17:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Every page created is a stimulus for the creation of pages that a contributor might find analogous or otherwise justified by the original page. Any correct text might contain "useful linguistic information": your approach seems in-principle indiscriminate. Writers seem to find dictionaries not designed to do encoding for them to be helpful. It is the feasibility in the current state of things of encoding as a mission for a reference work that troubles me. For example, how would writers search for what they wanted to say without being able to put it into words? Would we need a page for each search line entered that translated the search into something more apt? DCDuring TALK 17:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't propose anything special, only that, when somebody creates a page for something which belongs to the vocabulary of the language, the page should not be deleted. In this case, somebody may have heard Secretary of Defense in the US and use it in another country. If he's able to consult this page for checking, he'll be able to conclude that this phrase is used only in the US. Lmaltier 17:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope that your characterization of your idea as "anything special" is offered in the same spirit as Jonathan Swift offered his w:A Modest Proposal. In any event, what you suggest warrants some clarification of one or another sense or creation of an additional sense at [[secretary]], which would thereby also address false friendliness as it may arise in other governmental titles. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that I was wrong about the use of secretary (this page could be improved). But the question remains: would the deletion of the page make the dictionary better or less helpful? SemperBlotto should comment. Lmaltier 05:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the grammar of this phrase is even correct. 'ab' is a preposition that needs the ablative case so shouldn't it be ab origine? —CodeCa t 19:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I think this was created from a redlink in an overhastily created etymology for [[ab origine]], in turn probably of interest in explaining aborigine or aboriginal. DCDuring TALK 03:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is [[ab origine]] English? It is the kind of expression set in italics in modern English books and is NISoP in Latin AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So you want English speakers to look up the Latin words ab, a preposition that takes its object in the ablative case, and origine, the ablative singular of origo, to figure out that in running English text ab origine means something like "of a beginning" or "by the beginning", only to be further confused by the knowledge that the ablative implies "removal, separation, or taking away"? DAVilla 19:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I want the definition of ablative corrected, or perhaps an Appendix on the formation and use of the ablative in Latin. There is no cause for including every Latin perpositional phrase simply because the Latin grammar isn't familiar to an English speaker. --EncycloPetey 20:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. Unless I don't understand something here, delete as redundant to the first definition. -- Liliana • 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This RFD misses the point a bit; DCDuring added {{alternative form of|firestorm}} and decided to use {{rfd-sense}} instead of straight deleting the other definition. Probably because our definitions at firestorm are inadequate. Ergo, delete the challenged since and improve firestorm. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] uſe

As per diſtinguiſh which failed RFD, as the software can now auto-redirect long-s spellings to round s. -- Liliana • 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It's only a typographic difference. Suppose that we can create pages in different fonts, different character sizes, etc. It would not be a reason to create them. Only the spelling is important. Lmaltier 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I too favor deletion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, because the software can now auto-redirect ſ to s. - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] final whistle

A whistle that starts, and the last whistle (of the event under discussion), respectively.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep final whistle, probably delete the other one. Ƿidsiþ 08:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep because it's not just the last whistle in a game, it's a whistle that signifies and announces the end of a game. Weak delete starting whistle since this one's purpose is clear from the name. It feels strange having one and not the other, though. DAVilla 03:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: I created the entry because the translation of Anpfiff was a red link. I don't know Wiktionary enough yet to say if an own entry is justified, so I leave it up to you. --The Evil IP address 10:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SOP. One can pass stool, blood, etc.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We do have pass water and pass wind. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Both of which have now been tagged with an {{rfd}} tag linking to this section. Delete 'em all, I say.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it conceivable that a non-native speaker of English might think that a person having difficulty in passing water had a psychological problem with walking past a lake? SemperBlotto 21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And sometimes it does mean that: [33]. But if he looks up pass he'll know another meaning of that verb. But I take back my "delete" for pass water, as water doesn't mean urine. (I'll keep the nomination, since it's here already.) I maintain pass wind and (especially) pass stool should be deleted as SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "water doesn't mean urine": Actually, it does. (Our sense 9.) It seems to occur most often in pass water, make water, pass one's water, and make one's water, but a b.g.c. search for "the patient's water" finds cites like this one and this one. —Ruakh_TALK 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Delete that one, too.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ambivalent about the term in question, but definitely keep pass water and pass wind. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note that we have this sense for wind, with a usex with pass.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a semantic difference between passing water/urine, gas/fart/wind, and stool, etc. and passing ("eliminating, excreting") something (blood, poison, indigesta, etc) in those media (or other excreta such as vomit, hair, perspiration, exhalation). The latter sense views the excreta as a sort of container vehicle for the object. Also, the latter sense is medical or nearly medical in its context, whereas the others are perhaps euphemistic, but in general usage. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the difference you point out here, and couldn't figure out whether it was inherent in the word (two senses) or not (two referents, same sense, like how brown refers to many different colors which don't get their own sense lines). Still can't, in fact.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is only because there might be a context difference that the modest semantic difference might be worth recording. I won't lose any sleep over combining these putative subsenses. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As a non native English speaker, I looked for the expression "pass wind" and have found it in the dictionary. I have found it useful, so why should it be deleted?--93.32.52.65 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hesitant delete for pass stool. DAVilla 03:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really an adjective. Usage seems like attributive use of noun. Doesn't meet other tests for adjectivity AFAICT. Perhaps some of the usexes could be moved to appropriate noun senses. I don't see any distinct meaning. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The example sentences read like noun uses, but move to RFV all the same. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What? You don't think WT:BOLD applies? DCDuring TALK 21:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally speedy delete the three adjectival senses. Does that answer your question? --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Relatedly, I thought that that these matters were supposed to come here rather than go to RfV. DCDuring TALK 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete - the adjectival examples are all atrributive uses of various meanings of the noun, which are already in place under the noun heading. --EncycloPetey 00:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the best way to do this one is {{speedy RFV}}? DAVilla 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, name of a website, not well known, no generic meaning. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a brand/product/company name, but not likely to be citable as such due to length. Commons seems more citable as such. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Only present because of Wikimedia nepotism; we don't, for example, have an entry for Geocities. We've already previously got rid of some other wiki project names. Equinox ◑ 22:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"A section of several Walt Disney theme parks noted for containing imagery relating to fairy tales." Equinox ◑ 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, a section of a theme park, way off topic. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe I created this to distinguish the proper noun usage of the term from fantasy land and fantasyland. There are actually some sourced that capitalize "fantasyland" in its generic usage, for example:
- 2009, John C. Maxwell, Put Your Dream to the Test: 10 Questions That Will Help You See It and Seize It, p. 50:
  If your dream depends a lot on luck, then you're in trouble. If it depends entirely on luck, you're living in Fantasyland. ... People who build their dream on reality take a very different approach to dreams than do people who live in Fantasyland.
- 2007, Colleen Sell, A Cup of Comfort for Writers, p. 28:
  Yes, I escaped into Fantasyland. However, I could just as easily have become a serial killer, a prostitute, a child beater, or a politician.
- 2003, Richard G. Lipsey, Christopher Ragan, Economics, p. 327:
  On a scale diagram, with the percentage of households on the vertical axis and the percentage of aggregate income on the horizontal axis, plot the Lorenz curve for Fantasyland.
- 1999, John Clute, John Grant, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, p. 341:
  A typical Fantasyland will display - often initially by means of a prefatory MAP - a selection, sometimes very full, from a more or less fixed list of landscape ingredients..."
- 1997, Jay Gummerman, Chez Chance, p. 174:
  Maybe this Fantasyland, as the egg woman called it, would counteract all the weirdness that had been accumulating since. ... Once this Fantasyland had kicked in, he would be on autopilot: all the necessary motivation would be provided for him.
- 1986, Elma Schemenauer, Hello Edmonton, p. 15:
  Now leave Fantasyland and go back to the days of fur traders.
Maybe this can be resolved with a usage note at fantasyland, but we need to do something to inform users that the term most often references the fairy-tale part of Disney parks, but sometimes just means a land of fantasy. bd2412 T 21:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could put a link to Wikipedia's piece on the Disney park under See also. Equinox ◑ 09:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, the earliest use of the capitalized, undivided version of the word does not seem to come until after the establishment of the Disney element, which was first written about around 1952. bd2412 T 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed: a whole four adjective senses:

Burdened by some heavy load; packed.
(of a projectile weapon) Having a live round of ammunition in the chamber; armed.
(baseball) Pertaining to a situation where there is a runner at each of the three bases.
(gaming, of a die or dice, also used figuratively) Weighted asymmetrically, and so biased to produce predictable throws.

