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

Sep 4th 2012, 04:38

Revision as of 04:25, 4 September 2012 (edit)		Latest revision as of 04:38, 4 September 2012 (edit) (undo)
Line 2,473:		Line 2,473:
	== [[infraspecific taxons]] ==		== [[infraspecific taxons]] ==
	All three of these are SOP for [[infraspecific]] + [[taxon]]/[[taxa]]/[[taxons]] (the last is an incorrect plural, too, but that's not a reason for deletion). [[User:Chuck Entz\|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz\|talk]]) 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)		All three of these are SOP for [[infraspecific]] + [[taxon]]/[[taxa]]/[[taxons]] (the last is an incorrect plural, too, but that's not a reason for deletion). [[User:Chuck Entz\|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz\|talk]]) 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
		+	:I would be inclined to '''keep''' this, as it appears (at first glance, at least) to be a specialized term within the field for which one can not substitute synonyms of either term to reach a technically correct equivalent. [[User:BD2412\|<font style="background:lightgreen">''bd2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412\|'''T''']] 04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

	== [[dice]] ==		== [[dice]] ==

Latest revision as of 04:38, 4 September 2012

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 of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, 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] buncha sign languages

Category:Definitionless terms has a few entries for sign languages, which have no usable content. I guess they could all be deleted. --Rockpilot 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to simply provide a definition for these? They're all valid anyway. -- Liliana • 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You serious? Deleting things is loads easier than defining things! --Rockpilot 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, no AFAICT-valid reason given for deletion.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's always acceptable to delete entries with no definitions at all. And I'd include a couple of entries that I've created. The only possible exceptions could be definitionless entries which are valid words, and have citations. Correct etymologies and pronunciations also seem like possible but weaker reasons to keep a wholly definitionless entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, many of these are garbage and should be deleted. -- Liliana • 21:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the sign language names aren't even attestable. Anyway, if an entry's entire content is "definition requested", it should be at WT:REE or similar. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone up to the task? -- Liliana • 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Today I deleted most of them (and I checked every single one in Google Books, and left the ones that really had loads of mentions, which were very few). Some were just non-existent; and anyway I think that creating so many "blank" stub entries to be filled in was arrogant and bad; we have enough request pages he could have used. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Closed. Cleaned up by Equinox (talk • contribs). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: To apply values (axioms).

I don't understand the definition, or in any case how it related to "to understand". It was added by an anon in diff, on 8 March 2004. My take is delete, unless someone can convincingly argue otherwise. --Dan Polansky 16:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the sense in "How do you understand X?" is meant. That sentence sometimes means something like "What values or axioms do you bring to the table when you comprehend X?" — but the "What values or axioms" part of it is in the word "How", not in the word "understand". Anyway, this belongs at RFV, no?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happier with an RFV, where I expect it to fail as a mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to RfV or keep it here and get it cited. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Since most comments are for moving to RFV I'll close this and move it there. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Chinese pinyin and Japanese romaji, Cantonese jyutping has never been approved for inclusion in Wiktionary, and I doubt it will, since I cannot see it passing CFI. Similarly, Korean Revised Romanization already failed to be approved, so there's a precedent case. -- Liliana • 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this more of a Beer Parlor thing? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't have many editors knowing and willing to contribute in Cantonese, let alone its multiple romanisation schemes. Pinyin and romaji are much more widely used for romanisation and as a learning tool. Not so much with Korean Revised Romanization - learners switch to Hangeul much faster - Korean writing easier to learn. Cantonese is seldom romanised in a standard way and Yale is perhaps more common than Jyutping. --Anatoli 03:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I add Cantonese from time to time and always use jyutping. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably, though arpeggiated and arpeggiate do not seem to cover it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The first sense of arpeggiate seems to cover it nicely.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's written like it's intransitive, but the quotation uses it transitively. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete SoP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Has this been resolved? DAVilla 01:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not likely to meet the usual tests of adjectivity. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As in "a freak [event]", e.g. "a freak accident"? It passes the smell test for adjectivity: I don't know about any others. If it's a noun, we're missing the sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Any English noun can meet that. Therefore it is not a test for adjectivity. Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are sufficient to distinguish an adjective from a noun used attributively. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gradable, at least, which turns the question around: does it pass tests of nounness (as tested against adjectivity)?—msh210℠ (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

AGF: "a freak" not modifying a noun and/or "freaks" not a verb would suffice.

1907, w:Jack London, Before Adam, page 8:
And I may answer with another question. Why is a two-headed calf? And my own answer to this is that it is a freak.
1920, Onnie Warren Smith, Casting tackle and methods, page 67:
There may be good points about a freak reel, but because it is a freak it will stand little show of even a fair try-out
1938, Marian E. Baer, The wonders of water:
It is a freak that people talk about when they see it. Not everyone calls it by the right name, and few people know how it gets to be what it is. This freak is hail.