I guess one would need to show how they're actual adjectives, rather than being the past participle of load. -- Liliana • 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pingku has already found cites supporting adjectivity (for the first and fourth senses) that look good to me. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv. I'd instinctively say that loaded has at least one adjectival sense. Apparently that's already supported by citations, so I'll shut up now. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"(video games) An additional life acquired during the process of the game." Ain't this just a life that is extra? Some console games (e.g. Streets of Rage II, Rainbow Islands) allow you to choose how many continues you get, which are sets of lives; it seems to me that these are "extra lives", even though they aren't picked up in-game. Am I mistaken? Equinox ◑ 02:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone who never played such games much, this seems well within the idea of a metaphorical 'life' that is 'extra'. I would hardly even expect that there be a specific sense at life. Delete, subject to someone's persuasive argument otherwise. DCDuring TALK 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And there is even a video games sense at life#Noun. DCDuring TALK 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I play video games. From my perspective, "extra life" really is "extra"+"life". (that is, the entry is perfectly understandable as a sum of parts) Delete. --Daniel 05:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd go as far ahead as to consider this a set phrase. additional life, while attestable on b.g.c, is very very rare, so it seems to me that you can't really replace the word extra with a synonym here. -- Liliana • 14:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But clearly one can say "one more life", "n more lives", "another life", or if this is supposed to be uncountable, "more life". It isn't hard to find such instances. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Bonus life" is, or was, rather common. Equinox ◑ 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to a glossary of video game terminology. If someone offered to sell you an "extra life" you would (or should) immediately know that they were speaking of something that exists only in video games. bd2412 T 01:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've actually always considered this an idiom. Having said that, we do have the senses at extra and life. So I'll abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think there is some idiomacity to the phrase. If I host a dinner party for ten people, and it turns out I have made enough food for twelve, then I will end up with extra food, which is a bad thing because some will go wasted. "Extra" is often taken to mean in excess of what is needed, which can be neutral or negative. An extra life in a video game is almost always a good thing (it really is sort of a bonus). Another way to look at it is this: suppose you start the video game with four "lives", and you play all the way to the end (for those games that have a definite end scenario), but you only need two lives to do it. At the end of the game, you will have two lives that you never used, so they turned out to be "extra" lives in the sense of the extra food at my dinner party. However, these would not be "extra lives" in the sense of additional lives that you can earn during the course of gameplay, and may use up by the end of the game. bd2412 T 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The positive or negative valence of extra is strictly context dependent, AFAICT. "I always like to have extra food for unexpected guests" is an example." "Extra" before you might need it: good; "extra" when you actually need it: excellent; "extra" when you no longer need it: neutral; "extra" that causes regret or gets in the way or has to be disposed of: bad. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is true. Nevertheless, if you start with four lives and lose two while gaining none, you do not finish the game with two "extra lives", but merely with two lives that you didn't need to use. It is only if you acquire additional lives during the course of play that they would be called "extra lives", which makes the term potentially idiomatic. Absent such a definition, if someone told you they finished a game with three extra lives, you would need to ask whether they meant that they had three lives that they didn't need to use at all, or whether they needed to obtain three additional lives during gameplay to finish the game. bd2412 T 01:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things have a use-it-or-lose-it character, including other items in the games world. Do all the collocations with "extra" have to be entered here to present this valuable cultural knowledge? DCDuring TALK 04:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Do they otherwise meet the CFI in terms of attestability? Do they have a preponderant meaning, such that their use in an ambiguous sentence would immediately indicate to the video game player (but not to the person unfamiliar with that field) that their is only one correct sense intended, and that sense may differ from what would be expected? bd2412 T 14:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but my general experience tells me that ambiguity resolution is a normal natural process. Can this be resolved empirically? Does it need to be resolved theologically or politically? DCDuring TALK 16:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to see it that way for those who have this implicit definition embedded in their experience. Suppose you were a foreigner or even just an elderly person out of the loop of video games, and you read about someone having an extra life. How would you resolve that ambiguity, short of looking to a dictionary? bd2412 T 15:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Extra life is not "embedded" in my experience. The possibility of plural lives is, so I didn't have to look at [[life]] to get the idea of "extra life", at least once I knew a context. I noticed that one could come back to life in some games. That cats proverbially have nine lives and that there are Phoenixes and divinities that can be said to have more than one life primed me for the idea, I suppose, but I had never heard or read "extra life" before. The novelty, it seems to me, is in the idea that, in some contexts, one can have more than one life to give, pace w:Nathan Hale. DCDuring TALK 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You have just described exactly how it is embedded in your experience. If you had never played a video game where it was possible to come back to life (and there are many people in the world who never have), then the term would be confusing to you. Let's help those people when they come to the dictionary to see what the term means. bd2412 T 18:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the would-be entry were for extra persnickle, I might look up persnickle if I couldn't live without someone else's inference. The question is what life might mean that allowed extra to be used with it, as the more common senses are not good fits with "extra". DCDuring TALK 20:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's why my proposal is to move the term to a glossary on the media to which the term applies, and not keep it as an entry in mainspace. That way, when someone without knowledge of video games sees or hears of an "extra life" with the term being used ironically or out of context, they'll know right away that it is a reference to video games. bd2412 T 21:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As an avid gamer, this means what it looks like. An extra life. Yes I agree that this collocation is probably used more than others, but I can safely replace it with one more life or another life to mean the same concept. Strong delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My point above is that not everyone is an avid gamer. To someone who is not, the meaning of the term is not obvious. bd2412 T 15:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But that point has already been addressed: there is a context-specific meaning of "life" that can be looked up and makes the meaning of "extra life" NISoP. If one followed the line of reasoning you seem to be applying we would need to have entries for every syntactic compound that had a context-specific meaning for one of its components (or at least its head). DCDuring TALK 15:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, I am not advocating that the entry should be kept, but that it should be relegated to a glossary or an appendix of gaming terms. bd2412 T 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. Glossaries (in appendixes) appropriately have somewhat lower standards. They would seem to be a worthwhile thing to translate into other languages as a unit. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Adjective section. These are just applications of the verb form. -- Liliana • 12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic is currently being discussed here. Longtrend 13:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"(computer science) A character such that it is white space." This doesn't tell us anything that wasn't obvious from the headword, I think. Equinox ◑ 18:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I just don't get it. How would this be different from a hash character (i.e. #). I await further arguments before declaring my position. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks purely SOP to me. Delete. DAVilla 03:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I admit that the meaning of "whitespace character" can be estimated from the meaning of "white space". I have created the "whitespace character" entry for the Czech translation "bílý znak", whose meaning is unobvious from "bílý" (white) and "znak" (character); the implied justification was the unvoted-on and uncodified "translations target". Unlike "hash character" that refers to one particular character or code point (type rather than token), a whitespace character is any of several characters such as space, no-break space, tab, and newline. While I find the entry useful, I do not feel confident about it enough so as to go for boldfaced "keep", also because there is only one translation to make the entry a translations target. --Dan Polansky 08:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the German case, this can be easily analyzed as sum of parts. It is bad enough that we already permit almost one million number entries in German (a bot to upload all of them is currently underway), and we should not allow the same for English as well. -- Liliana • 20:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. No discernible need. Delete. DAVilla 03:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Dmol 05:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the million German entries should be deleted, too. Instead an appendix discussing the rules for formulating numerals could be written for each language. If a robot can create an endless number of formally correct entries, they are not dictionary stuff. If there's no rule that says so, it should be written. We need to define a standard set for numerals allowed for all languages. It might consist of numerals for 0 to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 1000, and thereafter the numbers of the form 10³ⁿ. In addition to these, only numerals which do not follow the standard rules should be accepted. We might also rely on appendices. We already have this: Appendix:Cardinal numbers 0 to 9. --Hekaheka 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you, the problem is that the majority of people think they're useful for whatever reason, so nothing can be done about it. -- Liliana • 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I'm in a minority here, but I would keep. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep. We are not going to run out of space. Also, in some regions, this would be written as ninety-nine hundred and ninety-nine, and for clarity's sake we should explain that they mean the same thing. bd2412 T 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. -- Liliana • 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question here is why was it tagged :). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"a manager who is in charge of marketing." What could be more sum of parts? --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but marketingový plán comes close. --Hekaheka 05:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand we have ice hockey player, tennis player etc. on the grounds that they are professions. Marketing manager is a profession - ergo what? --Hekaheka 08:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think that argument is valid; "marketing" is a profession in of itself, while "ice hockey" and "tennis" are arguably not (they're just sports in their original forms). ---> Tooironic 11:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This has the same definition as on one's last legs, but this entry says "last legs" is "invariably" part of the longer idiom. All 80 of the COCA hits for this are for the fuller idiom. This should be a redirect to [[on one's last legs]]. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with User:DCDuring. Change to a redirect. · 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sense: "Used synonymously with "in recent history"; e.g. in living memory"

The most conservative Supreme Court "in living memory", posted on Sunday, July 25, 2010 by GottaLaff
The Roberts Court seems to be the most politically conservative in living memory.