-- DCDuring TALK 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Great; thanks for the research. Did you mean "Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are together sufficient" or "Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are each sufficient"? And even if you meant the former, is there some smaller set that's also sufficient? (And on what authority?)—msh210℠ (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that meeting any one of the tests is sufficient for our purposes. I also think others agree, though the whole idea of fact-based challenges to PoS class membership doesn't seem terribly popular here. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've figured out part of the reason that it passes the small test for adjectivity: freak [event] is not stressed on the first word as (I think) [attributve noun] [noun] is usually but rather on the second as (I think) [adjective] [noun] is usually. Is that a test for nonadjectivity? If so, or if not, on what authority?—msh210℠ (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a test I use as we don't have a corpus of pronunciations. It converts the verification process from fact-based to authority-based, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the adj. form from this root is freakish. It was a very freakish accident. for example. Does this strengthen the argument for "freak" being simply a noun used attributively? -- ALGRIF talk 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is kept, we need to think about whether we need freak accident, too. Chuck Entz 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Abstain. I don't know what to think. If no one else votes in a week or two I'll close this as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Interjection sense, "I/we desperately need assistance!", seems like either the noun ("assistance!") or the (imperative) verb ("assist!"). If the community agrees with that assessment, then the listed synonym (mayday) can be listed under "see also" instead and the translations moved to sub mayday or SOS if relevant (or in lemma form to sub the noun or verb, if that's what they are).—msh210℠ (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly, I don't interpret this as a noun or as a verb, but as an interjection. Don't ask me why, I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In German, the normal cry for help is Hilfe and in Dutch hulp also occurs. This may mean that the English term is also a noun in origin, but that it has fallen together with the imperative in form. —CodeCa t 15:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

After his stroke, my father had trouble standing up, and needed assistance rising when he fell. When he shouted "help!", it sounded to me like an imperative. ~ Robin 18:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think it's the verb. You can also say "Somebody help!", which is one of the relatively rare cases in English that an imperative has an explicit subject other than "you". —Ruakh_TALK 14:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Ruakh. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A-cai (talk • contribs) is a huge fan of this novel (so am I). As a result, he's created entries for the names of various generals over the years in this dictionary. According to this vote, such entries should not exist. Here are some examples 虞翻, 王朗, 严舆, 嚴白虎, 孙权, 陈横 and 于糜, just to name a few. I suggest deletion of all the entries that satisfy this criteria. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a consensus here, such a consensus was achieved in the vote. However it should be 'this criterion' not 'this criteria' but I've even seen policitians make this mistake on the news, so hey. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete. Move it to Wikipedia. There is nothing to say about these terms definition-wise. Equinox ◑ 23:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this should be debated, but I'll put some preliminary thoughts here, since my entries were the ones that were singled out. As some of you may know, I have been working on a bi-lingual translation of Romance of the Three Kingdoms for Wikisource. I hyperlink each word or phrase (including names) to a Wiktionary entry, so that a student of the language can know how the sentences should be broken up. Proper nouns are not always easy to spot in the text. Here's an example from the title of Chapter 14: 孫伯符大戰嚴白虎. My feeling is that it is helpful to students of the language to point out that 孫伯符 and 嚴白虎 are proper names in this sentence, and not necessarily the most common versions of these names at that. For example, 孫伯符 is more popularly known as 孫策. The fact that each of these entries has an entry on Wikipedia is not a good argument in my mind. Most nouns have Wikipedia articles. This very subject has been debated in the past, and the decision was to keep proper nouns, provided that they appear in a significant literary work. (The debate took place several years ago. I don't remember the exact date). -- A-cai 20:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about trying to find this old discussion you speak of, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals supersede's it in any case. Like I say, there really is nothing to debate here. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's nothing to debate, then why are we debating? -- A-cai 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To allow you to replace the links on the Wikisource page so they don't turn dead. -- Liliana • 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's fair. I'll do all the work, and all of you can vote on whether you like it or not. Thanks for your support. -- A-cai 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No because Jamesjiao started a debate on this, in my opinion to cover his back in case someone disagrees with him. But I'd rather he just have deleted them outright. FWIW in reply to A-Cai for readers who don't read the Latin alphabet George Washington and Adam Smith might be 'useful' but surely that's not a reason to include them. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, you just said that usefulness is not a valid reason for including something. That doesn't make any sense to me. If a word is useful, and if it doesn't hurt anything, why would you want to delete it? What's happened to Wiktionary? -- A-cai 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You really haven't understood me correctly. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to clarify your position? -- A-cai 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand the vote mentioned above would disallow some of these names in the Main namespace; this does not mean that they could not appear in the Appendix namespace, particularly as some of the individuals appear to be characters in the novel with possibly no historical person atached to them. However, not all of the names are disallowed by the aforementioned vote. For example, 嚴白虎 is not disallowed, as it includes no given name nor diminutive; rather, it includes a descriptive nickname and family name. The vote did not consider this possibility, and thus does not disallow it. --EncycloPetey 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your argument, A-Cai. However, I see this as an opportunity to actually improve the Wikipedia articles, rather than dumping the names in a dictionary. The fact that they are not easy to spot in a text is not a valid reason why the names should be included in a dictionary. If they can't be spotted in the first place, how would a dictionary be of any help here? Besides, we are talking about a subset of proper nouns, not just proper nouns in general. These are names of individuals, some real, some ficitional, that exist in a work of literature. The name of an individual, with no meanings other than being, well, a name, is explicitly excluded from being included in this dictionary per vote. That being said, another reason I brought this discussion to your attention, is that, in the event that the decision of deleting these names does go through, this serves as a reminder to you not to create any further entries that fit this criterion (thanks MG). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your summary of what the vote does and does not allow is incorrect. The vote only concerned itself with names of real individuals in the form of a given name (or diminutive) in combination with a family name or surname. Names of fictional characters are covered under a different rule. Names not in the described form were not considered in the vote. Names that are simply names are actually allowed and encouraged as entries; there is no vote that disallows them. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, now I'm even more confused. EncyloPetey's description made it sound as though the ones I've included from the novel are allowed after all. His description makes it sound like a continuation of the policy decision that I remember from several years ago. That's why I've felt free to add hundreds of names from the novel ever since I began working on the translation back in 2007. Check out Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Chapter 1 to see how I've been doing it so far. -- A-cai 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