I have copied from Webster 1913: "The time within which past events can be or are remembered."

in recent memory; in living memory

The usage example under the RfDed sense is OK as a usex, but is not durably archived. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. We already have living memory and recent memory. ---> Tooironic 23:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps rfv, as I've never met this meaning - living memory and recent memory being idioms. But outright deletion is okay with me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

make do + with? ---> Tooironic 06:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a phrasal verb, redirected. DAVilla 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably just how + one + rolls. Can be re-expressed as "the way one rolls", "how does he roll", "how can you roll like that"?, etc. ---> Tooironic 12:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it can be altered that much and retain its meaning. It barely works with nouns instead of pronouns for "one". The question is whether "roll" has this meaning outside this expression. We have forced out a sense at [[roll#Verb]], but I'm not convinced by the made-up usage example. The quotation has "how we roll". DCDuring TALK 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do hear "X [do]'nt [roll] that way", which is a specific transformation of the core idiom. DCDuring TALK 13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also with auxiliaries. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the cycling version of the snowclone "leave X somewhere". The X can be "it", "it all", "everything", or some specific emblem of effort. "Somewhere" is usually a prepositional phrase referring to an arena of competition, such as "on the field". The prototype is probably "leave it all on the field".

1965, Scholastic coach, volume 35:
And then if you've left your guts on the football field and you can say to yourself, "I left everything I had out there, and if I had it to do tomorrow I couldn't do it any better," then there's no disgrace in losing.

If we keep this, we should certainly have the readily attestable expression leave someone on the field, meaning to "lose to death a member of one's military unit in battle". DCDuring TALK 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

RfD-sense: 1. (by extension) Anything hard to accept. 2. (possibly metaphorical) Bone not yet hardened by age and hard work.

These senses seem like rare or uncommon literary metaphorical uses of the basic sense ("cartilage"). They don't seem to me to rise to the level of being understood in any other way than as metaphors. The reader has to resort to the literal sense to determine what meaning the author might intend. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The unhardened bone sense I thought might be from an outdated, perhaps popular theory of the relationship between gristle and bone (presumably implying a rudimentary at best understanding of anatomy). One of the citations is from a non-fiction work, less likely to be dealing in metaphor, but possibly indulging a pop theory. — Pingku^dimmi 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should try to word our general context definitions so as not to be dependent on any but naive theories, but not ones that are "obviously" wrong. Metaphors sometimes reflect those naive theories.

The first sense above seems to build on a "chewing"/"digesting" metaphor for incorporating (metabolizing?) facts into one's mindset/worldview, "gristle" being hard to chew. This does not involve much of a reach beyond everyday experience, except for the very rich and vegetarians. But it still seems like an optional, occasional extension of the more basic metaphor of chewing/digesting than a meaning in itself.

The second does not seem to fit with the popular experience of embrittlement of bones with age. It also relies on what is neither observable directly nor supported by a social system of broad effect, like a religion, or a knowledge community.

Not every metaphor makes it into the lexicon. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think. I'm a bit confused by Pingku's comment. It is in fact literally true that most of the bones in our body, including for example the major bones of the arms and legs, develop from cartilage that is slowly replaced with bone tissue, and that this process isn't totally complete throughout the body until late adolescence or early adulthood. (See w:Bone#Formation.) This is why children's bones are generally much more flexible than adults'. That said, this literal anatomical fact clearly took on a life of its own as a figure of speech, a symbol of the softness of youth; and it's often even applied to non-physical firmness, e.g. in "Persecution and controversy wrought her [Christianity's] gristle into bone." It's no coincidence that all three of our cites are speaking of men; literature of the time did not portray women in a way compatible with the gristle-to-bone symbolism. (Don't get me wrong, you can find uses on b.g.c. that apply the metaphor to women, but they are clearly in a tiny, tiny minority, and the ones I've found are all of the non-physical-firmness type.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I sheepishly rescind sneering rights with regard to anatomy. Perhaps I was thinking of sinew, which has much the same constituents as cartilage, but in different proportions, and has different functions. I gather that cartilage acts something like a matrix, out of which the bone develops, with the matrix disappearing by the end of puberty. In any case, the metaphorical usages don't match the established reality and seem to indicate a different model. — Pingku^dimmi 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this an example of the differences among definitions based on popular/naive theories, dated "scientific" theories, and current scientific theories? The first may be also considered simple metaphors. The latter two (also often built on metaphors) seem to me to require context tags and non-topical categorization. The latter two especially also run the risk of becoming encyclopedic. (I use the existence of more than one sentence or more than two or three clauses as an indication of an encyclopedic definition.) DCDuring TALK 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps influenced by Aristotle, from such as: "The ears proceed from a dry and cold substance, called gristle, which is apt to become bone; ..." I suppose that would make it a dated "scientific" theory. — Pingku^dimmi 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wonderfool entry, doubt we need it -- Liliana • 17:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a specific statue. Including the names of specific statues or specific works of art seems off-topic to me. We do have Category:en:Artistic works. I dislike the idea of having individual works of art, or individual books. What would stop us from having Shrek 2 or The Matrix Reloaded? Delete this entry. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: encyclopaedic entry on specific thing. Equinox ◑ 21:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete although I completely disagree with the opinions above. There's nothing wrong with David for instance, but this one doesn't seem to have any literary value. DAVilla 17:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: (military, history, Canada) any of several military battles in and around Quebec City.

Why should we have this, and not say, Battle of Berlin, Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Kharkov? -- Liliana • 17:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, SoP, battle + of + any city name. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Proper noun: (computing) The program that updates old versions of files, based on a record of differences with the newer versions.

This isn't one of the types of proper nouns we cover AFAICT. Best covered by a WP dab link in [[patch]]. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, as has often been done with the names of software programs (even when habitually uncapitalised). Equinox ◑ 21:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We do have some program names, like Hello World, and there was one I can't remember that we may have actually kept, lowercase like this, but many others we have not. I'm not sure this one merits inclusion. DAVilla 16:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

looks like SoP to me -- Liliana • 03:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to ಉಡುಪಿ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings. Is it the official name? I suppose since Udupi is a city, this would be about equivalent to Washington State, to distinguish from Washington, DC. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Pilcrow nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is a bad title and not very useful. Seems okay to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the definition (separated transitive and intransitive senses). Keep. SemperBlotto 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I like the senses and usage examples, but don't we restrict "transitive" and "intransitive" to grammatical rather than semantic (in)transitivity? "Make friends" accepts as complement only a prepositional phrase headed by "with". Arguably make friends with is itself an idiom, as AHD (idioms), MWOnline, and RHU agree. Is it US? DCDuring TALK 10:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The with-less usage seems SOP to me; we say "make a friend", "make a new friend", "make a bunch of new friends", and so on, and this is just one instance of that. It should be documented at [[friend]]. The with-ful usage is trickier; semantically it doesn't have anything that's not implied in "make friends" (SOP) + "friends with" (cf. "become friends with", "be friends with"), but I don't totally understand the grammar. Create [[friends with]], weak create [[make friends with]], weak delete or redirect [[make friends]]. —Ruakh_TALK 14:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

From a quick search via gbooks, make friends used bare may predate use with prepositions (unto, of, with). "Riches may make friends many ways" appears in a 16thC proverb collection by John Heywood. — Pingku^dimmi 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill and AHD Idioms and WordNet have make friends. [[make friends]] could be a redirect to [[make friends]]. I'm not sure that a "with"-headed PP is really a complement rather than an adjunct, though it is by far the most common PP head after "make friends". DCDuring TALK 15:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a "with"-headed PP is a complement of "friends", as in "I have been friends with her since childhood.". This argues for not having make friends with and making sure that we have the complementation at [[friends]] (not [[friend]] !). I have added usage examples at friends. Does it need a sense? If so, I cannot think of wording. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, don't delete both make friends and make friends with. --Hekaheka 11:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Current configuration of entries with my best efforts:
1. New sense at [[friends]]. (which seems to me distinct from simple plural by strongly implying a two-way liking relationship).
2. Redirect from [[friends with]] to [[friends]].
3. Entry at [[make friends]]
4. Redirect from [[make friends with]] to [[make friends]].

-- Review welcomed. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

· I don't think that the sense that you added to [[friends]] is idiomatic, or at all different from the simple plural of friend. The two-way liking relationship can be just as strongly implied using the singular; if person A addresses person B as friend, or describes or refers to person B as his friend, then person B might object by saying, "I'm not your friend! I don't even like you!"; and if person C asks person B, "who's your friend?", then person B might object by saying, "He's not my friend! I don't even like him!" The grammatical roles are reversed, but the meaning is unchanged.
· I do think there's an idiomatic sense of friends: the sense that can be used with either a singular or a plural predicand, as in "I became friends with him in college" or "we became friends with them in college". (Your fourth example sentence exemplifies this sense, but it's not ideal: we really need examples with singular predicands, IMHO, for it to be clear why it's idiomatic.)
· Also, both of your examples that use "make friends", use it to mean "make friends with each other". I wasn't sure about that, and [[make friends]] implies that it doesn't exist, but it seemed plausible (since "we're friends" can mean "we're friends with each other"), so I searched Google Books. It does seem to exist, but it's quite rare compared to other uses; "we made friends right away", for example, does not get nearly as many hits as "I made friends right away", and even of the hits it does get, about a third mean "we immediately formed friendships with other people", not "we immediately formed a friendship with each other". So while I think we should edit [[make friends]] to indicate that this usage exists, I think it's too atypical to be a good choice for example sentences in other entries. I dunno.
—Ruakh_TALK 23:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of erroneously placed {{rfgloss}}: Rfd-redundant: "(dated) A slut" seems redundant to following sense: "(dated) A lewd wench; a strumpet; a prostitute." DCDuring TALK 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, for the relevant value of slut, i.e. "untidy or dirty woman". I'll have a look at the entry. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it sum of parts? Does it mean anything beyond a library which is public? Note we have public school, though not public hospital or public park. ---> Tooironic 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

or public garden, which could merit entry --Boody Roody 21:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Public school is at least set aside by the possible difference in intonation. There are a lot of things to know about what makes a library public, the free borrowing of books principally, but I think this is covered by the meaning of public. Weak delete. DAVilla 16:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Technical term, see: w:Category:Types of library. --Chris Boston 05:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This not Wikipedia. Wiktionary does not include terms which can be broken down into the sum of their parts. There are over 30 different "types" of library in that list, and I imagine most of them would not be includible here. ---> Tooironic 00:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to read Wikipedia, grab a book. I recommend William John Murison: The public library: its origins, purpose, and significance as a social institution (London 1955). It's technical term. --Chris Boston 02:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion does not look at technical terms, it looks at whether terms have meaning beyond the sum of their parts (apart from other things). How does this term mean anything beyond a "library" that is "public"? ---> Tooironic 14:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Start with the question: What is the meaning of "public"? Public funded or open to the public? Is a national library a public library? And what is the meaning of "literal translation" (Finnish) if "public library" is SoP? --Chris Boston 21:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

tagged but not listed -- Liliana • 12:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think. Prostitute alone so strongly implies "female" that google books:"he became a male prostitute" gets as many (distinct, relevant) hits as google books:"he became a prostitute", even though the context should make the "male" completely superfluous — and even though, in a few cases, "child prostitute" would have been more pointed. With google books:"he was a male prostitute" and google books:"he was a prostitute" the picture seems to be similar; there are too many hits for me to want to go through them all individually and pick out the irrelevant hits and duplicates, but my impression is that the latter has, at most, 25–50% more distinct, relevant hits than the former, even though you'd expect the former to be so redundant as to be vanishingly rare. (Incidentally, there's also a slight meaning difference, in that some of the hits for "he was a prostitute" mean a metaphorical prostitute — "The pure physicist wouldn't talk to the ceramics engineer because he was a prostitute who was applying physics" — whereas "male prostitute" seems always to be literal, or at least less metaphorical.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Striking my "keep" per my 20:05, 2 August comment: "maybe this is really information about prostitute". —Ruakh_TALK 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And this presumably goes without saying, but replacing "he" with "she" and/or "male" with "female" does not display the above pattern. "Female prostitute" is vanishingly rare; in fact, "he was|became a female prostitute" each get as many distinct, relevant hits as their counterparts with "she": zero and one, respectively. —Ruakh_TALK 12:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So you (Ruakh) are saying it's a common collocation. I don't dispute that (and would be brave or foolish to try, in the face of your numbers). However: It's utterly simple to decipher as the sum of its parts. It has no connotation AFAICT other than that supplied by those parts. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly saying that it's a common collocation; it certainly is, but had I wanted to say that, I would simply have linked to "male prostitute". Instead I linked to searches that produce many fewer hits, but that more effectively demonstrate the phrase's odd linguistic properties. But maybe this is really information about prostitute. All three of our senses say, "A person who […] ", but the first, and maybe also the second, should instead probably say, "A woman, or other person, who […] ". (A usage note is probably necessary as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If prostitute means "a woman who […] " then a male prostitute is not "a male women who […] " Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, clearly; but I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at . . . —Ruakh_TALK 19:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. 3 of 4 US unabridged dictionaries have a sense of prostitute#Noun that is specific to men. All 3 explicitly mention homosexual activity in that definition. We need that sense.

Even without that sense, it is hardly unusual for a class of referents that differs from the typical referent in an attribute, even a defining attribute, to have a modifier that so indicates. DCDuring TALK 13:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete and handle via usage note at [[prostitute]]. Setting CFI aside, a usage note at [[prostitute]] seems more likely than an entry for [[male prostitute]] to help readers understand that the term is mostly applied to women. - -sche (discuss) 20:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made the sense changes at [[prostitute]] that I described above, and added a usage note; please take a look. —Ruakh_TALK 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, and delete [[male prostitute]]. You might want to make a similar note at [[nurse]]; I notice that "he became a male nurse" gets twice as many b.g.c. hits as "he became a male prostitute" does (although only 1/8 as many as "he became a nurse"). (Out of curiosity, I also searched for "He became a (male) midwife", and got zero hits with "male" and 6 distinct hits without it, of which only one is using midwife literally rather than figuratively.) —An gr 17:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll wait a few days for feedback on this one before making a similar change to [[nurse]]. That one seems potentially trickier, because the history is so different. —Ruakh_TALK 17:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All of the bgc cites are mentions, not dissimilar from the Hofstadter quote in the entry. See Google awkwardnessful (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive). There might be one or two valid ones at Groups. Nothing at all at News. Nothing visible to me at Scholar. Is there an Appendix for this? DCDuring TALK 18:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely an RFV question: WT:CFI does say 'Conveying meaning' so mere mentions would be enough to pass this. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Is there an Appendix for this?" WT:LOP, if nothing else. But yes, this should probably be a RFV. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations added. Possibly all of them. — Pingku^dimmi 06:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cited. Well, congratulations. The Groups cites, with the context available via the url, seem to show the meaning. The Hofstadter cite shows the apparent coinage. Now we should make it WOTD so we can enable the removal of {{rare}}. DCDuring TALK 09:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any specific criteria for determining when verb + prep/adv/particle is a phrasal verb - and when it is not - this seems readily decomposable to be + after#Preposition, with after always heading a prepositional phrase. after has a function of indicating the goal of an action. It has this meaning with a large number of verbs and usually does not transform the semantics of the verb itself.

The usage note claims "after" is "inseparable". By what ordinary sense of "inseparable"? Consider "I am here after the book I lent you." and "I am after the book I lent you.". Is the second case an instance of a phrasal verb, but not the first? DCDuring TALK 14:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete in this meaning, but there is a Hiberno-English meaning, not yet recorded in our definition, that may be worth adding (and keeping), namely "I'm after washing the dishes" = "I have just washed the dishes". —An gr 14:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I thought I'd heard something like that and just confirmed it with a friend. DCDuring TALK 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

w:Grammatical aspect includes "recent past aspect", giving "after aspect" as a synonym, and illustrating it with this expression from Hiberno-English. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't you also say "I've come after my book" where the verb is not be? --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you've got the phrasal PoV, the existence of [[come after]] addresses that objection. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom, or redirect to [[after]]. This use of after clearly does not depend on an overt be; google books:"man after her own heart" alone gets hundreds of this! I can't really comment on the Hiberno-English sense, but it would not surprise me if this use also didn't depend on an overt be. Speakers who have this construction, please tell me: if something like "even though he wasn't after drinking, he didn't want to drive" is O.K., how about just "even though not after drinking, he didn't want to drive"? (I'm modeling that on "even though he wasn't about to drive, he didn't want to drink" and "even though not about to drive, he didn't want to drink". We don't have an entry for be about (full infinitive) or be about to (bare infinitive), and I'm assuming that be after (gerund-participle) is analogous.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see this from MWDEU about the Irish English. I wonder if "after" can be used with all forms of be in this sense or, rather, aspect, or only with a past tense form (also not a progressive). DCDuring TALK 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comrie's book on Aspect has something suggesting that "be after" is a calque from Celtic languages. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes; Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Manx and Welsh all have the construction (maybe Cornish and Breton do too, I don't know), and the Hiberno-English construction is certainly calqued from Irish. I don't have this construction natively myself, but I think it's most common with a present tense form of "to be": I am after doing the dishes = "I have just done the dishes". I can easily imagine it being used with a past tense form to make an effective pluperfect (certainly the parallel construction in Irish and Welsh can be used that way), e.g. I was after doing the dishes = "I had just done the dishes". Another common Hiberno-English construction that's calqued from Irish is the use of a small clause after and to mean something along the lines of "even though", e.g. "He was telling me how much he dislikes his sister, and her sitting there the whole time!" = "...even though she was sitting there the whole time". The "proximate perfect" construction with after can also be found here, in which case the be form is omitted, e.g. "and me after telling ye how much depended on your being good". So the answer to Ruakh's question is yes, it doesn't depend on an overt be. So this proximate perfect construction (a term I just made up I'm after making up, I have no idea if it's the real technical term) can be discussed at [[after]], and [[be after]] can be deleted. —An gr 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the (Irish English) sense I added at [[after#Preposition]]. It could probably use more usage examples. There are already citations at Citations:be after which I will move. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts? ---> Tooironic 01:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