EP, read the whole CFI. It says terms about fictional people are subject to the fictional universes rule, and what does that say? "Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space." -- Liliana • 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Many if not most of the generals in this novel were actually real generals during the late Han dynasty. It makes no sense to keep some and delete others. I support the idea of a bilingual appendix dedicated to the names of the generals with links to their respective Wikipedia articles in both languages, as suggested by BD below. In all honesty, I am a fan of this novel and I also like to see the novel being represented more in Wikimedia as a whole. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Move the lot to Appendix space - let's not lose the work done here. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Move, as bd says. - -sche (discuss) 08:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to appendix, per BD2412. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- If somebody can provide me with a list of all the entries to be appendicized with respect to this discussion, I'll be glad to build the appendix. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: (computing, slang) The front-panel lights on old computers; status lights on a modem, router, network hub, and so forth.

Merge into (computing, slang) The flashing lights on an electronic device that typically serve no useful purpose. , and perhaps fix up the definition a bit. -- Liliana • 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would consider dropping "that typically serve no useful purpose". Even though this is a humorous term, it is quite rare for any device to have lights that do not serve a useful purpose, even if it is not obvious to non-experts. Then merge. Equinox ◑ 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is no implication of "no useful purpose" in the term. That's just an interpretation by people who don't know the purpose. Support curtail & merge as per Equinox. Dbfirs 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes just get on with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dbfirs 17:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Closed per discussion. Untagged by Dbfirs (talk • contribs). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto 10:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition looks like it was taken from a textbook, but without the context required to explain "the independent variable". More typical wording would include the word treatment.

Some OneLook references have this term, some medical dictionaries and RH. Many more have the contrasting term control group. Does the pairing of this with the more nearly idiomatic term make any difference to the voting public here? DCDuring TALK 13:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think it might be obvious from context. Compare a different "sense": "On this first release with his experimental group Qantara, Shaheen presents his vision of Arabic music fused with Western and African forms." Equinox ◑ 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge into [[experimental]]. We're missing the relevant sense of experimental: we currently define it in a way that would apply to the control group just as well as to the experimental group. However, there is a relevant sense, and it's not restricted to collocation with "group"; cites can be found saying things like "The recall of experimental subjects exceeded that of control subjects", or "In the experimental condition a group of participants watch a movie excerpt with a funny content; in the control condition a different group of participants watch an excerpt with an emotionally neutral content." —Ruakh_TALK 15:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete SoP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we want all possible consonant + vowel combinations? -- Liliana • 18:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a single character, so what is it, a ligature? I assume it isn't because you wouldn't nominate a ligature for deletion. Ergo I don't know what it is. Someone tell me, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it seems to be two characters: ಹ and ು. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what we need is an entry for the second of those (ು). - -sche (discuss) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, on Firefox I can't select them separately, they always function as one. I'll switch briefly to IE. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to be trusted, it's a compound character in the alphasyllabary. "The Kannada writing system is an abugida, with consonants appearing with an inherent vowel." DAVilla 06:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No point in having all possible consonant + vowel combinations. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

rfd-sense: '(UK, usually plural) Shoes used for sports play or training'. Redundant to 'plural of trainer'. It's not a plural only noun, just more common in the plural than the singular. I would rather trainer say {{chiefly|in the plural}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We would then have to delete sneakers for the same reason. I've no strong preference either way. Dbfirs 18:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks redundant to me, not that I speak British English.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sneakers does say (and I quote) 'sneakers (plural only) (singular sneaker)'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

... so are you claiming that Americans can't lose one sneaker? Shouldn't we match the entry at "trainers" with that at "sneakers"? Dbfirs 08:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oi. That ought to go on WT:-) (the sneakers entry you quote, Mg). How can it have a singular if it's plural only? I say move the info for sneakers, trainers and all similar entries to the singular; the word "shoes" itself is more common in the plural (26 million Books hits) than in the singular (16 million), but the content is at shoe. - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The main entry should be the singular, as for plimsolls and daps. SemperBlotto 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not that hard to find cites for "left trainer" at bgc with the right sense of "trainer". But I don't see why we don't have a definition at the plural for this: "A pair of training shoes. (See trainer.)" The essence of the matter, IMO, is that it normally refers to a pair not any grouping of multiple training shoes. DCDuring TALK 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many things, especially body parts and associated articles, that normally occur in pairs; and therefore, there are many nouns whose plurals usually implicitly refer to pairs. I'm not sure that the form-of entries are the best place to document this. —Ruakh_TALK 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It may not be the best place, but it seems to be one natural place to do so. It is probably the only place where the matter can be treated without a usage note formatted using {{context}}. We treat lexically many things that are arguably the consequences of rules. Also, I draw attention to [[trouser]]. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you drew attention there, isn't there a UK-vs-US difference regarding underwear vs outerwear for this word? Here in the US trousers are synonymous with pants. I was under the impression that in the UK trousers are what you wear under your pants. If so, it would seem to be worth mentioning in the entry. Chuck Entz 14:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No you're entirely wrong, which is why the entry doesn't mention it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reality check. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I see my mistake: I had trousers and pants switched. Pants is the one that can be used for undergarments. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep It seems to reflect usage. Certainly sneakers out-occurs sneaker by 4:1, with pair of sneakers only constituting 10% of the plural. It would be tedious to confirm similarity of relative frequency of this, though it might be feasible at BNC. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitions given are non-idiomatic. In contrast, we lack the idiomatic put someone in their place ^[sic] and the probably idiomatic put oneself in someone's place. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's one of the most common collocations of in place, but I'll venture not the most common; be in place is more common. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. In my opinion all three senses can be analysed as SOP of put ("to bring or set into a certain relation, state or condition") + in place ("established; in operation"). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A common nickname for Peter Crouch. --Cova (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We usually keep nicknames and aliases, for example Romulus. It doesn't violate Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals, or indeed any vote or policy of which I am aware. So it's just a straight vote based on personal preferences, not rules. So I abstain, you guys work it out for yourselves. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted [[Foxy]] some time ago because it was uncited (after a long RFV). - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Foxy apparently, that was deleted by Robert Ullmann as a bad redirect to [[foxy]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hm... ah, it was Fox. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think, though I haven't got the book to hand, that it's also used as a nickname for the character Barty Crouch Sr. (or Barty Crouch Jr.?) in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. If I can find a citation for that, the entry could be expanded to the less controversial "Nickname of the surname Crouch", along the lines of Smithy or Jonesy. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good point/idea. - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal preferences, eh? Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would at least expect to see some very convincing citations of this. Personal nicknames for specific people are probably beyond our purview, though some are interesting: did you know that the British tabloid press refers to Madonna (the singer) as Madge? Equinox ◑ 01:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As does the American tabloid press, at least sometimes.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep; looks like a single word that is attestable. Pertinent regulation: probably WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Specific to gaming, while graphics and even computer graphics are broader topics. I'm not sure if that's sufficient reason. Weak keep. DAVilla 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Relisted. DAVilla 02:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] and stat whore

None of these seem idiomatic to me. What we're missing is a sense of whore that says something along the lines of "Someone who is obsessed about a particular thing." Certainly for stat whore, the part "(especially in video games) through unscrupulous or tacky means." is wrong, since the verb sense right below demonstrates a non-video games usage that doesn't use any "unscrupulous or tacky means". Other combinations are easily attestable, like grammar whore etc. -- Liliana • 06:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's true. Delete both. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 12:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I wonder about attention whore. Equinox ◑ 12:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. These just seem like evidence for a meaning of "whore" reminiscent of the sense of hound ("someone who seeks something"). DCDuring TALK 13:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a fourth sense at whore#Noun which extends sense three to cover this class of uses, I think. Please improve the rather stiffly worded definition and/or add additional illustrative citations. A check of COCA and BNC suggests that this is much more common in the US. The collocations at COCA in the sense in question included "snowboard", "publicity", designer "label", "fame", "attention", and "media". DCDuring TALK 13:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Also stats whore. Weak keep. It's not clear from just the words if this might be someone who craves stats (e.g. for sports) in great quantities. They may have no team loyalty or care more about the numbers (final scores, etc.) than the excitement of watching the game. DAVilla 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The picture I'm getting from this term's entry is that it's used to describe: 1) people greatly concerned with statistics in video games (presumably with reaching high levels or obtaining the best equipment), and 2) people greatly concerned with the statistics (i.e. hits) that their web content generates. Thus, the term's usage seems to be limited to interest in those two specific types of statistics, as well as the sports one mentioned above, rather than applied to all types of statistics. It doesn't seem that someone obsessively following the latest polling data in this year's U.S. presidential race would be described as a "stat whore." Astral (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the definition does not even adequately capture the breadth of actual usage.