keep WT:CFI: "Terms" to be broadly interpreted. Academic discipline. --Chris Boston 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not really a reason. Educational institutions make up their own course titles, I did one called Love, Laughter and Chivalry (no joke) but I wouldn't consider it dictionary material. Or how about history of art or art history. I'm thinking delete, though the entry gives two definitions and I'm not sure that both are SoP. --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on w:art history. Helpful: spelling (compare warship or art-historical) and translations. --Light Yagami 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: SoP would be: "medium history" (singular like art). You will not find the name of your course in any dictionary, like Swedish-English Dictionary: mediehistoria => media history. --Light Yagami 16:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That this term is in Wikipedia or in a random bilingual dictionary does not make it includible as per Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion. In what way does "media history" not mean "the history of media"? ---> Tooironic 01:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete because, even if it's a course, the course is just the history of media, so it can be trivially deduced. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So you think media history is the history of "the middle layer of the wall of a blood vessel" (wiktionary). And the plural is written "mediae history"? Good to know --Light Yagami 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You're just showing your ignorance of policy and applicability of rules. A "red car" doesn't have red wing mirrors and red headlights, and it's the colour red, not red with rust, but we still don't have an entry. Equinox ◑ 21:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WT:CFI? I don't know a university offering a B.A. in "red cars studies", but I know a Centre for Media History (Macquarie University) and journals like Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis. --Light Yagami 22:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You have my sympathies! Equinox ◑ 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per other people's solid arguments. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, per what Mg and Equinox said. Yes, a course 'should' be called medium history, since media is plural, but media is used as a non-count noun everywhere, so you get media history (like art history: art is another such noun). (I've now added stuff about countability to [[media]].)—msh210℠ (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In contrast to media history, make history, missing at this writing and until someone add it, is an entry-worthy idiom. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the red car example. "Red car" is comparable with "American media history" (Ramsey Library Research Guides). @Msh210: "It 'should' be called ..." is a strong argument for keep. --Chris Boston 21:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But the should was in scare quotes because it only should be called that according to the Rules of Grammar™, and not according to actual usage on the street, which is what I referred to in the next part of my sentence above. Media history is one of innumerable examples of such 'ungrammatical' usage, which is accounted for at [[media]], and its 'ungrammaticality' is thus no reason to keep it.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be absurd to keep this one; if we did we would have to include political history, economic history, labor history, legal history, social history, religious history, military history, diplomatic history, African-American history, intellectual history, cultural history, history of marriage, history of boxing, history of vaudeville, and so on and so forth (and, yes, they all have Wikipedia pages). ---> Tooironic 22:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lean delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A storm of leaves. leafstorm failed RFV so COALMINE doesn't apply here. -- Liliana • 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I've cited leafstorm (so that it should pass RFV now). I initially moved the page to the at-that-time already-attested leaf-storm and marked leafstorm as RFV-failed on the theory that the content would remain, but if it needs to be unhyphenated to remain, unhyphenated citations can (and have) be(en) found. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

NISoP, = in time + with. Change to redirect to in time. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, redirect. In time is not always used with "with". --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What they said.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirected.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Created by me in February 2008, "marketingový plán" refers to "marketing plan". Both terms are semantic sums of parts, I am afraid. --Dan Polansky 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. SemperBlotto 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bogus entry added by Special:Contributions/2.216.205.44, an IP user known to be very interested in anime / manga / magic but with very little functional knowledge of Japanese. This particular entry appears to be a beginner's mistake for 祝福, in that the い belonged to whatever the following word was in whatever the user was reading at the time. Requesting speedy deletion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 福咒い

Another bogus non-word, by the same IP user Special:Contributions/2.216.205.44. We already have 福咒. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 呪咒い, 呪咒

A pair of bogus entries, the one with the い by the same IP user Special:Contributions/2.216.205.44, the other by IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.78, similarly known to be very interested in anime / manga but with very little functional knowledge of Japanese. In this case, the term 呪咒 minus the い does not appear to be a valid word either -- zero credible Google hits, most only showing cases where the two characters just happen to be next to each other, such as in lists of kanji, as opposed to actual use as a word. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Shot on sight in good faith, if anyone thinks they can find even one valid citation for any of these, I'll restore any such entry and move it to rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination on the basis of sex. No more dictionary worthy than height discrimination or age discrimination. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks spuriously like a shot on goal. Note, definition is incorrect, what it describes is a shot on target. A shot on goal (in the UK anyway) is just any shot at the opponent's goal. Accuracy doesn't matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it has a more particular meaning in ice hockey. It is one of the main statistics reported for a professional game thereof. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the meaning in ice hockey in the States is a shot on a goal, even if it one of the main stats reported. It does have unusual structure (no article before goal); see [[WT:SURVIVOR#Once upon a time test]].—msh210℠ (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In baseball they have the games played statistic, I don't think we want an entry for that here, outside of appendices. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sum of parts? ---> Tooironic 14:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. --Hekaheka 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This usage means "indubitably", so keep. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

That's not a sense that is present in the entry so it isn't the one being disputed here. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The creator made a lot of dubious entries relating to slang used at his school. I can see what he's getting at here — it is that sort of jubilant "oh yes!" of a tricky pool shot being pulled off, as opposed to (say) a thoughtful acknowledgement "ah yes" — but it does sound a bit SoPpy. Equinox ◑ 16:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, irritating as I find it, it does seem to function as a single unit, as does oh no. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Same sentiment here. DAVilla 16:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ 08:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Both are two words, not one. Fugyoo 12:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Two words, but arguably one specific concept. It is idiomatic to English to use two words for this idea – many languages use only one. Keep. Ƿidsiþ 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

But that isn't a consideration in WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Ƿidsiþ: "It is idiomatic to English", that is in CFI, so that's a valid reason to keep this. Having said that, I personally am not too sure, but thinking more keep than delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing senses of "idiomatic". DCDuring TALK 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Any reason to keep these and not the other one, the short one, or the pink paisley one with green polka-dots? Well, that last one might not be attested, but what about the other two?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got another one. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not the only one: I've got the one I'm thinking about typing right now and the one I typed a few seconds ago. And then there's [[the one I was considering using as an example of how ridiculous this can get until I decided that I'd better quit before someone says, "wait, that's not the same type of thing, because it's got all sorts of clauses attached to it", forcing me to respond, "yeah, but it's actually all part of the same noun phrase" and yielding a whole long discussion about grammar that I'd rather not get into]].—msh210℠ (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the "the ... ones" are comparable to these two. Though perhaps another one is. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep both - and any other pronoun that translates into several other languages as a single word. SemperBlotto 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep as translation targets, if not for other reasons. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Translation target" is not a valid consideration under WT:CFI, not that we need let such things trouble us. Increasingly Wiktionary seems to be a translation-target and translation-practice site rather than an adequate monolingual English dictionary. As such, is there any limit on what is to be justified on that basis? Would anyone care to prepare criteria or should we just vote on each item?