2006, Wendy Atterberry; Sarah Hatter, The Very Best Weblog Writing Ever by Anyone Anywhere in the Whole Wide World^[1], volume 1, page 78:
You become a stats whore. Daily stats and referrals and meme participation for webrings, quizlists, personality profiles, and the occasional sepia toned webcam photo to make you look all "emo" and "sultry" and "sensitive"
2009 June 22, "The Nike Experiment: How the Shoe Giant Unleashed the Power of Personal Metrics", Wired News:
For a self-described "stat whore," there's something powerfully motivating about all the data that Nike+ collects
2010 March 5, "Bears bag Brandon Manumaleuna", ProFootballTalk:
Forte had 1500 total yards from scrimmage and that line was atrocious and Cutler was a stat whore

The first seems to be an example of the Internet sense. The third is unclear, and since the Cutler being referenced is apparently a football player rather than a football fan, I'm lead to conclude that in this instance "stat whore" is being used to mean "person who generates a lot of statistics" rather than "person greatly interested in statistics." The second cite, to me, is the one that stands out as a possible example of a broader usage that doesn't neatly fall into either the gaming, Internet, or sports statistics category.

If the majority of usages fall into one of those categories, I say break the definition into three senses. Otherwise the term is probably SOP. Astral (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Per below, I think we may want to keep the noun if we keep the verb. See below (or Talk:attention whore when archived). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

graphics whore and stat whore deleted. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, undeleted. Although the community may be leaning that way, I don't feel the balance has yet tipped. DAVilla 02:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly makes you doubt that a decision has not been reached yet? Clear statements for deletion and no clear statements in favour of the entry - except possibly by Astral who has left the project in july - and no new comments for almost four months ... what else do you need? Delete! -- Gauss (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you're right about this one so I'm going through with the deletion, which was by the way only for the sense and not the whole page. Earlier I may have actually been more concerned with the previous being swept into the same discussion, whereas apart from a few "both" votes, most of the analysis, at least, concerns stat not graphics. DAVilla 02:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] attention whore

As above. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep, common set term.Lucifer (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Prove it or at least provide some evidence. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, this one's pretty commonly used. --Hydrox (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the issue. "Red car" is even more common. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, but "attention whore" is a rather common term in some online communities, while "red car" is just an obviously arbitrary combination of an adjective and a noun. --Hydrox (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Dishwasher soap may be a common expression among grocery store personnel, but it is also as arbitrary a combination of terms as the term in question. DCDuring TALK 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

While I don't see why dishwasher soap could not appear in a Grand Dictionary of Retailing Business, in general interest works it might be more suited for description in a subsection of an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, where as attention whore is generic enough and, more crucially, definiable in a few words, that I would consider it more suitable for a dictionary, espcially an on-line one. Google Search for the term attention whore yields a whopping 5.8 million results. --Hydrox (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems straightforward to me. Delete. DAVilla 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This also occurs as a verb. Astral (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Very weak keep per the reasonable doubt test. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Attention whore is a common word. it's not a standard but rather a slang which means exactly "A person who's willing to do something extremely drastic just for all eyes to be on them." People use it most of the times when it's necessary. in fact you can obviously see how often it's used by high schools kids. just keep it there you lose nothing. Abc2k (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Keep it. it's a common word. why someone bothers to delete this? you wanna hide the facts.? it doesn't matter this word get deleted from here or not still vast majority of people would use this despite how you think. Dotcomman (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you two the same user? Also, nobody's questioning its existence; as above red car and red bus are common, so what? The lose nothing argument doesn't work either; we jeopardize what limited credibility we have by including incredible (that is not credible) entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

you meant you and me? no you are a bigot I ain't so we both can't be the same. okay you keep your red bus and white car but it doesn't mean people abstain using this word. this is not a matter of credibility of this word. it's about usage among people. red car actually means the red adjective describes the noun. so in this case car is the noun and red acts as an adjective but attention whore isn't like that.you can't define it by taking out each word separately. both two words have an unique mean. Dotcomman (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dotcomman, language like this is completely inappropriate (and I mean the way you call people names in your post here). I've given you a short-term block. Please be more civil in future. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant are Dotcomman and Abc2k the same user. Also to qualify my very weak keep, it's because of the verb. I think the noun is sum of parts and can be worked out from attention + whore, but I don't see how to do that for the verb, which I suppose is derived from the noun attention whore, so I'd tend to favor keeping attention whore the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - It's difficult to tell which of the five meanings of whore would apply to the compound "attention whore." At the least, it's confusing, so attention whore should be kept. Alternatively, a compound meaning could possibly be added so that it's clear what meaning "whore" has in compounds, though I'm not sure if that would work in practice. --BB12 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

attention whore Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Some of these must have been in use before whore took on this meaning. If, for instance, violating behavioral standards was only possible with regard to media, if media whore was the only phrase where whore took on this sense, then we would have the full term and probably not the recently extended definition line. At one time in the past, that was true of maybe only a couple of these terms, on which the etymology of whore in this sense relies. DAVilla 03:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of votes with inane arguments being taken seriously. What is "obscure or pedantic" about pointing out that an argument is empty? If we don't have discussions about criteria, then we should just reduce the process to mere voting. Urban Dictionary is ahead of us on this, but we can catch up if we devote our technical resources to this and broaden the franchise.