Without more English contributors and hiding of non-English material from potential contributors, we can expect English-only mirrors to capture more potential users. We really should mark entries that are only justifiable as translation targets for their benefit. (Are there languages where "such things" would be a translation target-justified entry?) DCDuring TALK 12:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be just me, but why is this term supposed to be any idiomatic? -- Liliana • 14:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. I'd ask the same about gay marriage. Equinox ◑ 16:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Special:PrefixIndex/gay. If we don't already have one, we need a sense at gay#Adjective "of, relating to or aimed at homosexuals". I would delete this specific nominated entry, and would be happy to nominate/comment on nominations of some of these other terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Added the sense at [[gay#Adjective]].—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

At least for marriage the term refers to the legality, so there's a more-than-SoP argument. A gay wedding could be held even if it wasn't recognized. The only confusion (apart from the dated sense of gay) would be whether it was the couple or the full audience who are homosexual, but this can be resolved pragmatically. Delete. DAVilla 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. (If the community decides to keep it, it needs a sense for merry weddings: bgc has many hits for the phrase.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By way of comparison, queer wedding and queer marriage are attested on Google Books. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

NISoP: cool ("Of a person, not showing emotion, calm and in self-control") + customer ("person of a particular kind"). This is already one of three collocations appearing at [[customer]]. DCDuring TALK 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Adjective: "made of terracotta". Is this really a separate sense? --Yair rand 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not if I may decide. --Hekaheka 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's try what Ruakh has suggested before, and use empirical evidence to decide (on RFD, without resorting to RFV unless we have to). I've looked for modification by the adverb "very", one test, but Google Books only has examples like "Unmistakably, she is the same nude who appears on Old Babylonian cylinder seals often as an object, a figurine or the very terracotta plaque just described" (2006, Silvia Schroer, Images and Gender: contributions to the hermeneutics of reading, page 196), in which very is an adjective and terracotta is most plausibly a noun. Next I looked for modification by "too", but that, too, only turned up examples like "Here too, terracotta hearths and floor-levels were found" (1999 Robert Leighton, Sicily Before History, page 120). "Terracottaer" and "terracottaest" are not English words. Google Books has one example of "the most terracotta", but I think it's a scanno. Use with forms of "become" is more promising:

2011 February-March, Dan Cooper, Arts & Crafts Walls, in the Old-House Journal, volume 39, number 1, page 24:
The designers softened them by selecting tertiary colors, so that green became olive, red became terracotta, yellow became ochre, and so on.
1996, Joseph Rykwert, The Dancing Column, page 352:
[...] when it became terracotta and stone; [...]

The second quotation might still be use of the noun. The first quotation suggests a way of finding an adjective "terracotta" (though one meaning "terracotta-coloured", not "made of terracotta"): look for collocation with other colours.

2006, Elizabeth Moore, Than Swe, Early Walled Sties of Dawei, in Uncovering Southeast Asia's Past: selected papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, page 290:
They are deep red or terracotta, yellow brown, milk white, cream, sky blue and dark blue in colour.

Thus, I think the existing adjective should be deleted, but I will add the attested adjective. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had similar experience in looking at noun-derived color adjectives. Only the rarest of color nouns are not also attestably adjectives in my experience. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's negro (n) + spiritual (n): delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to [[spiritual#Noun]] or w:Spiritual (music). DCDuring TALK 16:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, at least not with our current definitions. My imagination would not make (offensive term for black) + (African-American folk song or a song in that style) to (genre of African American song, usually with a Christian text, and sung a cappella with no harmony). --Hekaheka 01:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Hekaheke. Not easily understood from its component parts.--Dmol 10:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If any multi-word term is given a definition that is either wrong or "complete" (read "encyclopedic" or over-specified) enough, that meaning could be deemed opaque. The question is whether that is the meaning of the word in use by non-specialists for relatively context-free usage or whether specialized users use the word in the same way. I'll by happy to submit this to a separate RfV.

Also, the subtleties of non/offensiveness are not well reflected in [[negro]]. Not every multi-word entry built from terms inadequately defined at Wiktionary should be an entry. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am reasonably sure that we can find evidence that the term is applied to spirituals sung "with accompaniment" and "in harmony", so those elements of the definition are wrong. Further I suspect that spiritual is the right home for the "Christian text" portion of the definition. As we proceed down this path, I suspect we would be led to a NISoP definition. But maybe this just shows that we are more like a collection of glossaries than a general-purpose print dictionary in terms of inclusion/exclusion. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete (and improve negro and spiritual) per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a run at spiritual#Noun. I dread tackling the context tags and usage notes for negro and other terms in that reference/epithet complex. Perhaps Google NGram can bring some objectivity to it. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. (It's in the OED.) Ƿidsiþ 08:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the sum of partsness of this term. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I was going to vote keep as it is such a well-known phrase. But I looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary of Music (online) and it just says "See spiritual". So, I suppose we ought to delete it, or maybe keep it as a redirect. SemperBlotto 08:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But that seems to simply imply it's a synonym and the definition isn't worth repeating. The same way we use {{alternative form of}}. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, spiritual simply means negro spiritual. There was no other kind of spiritual to which the adjective negro was appended. Both terms appear simultaneously. Ƿidsiþ 08:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hunh??? DCDuring TALK 15:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that in some cases "negro" is intended as a pejorative epithet. One can also find Google "nigger spirituals" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive).

Other groupings of spirituals are Google "black spirituals" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive), Google "slave spirituals" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive), and even Google "afro-american spirituals" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive). Each emphasizes a different aspect of the history of the music or reflects a different stance toward it.

There are other flavors of spirituals as well, such as can be found at blue-grass spirituals" and Google "country spirituals" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive).

Another term used is gospel spirituals. Other terms also emphasize the Christian aspect: Google "Christian spirituals" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive) and Google "Baptist spirituals" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive). DCDuring TALK 15:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Did these other spirituals also develop into gospel music, or was it specifically the negro spiritual? In other words, is the negro spiritual a distinct genre? Wikipedia would seem to say no, that the term spiritual has been applied elsewhere but that it has not been recognized except in the African American context. DAVilla 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we could just delete this as RFV-failed because no-one bothered to cite it, but the RFV discussion suggested it should be deleted for even more reasons. However, that discussion also suggested it was cite-able, and some may want to keep it to help readers who are confused by it (after seeing it used by confused writers). So, discuss: should we keep it, as an English and/or Latin phrase? - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC) (My own opinion is: delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC))

Delete already. The entire first page of hits for "cetera paribus" at b.g.c. is scannos for ceteris paribus. (In other words, you get hits, but if you actually click on them and view the page where the phrase occurs, you see that what was actually printed in the book was ceteris paribus.) I'm seeing no evidence it ever occurs as a mistake in permanently archived writing, let alone a common one. —An gr 23:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete, or provide evidence to support the contrary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete It doesn't seem common enough either absolutely or relative to ceteris paribus to call it a "common misspelling". DCDuring TALK 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Adjective. I don't think this is attestably used as an adjective in any way distinguishable from attributive use of county#Noun. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's comparable, but it seems to be modified by the adverbs purely and solely. I've added citations. I think the usage notes belong with the noun, though. — Pingku^dimmi 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Focus adverbs (from which an anon removed [[solely]] by deleting the context/grammar tag), are not a discriminating test for this purpose, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it didn't seem that great a test the first time. See your comments at WT:RFV#business. I'd like to know what the difference is, precisely. — Pingku^dimmi 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can explain without risking violating CGEL's copyright. But, to see the problem, take a look at Google "strictly OR purely OR solely OR especially OR mainly Cadillac" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive). You can substitute most nouns and get some hits.

I'm trying to read up a bit on syntactic and lexicographical classes and may eventually be able to offer an explanation. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: To me, that like screams "Wiii-kiii-peeee-diiii-aaa". Ok, I haven't been here active for a while, but has this Wiktionary got ridden of all criteria for inclusion?? I mean, can I seriously write now an article on Act of Independence of Lithuania? That's a proper noun with no common noun usage (at least attested). -- Frous 05:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that ObamaCare should be considered a proper noun; it seems more like an abstract common noun. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstract common noun, how? Any examples? Temporarily, you could use any proper noun to describe any kind of policy that someone dislikes, but I would wait for ages for usages in e.g. news articles or columns before putting it here. -- Frous 05:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that one sense of this is clearly a nickname, an informal Proper noun and proper name: reference to the bill enacted into law, the portion of the law that goes into effect, the regulations implementing it, any subsequent amendments of the legislation signed by Obama. There must be another sense that would be an uncountable common noun which might mean the "medical care received under the program." DCDuring TALK 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Names of specific entities are an unresolved issue and have been discussed endlessly. Since this entity is not a place name, a company name, a brand, a name of a specific person, or an entity from a fictional universe, it basically comes down to whether more people say "keep" or "delete", with no guiding policy. --Yair rand 05:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. So...isn't there an explicit list of what proper nouns you can add here? Would make much more sense. IMHO, people in general don't seem to have common sense anymore when drawing a line between a dictionary and an encyclopedia... -- Frous 05:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep "all words in all languages" - Act of Independence of Lithuania is not a word. SemperBlotto 06:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to RFV, and no there aren't many rules on what single words aren't allowed, fictional universe-only terms aren't allowed, but more or less everything else is, unless we decide otherwise by communal decision. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I hereby claim this term is in "widespread use", though particular meanings may need attestation. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My inclination is to keep. It looks perfectly attestable from Google Books, and it isn't a brand. It's more like slang. Equinox ◑ 10:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You took the words out of my mouth. DAVilla 16:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are political brands different from commercial ones? Does that just depend on legalities? DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

They aren't trademarks, nor invented in order to market a product. Equinox ◑ 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This one was invented to demarket a product. The bill title, w:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was invented to market the product. Would an unregistered brand not be subject to WT:BRAND. How about a registered (or unregistered) business name? What about a formerly registered trademark? And service marks?