Your argument is that one compound term must have preceded any of the others with the component "whore" having the sense exhibited in this group of term, which sense did not exist in the standalone word, and therefore at least one must have been idiomatic at some time. I would argue that evidence showing priority of a specific term would be required. Moreover I am highly skeptical that any of these relatively recent terms is a good candidate given the long usage of whore. Facts could overcome my skepticism. DCDuring TALK 13:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am particularly skeptical because I believe that whore has had the sense in question for a long time in the construction whore after. DCDuring TALK 13:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. DAVilla 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

of, from, or pertaining to the fictional planet Remulak, home of the Coneheads from the Saturday Night Live sketch and later movie. --Cova (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be RFVed, as it might have citations which conform to WT:CFI#Fictional universes. But I doubt it is, so in case it's not moved my vote is delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked and didn't see anything. DAVilla 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

rfv it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved. —Internoob 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See stone#Adjective ("intensifier") + fox ("attractive woman"). DCDuring TALK 12:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Some previous discussion: Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011#stone.23Adjective. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

stone cold + sober --Hekaheka (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be the most common collocation, but it's definitely not the only one; stone cold bluff is another. PS we really need to unify stone cold and stone-cold, I thought it also meant 'absolute, total' as in stone cold bluff. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Was deleted without any due process. The term was well cited with three high quality citations. The rationale was "no usable content given" but that is bull. It was given a proper and mature definition. I would like the deletion reverted and the community to be able to review the word.Lucifer (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's back, I have no idea how valid it is or isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's cited all right, but the definition doesn't match the citations. "A man reknown for his sexual capability" would seem more logical to me, given the citations. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to tweaks or changes in the definition if you guys think it means something a bit different from what I could make of it.Lucifer (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, the top example doesn't work ("pussyman" doesn't appear when searching the link provided) and doesn't seem to be an example anyway. The RSPCA is a British animal welfare charity, which runs shelters for household pets. It seems, without further context, like pussyman here comes from pussy as in cat, though he might be punning on the word.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Closed. The entry was undeleted by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs) and there weren't any complaints. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems very SOP... 'wintery' + 'storm'. —CodeCa t 19:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

But it links to winter storm, which we have, w:Winter storm says that winter storms don't only happen in winter. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Then the definition just isn't right. winters specifically means wintery or winter-like (the -s is the same as English -ish), it doesn't imply it happens in winter (that would be winterstorm which we have). —CodeCa t 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, its antonym, zomers, even has an official meteorological criterium that is often met during spring and autumn as well. —CodeCa t 23:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't know, I was just pointing it out for accuracy. Your reply has been helpful to me as a non-Dutch speaker. Still, I feel unable to comment further. Surely we have at least one other Dutch speaker, AugPi and JorisV for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a native Dutch speaker. I'm a bit iffy on this myself. Freely translated, it means "storm that resembles weather you might expect in the Winter (or occur in the Winter)". This may be a bit far-fetched for people who want the definition of the two words together, for the obvious thing to expect would be "storm during the Winter", but the definition is a bit broader. Also, "winterse storm" may be used during weather forecasts. But yeah, I'm still iffy on it.82.73.217.98 10:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a stronger argument is that you can use different combinations. winterse bui (wintery shower), winterse sneeuw (wintery snow), winterse temperatuur (wintery temperature) and so on. —CodeCa t 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP per CodeCat. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nickel ("US slang five dollars") + note ("a piece of paper currency; a banknote"). DCDuring TALK 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know the arguments about SoP being SoP even if polysemous, but nickel does have a more normal sense of 5 cents in this context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prosfilaes, although this doesn't seem to fit any of our tests. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get this idea of "normal" senses. "Normal" to whom? And in what context?

The term nickel note is US slang just like nickel. By the logic expressed should not any phrase (or indeed sentence) using this sense of nickel not be includable? DCDuring TALK 08:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Normal in standard English. Assuming nickel note means "five dollars"; if I hear the phrase nickel note, and go to look it up, nickel note leaves me wondering whether it's nickel = 5 cents, nickel = 5 dollars, or nickel = 5 hundred dollars in this context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any combination of polysemic terms that wouldn't leave you wondering? DCDuring TALK 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't know whether nickel note can mean 5 hundred dollars or not, or if it just means five dollars. That's why we have definitions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Language can be ambiguous, especially taken out of context. Polysemy of components of units larger than words makes for the combinatorial explosion of such ambiguity. I do not believe that it is a reasonable objective for Wiktionary that it attempt to resolve in principle the combinatorial explosion of ambiguity. OTOH the omission of true idioms would defeat the realistic objective of enabling users to decode meaning by searching lists of senses of component terms to find those that fit each other and the context. DCDuring TALK 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nickel appears in several US slang terms as a substitute for five (one that we don't have here is double nickels, which refers to a 55 mph speed limit). Maybe there should be a "(slang) five" sense for nickel, which would make this more clearly SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Even with that definition, it's not clear that this bill is worth five dollars and not five cents. The latter is strong candidate because of the value of a nickel. DAVilla 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is nickel note used by the same people who use nickel meaning 5 dollars? If so, delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do we merge terms from multiple scripts (!!!) under one single entry? They should be split up and moved back to where they belong. -- Liliana • 19:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, because it's basically the same diacritic mark (the candrabindu) in all of the scripts. Yeah, it's got separate Unicode points for each of the scripts where it's used, but it's the same mark anyway, just as the acute accent used in the Latin alphabet and the acute accent used in the Cyrillic alphabet are the same. —An gr 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference being that there is no "Cyrillic acute accent" in Unicode, though. -- Liliana • 20:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For my money, it'd make more sense to have each Unicode point as its own entry, and then link to each of them from the relevant candrabindu entries. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that Unicode is the end-all and be-all of what is and isn't appropriate here. Just because Unicode gives a separate code point for each of these candrabindus doesn't mean they're really different from each other. The candrabindu has the same shape and the same function in each writing system where it's used. All of the other Unicode candrabindus redirect here so everyone can find what they're looking for. I think keeping information together is a good idea, as is using common sense as opposed to slavishly following whatever Unicode does. —An gr 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment, but two things come to mind:

The shapes and layouts are actually different for each different candrabindu codepoint. This is more obvious if you zoom the text up substantially. Telugu is even on the side instead of on top.
Testing has actually shown my second concern to be moot -- it seems all of the various candrabindu characters redirect to this page, so discoverability does not appear to be an issue.

Ultimately then, I guess I'll bow out -- my main technical issue with this combined page is not an issue, so I leave this up to the sense of organization and aesthetics of those working with the related Indian languages. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As of today, the only language section, which is out of place is Bengali but c(h)andrabindu in Hindi, Sanscrit, Nepali (also Marathi and some other languages) is the same. Providing the info for other scripts with links is useful but they don't have to be on one page. The code point info can go into appropriate pages. It needs a translingual section with "see also's". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This was at RFV previously, I'm going to copy the discussion wholesale due to its relevance here:

Rfv-sense: (Internet) Represents two eyes vertically aligned, in order to form emoticons.

We do not usually have such "part of" definitions. It'd need cites that show : used on its own to represent two eyes, without being part of a smiley. -- Liliana • 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We have letters, Hangul components such as ㄱ and Chinese character components such as 扌. Why not emoticon components? --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per BenjaminBarrett12. It's obviously used in forming a range of different emoticons: :-) :-P :-( :-/ :-D etc. (as well as versions without hyphens, and versions written right-to-left). Other marks are sometimes used for eyes as well, as in ;-) and 8-) , and of course other sets of emoticons have completely different conventions, as in ^_^ and -_- and so on, but in the type of emoticon that predominates in the anglophone world, a colon is the "unmarked" representation. Emoticons are not part of language — they're more like paralanguage — but we allow entries for them, so it makes sense to include some of the analogues-of-morphemes that compose them. —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Observation: slashes, brackets, colons, and many other characters are used in ASCII art as straight lines, curved lines, speckles, and so on. Equinox ◑ 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the key difference is Iconicity. Colon-for-eyes is obviously not fully conventionalized/arbitrary/iconic, but it's partly so. Compare the following:

Oops! My glasses must have thought it was Sunday. BP

Oops! My glasses must have thought it was Sunday. :P

Which emoticon do you find more decipherable? B is sometimes used for eyes, and it makes sense for someone wearing glasses, but : is the arbitrary conventional icon.

But, y'know what? This has really turned into an RFD discussion. Actually, for that matter, it really started as an RFD discussion: the existing sense, after all, is specifically for the use of colon-for-eyes as part of an emoticon, so it doesn't make sense to RFV it for evidence that it's used not as part of emoticon.

So: move to RFD.

—Ruakh_TALK 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Liliana • 19:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kept. No comments here, and RFV comments favoured keeping. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This passed RFV a few years back – obviously, 'there is', 'there be' etc all occur. But in my opinion this is a poor way to present it, and the use is already covered explicitly at be, sense 2. I would prefer to see this as a redirect, personally. Ƿidsiþ 07:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, even if only as a translation target. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I confess, I don't really understand the logic of including the dummy subject in the page title. Isn't this just like having a page for it rain? Ƿidsiþ 08:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Further: the grammar of this page is extremely badly thought-out. Be here is a finite verb, and when there is the subject, it is always in the third-person, so the only time you actually get "there be" is on the rare occasions when the subjunctive kicks in. It seems to me that it was created under a mistaken thought process like, "we need to have the verb in the infinitive, but it always goes with there, hence there be." But it doesn't make sense. Compare the situation with French, where il y avoir was created under the same mistaken impression (the entry now resides properly at y avoir). Ƿidsiþ 08:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

More like it be raining (the hypothetical infinitive of it's raining). —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that the content is lexical it would seem to belong at [[there]] as at least seem can also be used with this sense of there.