Clearly we should follow the lead of Urban Dictionary on inclusion for this. Those other dictionaries are so 20th century. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- The OED has Clintonomics; I don't see a fundamental difference.--Prosfilaes 00:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep per the hundreds of Google Books citations, but move to Obamacare, which seems to be the slightly more common usage. bd2412 T 12:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Frequency of usage of a term is irrelevant for a readily attested term at RfD. DCDuring TALK 14:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The term is a single lexical unit and it meets the CFI based on usage. The fact that it was coined as a derisive reference to a policy disfavored by the coiners does not undercut its status as an addition to the lexicon any more than for Reaganomics, Clintonomics, or Bushism. bd2412 T 15:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Single lexical units might be subject to WT:BRAND. I doubt that anyone questions the frequency of usage. This is simply a vote on whether we to include this or whether it falls into a category that requires something special. I would argue that, as a proper noun, it does not have meaning, only reference to an individual. Thus it would have a true definition and does not clearly fit under some of the slogans that we invoke when we have no better arguments. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
DCDuring, you don't think that "ObamaCare" is a brand, do you? --Dan Polansky 16:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I know that Google "brand Obama" OR "Obama brand" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive) gets a lots of hits. I know that there a lot of books with both "politics" and "marketing" in the title. It may be a culture-specific difference. The US has had a long history of media-driven politics, starting with pamphlets and broadsheets and continuing through newspapers, through radio and television, to blogs and social media. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Care to answer my question about whether "ObamaCare" (not "Obama") is a brand of physical product? (CFI: "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon.") Is it or is it not? Put differently, do you agree with this statement: '"ObamaCare' is a brand of physical product'? --Dan Polansky 08:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
You have asked a legalistic question that is of should be irrelevant. Obviously, it is not a physical product, except for the paper and incidentals associated with the service. But, of course, the same could be said for Con Edison (my local electricity supplier), Google, Mickey Mouse, Amtrak, Acela, MetLife, AIG, and Citibank. All of them have trademarked products and non-trademarked product names.

Do you think that WT:BRAND is intended not to cover any of them? DCDuring TALK 11:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Am I right that you deny that '"ObamaCare" is a brand of physical product'? Do you affirm that '"ObamaCare" is a brand'? You refuse to give a clear answer. While you may think I am "legalistic" ("following the letter of the law [rather than the spirit of the law]") about CFI, to me it seems that you are reading CFI as you see fit regardless of what it actually says, which I find objectionable.

An answer to your question: WT:BRAND does not apply to "Google" AFAICT. What the intention was of the author of WT:BRAND I do not know, but the way it is worded it does not apply to things that are not brands of physical products. The same for "Mickey Mouse", "Citibank", and possibly the others.

If you are arguing outside of CFI (which I sometimes do), you should IMHO say so clearly rather than implying that you are actually applying the current CFI. --Dan Polansky 11:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of services and intangibles as product would fit under senses 3, 6, and 7 at [[product]]. Thus Google should be included under brand unless we are explicitly excluding services and intangible product. I am also reasonably sure that we would include or would want to include company names and product names that were not registered trademarks or service marks. AFAICT one can develop a proprietary interest in a business or product/service name that is not strictly speaking a trademark or service mark. I believe that WT:BRAND, almost certainly written by a community without any applicable business or legal expertise, was not worded to exclude half or more of the commercial world. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you affirm that '"ObamaCare" is a brand'? --Dan Polansky 06:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep this attested term defined as "US healthcare reform plan as envisioned by the Obama administration" together with Medicare, and Medicaid, and also with Reaganomics, Clintonomics, and Bushism. Making "Obamacare" the main spelling makes sense, judging from Google books. Looks like a single word, a closed compound like "headeache". WT:BRAND does not apply to "ObamaCare", as "ObamaCare" is not a brand. --Dan Polansky 16:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with other people's arguments. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep, though it could pass very speedily from neologism to dated/obsolete, it is nevertheless a word in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
So are "Cheerios", "Starbucks", and "ThinkProgress". DCDuring TALK 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as Equinox points out, this isn't a commercial word of any kind, it's just a slang term derived from a proper noun (Obama). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If we have the nickname, should we not have the bill title, at least as a matter of fairness to offset the pejorative nature of "Obamacare"? DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This phrase does not refer to any particular bill; just as Reaganomics refers to Reagan's general economic policy, distinct from any specific legislation passed in support of it, this term refers to Obama's general healthcare policy, distinct from any specific implementation enacting some or all of it. bd2412 T 18:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

On what do you base that assertion. Whatever is true about Reaganomics, Google "passage OR enactment OR implementaion of Obamacare" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive) and Google "signing Obamacare" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive) suggests that many users are referring to something quite specific that seems to quack in a very duck-like way. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The term was coined long before any legislation was signed, or even proposed in Congress. In fact, earliest use dates to mid-2007, when Obama was not yet even a front-running candidate. It seems to have taken off in terms of usage in April-May of 2008, with many voices proposing different possible forms that Obama's health care regime could take. bd2412 T 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was the exclusive meaning. In fact, I am awaiting more cites, depending on the spelling, for common-noun senses to become attestable. Right now, the common-noun sense, based on Groups usage, would seem to be "psychiatric care". DCDuring TALK 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

NISoP click + me. The historical 1990s stuff is not our province IMO. 213.212.97.69 13:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Inanimate objects apparently referring to themselves as "me" is not unique to this term either. Ever seen a car with "WASH ME" etched into the dust on its paintwork? Equinox ◑ 16:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Or CLEAN ME. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to bang on. Compare chat and chat about. Equinox ◑ 18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. bang on has the same meaning, and is usually, but not always, found with about, which leads to the confusion. -- ALGRIF talk 11:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] bang on#Preposition

Called a preposition. This would seem to be bang#Adverb ("precisely") (just added) + on#Preposition. Same problem as many multiword entries beginning with all and certain other adverbs. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Though it can be re-expressed many ways using 'on' as the last word, I'm not sure how we can cover this in a way that makes this sum of parts. Examples include dead on, and smack on. In other words, I remain unconvinced. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Right is a fairly exact synonym for bang#Adverb in this usage. MWOnline doesn't seem to have any trouble. They use a non-gloss definition as they do for most simple prepositions: used as a function word to indicate a time frame during which something takes place <a parade on Sunday> or an instant, action, or occurrence when something begins or is done <on cue> <on arriving home, I found your letter> <news on the hour> <cash on delivery>. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of the usage examples uses on the dot which is itself an idiom even in the opinion of the editors of MWOnline (one of the least inclusive of MWEs). But perhaps someone can attest to the spelling bangon and invoke WT:COALMINE. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

By fixing attention on the time aspect of the preposition on, we seem to be ignoring staple phrases such as Bang on the nose. and Bang on target. Not to forget the simple exclamation Bang on!!. -- ALGRIF talk 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

bang on#Interjection is not part of this. BTW, it is not really an expression of emotion and thus not really an interjection by my lights. It is a colloquial ellipsis of a sentence and should probably be under the L3 header "Phrase".

I simply assumed that MG's problem with the definition of on had to do with its temporal senses rather than its spatial senses. I usually find the physical sense of prepositions obvious, the spatial ones sometimes less so, and the more "grammatical" ones much, much less so. on the nose and on target are also themselves idioms. "Bang" seems to go well with other idiomatic (or nearly so) prepositional phrases like to rights, on the spot, on the mark, and in form ("of horses"). But it is also followed in its adverbial use by many other phrases headed by prepositions with spatial or other non-temporal senses such as "into", "opposite", "in line with", "in front of", "against", "next to", "onto", "over", "on top of". It is also occasionally followed by adverbs. To convince yourself you would probably need to avail yourself of the BNC. DCDuring TALK 18:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] bang on#Adjective

Isn't "bang on" also an adjective? If you say "My guess was bang on" you mean "My guess was correct".--Arthurvogel 08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes. — Pingku^dimmi 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, are you sure? It seems largely NISoP to me as an adjective. See ["on" at MWOnline]. Our [[on#Adjective]] seems quite lame and inadequate.

"Bang on" seems to me mostly just more emotion-laden and unusual than other adverb-"on" collocations and so is more likely to be remembered. I suppose that such considerations are potentially relevant to inclusion, but they are not part of WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think on has a sense to fit the Las Vegas citation, where would seem to mean "appropriate" or "fitting." If you can demonstrate such a sense (apart from this collocation), I will defer. — Pingku^dimmi 03:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the sense in the collocation "just not on". I'll be looking for it. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same sense as in "spot on"? —Ruakh_TALK 03:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By Jove, another bang-on contribution from Ruakh.

In "spot on" and "bang on", the sense seems the same. In "right on", the sense of on may be virtually identical, but my experience with the 60s and 70s usage makes the whole seem idiomatic. In each of these the stress seems to be on the first word of the expression. In "not on" the stress seems equal on each. I think that is a feature of collocations of "not" rather than evidence of some distinction of sense. All four seem related to the idea of "on target", "on point".

Many dictionaries have right on. A few non-US dictionaries have both spot on and bang on. We and UD alone have not on. DCDuring TALK 13:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Only Collins Pocket among OneLook references seems to have the right sense of on as adjective: "tolerable, practicable, or acceptable". DCDuring TALK 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

None of these are valid by my ken. All created by known-suspect IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109.

父時間 should be 時の翁 instead
父天空 should be 父なる空 instead
父土地 should be 祖国 instead
母自然 should be 大自然 instead
母地球 should be 母なる大地 instead
母土地 should be 母国 instead

Listed over on RFV for a while. Adding here based on that discussion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 14:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RFV'd entries get at least 30 days (usually more, but only because there's a massive backlog, going back about four years!). The only time they don't get 30 days is if they're speedy deletion candidates. That's up to individual administrators to use their judgment. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should I remove this section from the page for now?

And just FYI, these six are all extremely bad pidgin Japanese. It's conceivable that they might exist in some manga somewhere, but even then they would have been deliberately coined as extremely bad pidgin Japanese. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Entry created by known-suspect IP user. Listed at WT:RFV#霊漿 / 霊法 for a while, no verification forthcoming. Requesting speedy deletion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Entry created and edited by known-suspect IP users. Not a Japanese word by my ken. Zero Google hits showing use as a word; very occasional use as a given name. Not in any dictionary to hand. Requesting speedy deletion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Found a few instances of it on the net, but doesn't seem to be related to wizardry in any way. Besides, the entries just look too messy for my liking. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"The name and service mark under which w:National Railroad Passenger Corporation does business." Because the entry doesn't even pretend to give the word a meaning and only names it as a brand. DCDuring created this recently, I suppose to make trouble or test the limits of the brand arguments. Equinox ◑ 21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Trouble? People were making statements that WT:BRAND simply did not cover branded services and used [[Google]] as evidence. Who is causing the trouble? I didn't notice very many objecting to those statements, so I assume that there is tacit support for that position. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't support it.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Looks like a single word, can host pronunciation, and has etymology; thus, the entry is capable of hosting lexicographical information that cannot be gained by combining lexicographical information of other entries. From what I can tell, CFI does not have any special treatment for service marks. --Dan Polansky 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This belongs at RFV, not here. But it's probably easily attested (not that I've tried). Keep and move to RFV if it's not easily attested.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"The service mark under which Citicorp offers banking services." Because the entry doesn't even pretend to give the word a meaning and only names it as a brand. DCDuring created this recently, I suppose to make trouble or test the limits of the brand arguments. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to RFV.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagged by Haplology on 1 April 2011, but apparently not added here. FWIW, I strongly agree with Haplology's request for deletion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagged by Haplology on 5 March 2011, but not added here. FWIW, I disagree that this should be deleted. The term does appear to have some non-medical use, meaning "a blockage", in addition to its more specific medical sense of "infarction". -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Brought up for discussion first over at WT:TEA#あなたの. These are all just SOP for Japanese. I suspect the various contributors don't speak a lot of Japanese and added these out of a perceived need to have glosses for the English your, my, and upper. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagged by Haplology on 16 April 2011, but not added here. FWIW, I strongly agree with Haplology's request for deletion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For what reasons? As a non-Japanese speaker, I can't possibly understand without a reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

RFD for a couple reasons: as Hap noted in the RFD note, this could be viewed as an inflected form, which is itself not included in any Japanese-Japanese dictionaries; or, as an alternate analysis, it could be seen as a sum-of-parts entry of the base 親切 + the particle に. Particles in Japanese are (very loosely) a bit like articles and prepositions in English; they are standalone morphemes that help tie things together grammatically.

I suspect this entry was created by someone looking for a nice one-to-one correspondence from English into Japanese; however, Japanese is not English and works quite differently, so there often is no one-to-one match, not even in parts of speech. Although nicely or kindly are indeed single words, 親切に is not one word but two; に in this context equates to the -ly in the English, but it is not the same thing. Sample sentences to illustrate some of how the particle に works:

親切に行ってくれた。
[She / He / They] kindly went for [me / us / her / etc.]

vs:

お店に行ってくれた
[She / He / They] went to the store for [me / us / her / etc.]

Many things can take に afterwards, but adding the に does not create a new separate Japanese word any more than adding articles or prepositions creates a new separate word in English. Sometimes a Japanese word + に translates to a single English word, and sometimes it does not; but this should have no bearing on how to evaluate SOP Japanese entries. -- Hope this helps explain things, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Both tagged by Internoob on 15 April 2011, but not added here. FWIW, I agree with Internoob's request for deletion. Transcluding the contents of Talk:超～神な below. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How often and how widely is this term used? Any source available?

How should I pronounce this word? Where's accent? The kana reads too strangely: choūkamina.

Should we use a wave dash, which is not a formal Japanese punctuation, instead of a normal chōonpu? More over, a chōonpu following a kanji looks very curious.

--211.131.87.214 18:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not widely used and should be deleted maybe. It's just a rarely used slang accidentally combined 超 and 神 (super+godlike; both are slangy usages), I guess. Electric goat 01:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to the initial poster:
It is slang. The word was quite popular in early 2008 and used in numerous magazines. The morning news program Zoom In Super did a survey in February 2008 interviewing people about their knowledge of the word, which was my inspiration for adding the entry at the time.

Pronunciation is choːkami (na), regardless of any creative orthographic usages. I would not be opposed to the page being moved to 超神.

While I agree with you, the ～ was indeed used the above news broadcast as well as various magazines. Since then I have also seen 超神(な) as well, though.

Regards, Bendono 04:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just a transiently-used word, not established widely at all. No solid linguistic source could be found. You can find this word in this manner (super+godlike) rarely even in Japanese blogs. In addition, it's just a sum-of-parts. This expression sounds funny though, no novel meaning is appeared by this combination, isn't it? I don't know much about the editorial policy and convention of English Wiktionary yet, so I don't know this kind of words should be contained or not. So just FYI to the initial poster. Electric goat 09:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
超 is an adverb meaning extremely and 神 is a slang adjectival noun meaning godlike. ～ is a variant of ー, the long vowel mark, and used here as an emphasis. The literal translation is extreeeemely godlike. This entry is not at all a word. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently created as a translation of an English term, but the resulting Japanese is just another sum-of-parts entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This character is not used in Japanese; it is simplified Chinese. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

䦉#Japanese -- this one too. Should I just go ahead and start deleting such bogus Japanese entries for simplified Chinese characters? This will clear out a lot of the single-character entries under Category:Japanese_terms_needing_attention. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Entry on English wiktionary for the French translation of an English term. The English term already has an entry (en:sulphuric_acid) and fr.wikt already has an article (appropriately) on that language's term (fr:acide sulfurique). DMacks 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The French Wiktionary is not relevant, it is for the use those who speak French natively. Many English-speakers who might want to know about the term acide sulfurique know little French and can't use French Wiktionary easily. The English term en:sulphuric acid has a right to a translation section, and the foreign terms in the translation section generally meet the criteria to have an entry here. —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The entry is properly listed as a French term. Each language's Wiktionary is meant to be an everything-else-to-[that language] kind of dictionary, so the English Wiktionary will (ideally) include terms in all languages, described in English, while the French Wiktionary will include terms in all languages, described in French, and so on and so forth. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Struck. We aim to have "all words in all languages". SemperBlotto 07:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Pilcrow nominated for deletion. Seems okay to me, but needs work. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Pilcrow nominated for deletion. Seems okay to me, but needs a lot of work. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sense: "(as plural) The Irish people." Couldn't this be a sense of any adjective? Feed the hungry, read to the blind, etc. This is just the (sense #5) plus an adjective. Plus, take away the the and you get something awkward like "Irish have faced many hardships." Ultimateria 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories: High volume discussion pages | Requests | Wiktionary:Maintenance | Input needed

Hidden category: Japanese terms needing attention

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Friday, August 26, 2011

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Latest revision as of 07:22, 26 August 2011

[edit] xīnxuèguǎnbìng

[edit] up gazes

[edit] uncountable noun

[edit] Queen of Hearts

[edit] 超～神

[edit] girl-on-girl

[edit] woman-on-woman

[edit] boy-on-boy

[edit] in harm's way

[edit] second innings

[edit] third innings

[edit] fourth innings

[edit] 2.0

[edit] 3.0

[edit] uſe

[edit] final whistle

[edit] 福咒い

[edit] 呪咒い, 呪咒

[edit] bang on#Preposition

[edit] bang on#Adjective