Also, I find it hard to imagine that someone searching for this is actually looking for what we offer rather than a justification for a literary use of the different construction, as exemplified in "There be whales" (from a Star Trek movie) or "Here/there be dragons/monsters" (as in a notation on a map). In such works of fiction, it is used as if it were dialect, possibly nautical, with there being locational, not existential. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is a certain idiomacity to using "there be" to represent a fanciful notion of something magical existing at a certain place. This conversation has prompted me to add the missing entries for the four variations, here be dragons, there be dragons, here be monsters, there be monsters. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but that is not what this entry is about. It's purporting to be the main page for such constructions as 'There is a town in north Ontario', 'I wonder if there are any beers left?' etc. Ƿidsiþ 05:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@bd2412: that's just a snowclone supposedly based on a caption in some very ancient map (added later: see w:Here be dragons). @Ƿidsiþ, I agree: it's a grammatical structure, not a phrase or idiom. IMO, it's better addressed in the entry for there, since, as DCDuring points out, no one is going to be prompted by 'I wonder if there are any beers left?' to look up there be. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it is addressed under there#Pronoun, though it seems a bit heavy on grammatical theory- to the point that a layperson might not recognize it. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(It is also covered at be, sense 2. Which is where it ought to be, in my view.) Ƿidsiþ 07:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Has anyone bothered to re-read the original archived discussion? Judging by the arguments I see here, the answer is "no". This entry needs to be here. Of course the important entries are the lemmata there is and there are. But you also need a basic lemma form for perfectly modern usages of the infinitive there be with modal verbs (ex. There will be a meeting tonight). You also need a single location translation target. Where else could you point the Spanish hay? -- ALGRIF talk 11:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I see, so presumably by that reasoning we also need an entry for there was? Hay should point to be, sense 2 of which is this exact sense. Ƿidsiþ 11:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That exists?! This is so misguided. There was is not "the past-tense form of there be" as it currently says. "There be" is not a fucking infinitive verb form. "There" is a grammatical subject, and "there be" only makes any sense in the subjunctive -- otherwise, it has to be "there was", "there is", "there are", "there will be". In no sense is "there be" an infinitive form. Ƿidsiþ 11:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. There must be a basic term to explain there are, there is, there to be, etc. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth would it be at "there be"? Ƿidsiþ 08:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to [[there is]]. —Ruakh_TALK 14:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I can live with that solution. Ƿidsiþ 09:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- This does occur in the infinitive! Just think of "I want there to be lots of food" which is quite clear. 'There' is definitely not a grammatical subject, because if it were, we couldn't have 'there is' next to 'there are'. The verb clearly inflects for whatever follows it. "There be" without 'to' could be a subjunctive: "If there be dragons, we will find them.", just like in the past "If there were dragons, we would have found them." —CodeCat 11:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Yes, we discussed all of that in the RFV discussion that Ƿidsiþ linked to. —Ruakh_TALK 11:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to there is, or delete. As Widsith says, this is like having an entry for it rain. Equinox ◑ 15:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to there is, or delete. I agree with all the analyses of the others who think it shouldn't be here. I've always found this entry to be one of the silly embarassments in Wiktionary. — hippietrail (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep! The definition and etymology may need rewriting but I don't think the article redundant. This usage of "there" is particularly interesting and important for learners and linguists. I can see it only used in Germanic languages, eg. cf. German dasein (post-reform spelling: da sein) (verb)/ Dasein (noun) = da + sein (there be). It's definitely used in infinitive. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Sometimes it is the subjunctive, but it is also the infinitive. For instance, as let governs the infinitive, then "let him come", "let them eat cake", "let there be light." —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete or move to Wikipedia or Wikigrammar. To the extent we are not just a translators' cheatsheet or exercise book, this is covered at [[there]] and [[be]]. DCDuring TALK 07:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
How is this even a verb? It looks like a non-constituent grammatically. DCDuring TALK 07:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
What is Wikigrammar? —An gr 14:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A project even more fitful than Phrasebook. We have isolated components in Appendix and Wiktionary space. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this terrible entry in Wiktionary:Todo/needed trans templates and have cleaned it up to a minimum level, but I still think it's Sop of market and oriented. NB I do not consider it a word; it is two words linked by a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, it does seem to have a specific meaning in business jargon. It's not like I can describe my car as market-oriented when I'm driving to Waitrose. Ƿidsiþ 08:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you describe your car as anything-oriented? I can't recall ever having seen that in any form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. But in business, by contrast... Ƿidsiþ 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It obviously needs citations to determine meaning. Why is it even here? DCDuring TALK 10:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I find Widsith's example unusually poor by his standards, I can't say that my goldfish is market oriented, so what? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me this term is used to mean "having a free-market ideology" (or something less pejorative than ideology), "favoring a free-market system", or "favoring economic freedom". I don't see a definition of market suitable for that meaning at MWOnline, let alone at [[market]]. Perhaps someone can produce one and render all of my proposed definition(s) of market-oriented not entry-worthy. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that the deign of Widsith's car was market-oriented rather than product-oriented, meaning that it was built because it was the sort of thing people woud buy, rather than, say, the sort of thing that would be economic to build. Here it means something like "market-driven" (no pun intended) and might still be sop. — Pingku^dimmi 19:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that kind of usage is SoP. So the question to me is: Are there uses of this that are not SoP because the sense of market that would be required is not naturally definable? DCDuring TALK 21:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Only reason I didn't speedy delete this (the version I first encountered before cleaning it up) was because it's been here since 2008. It doesn't really have a definition, not one that's of use to a human being anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that it's a buzz-word, included not because it means anything, but because it makes the writer appear economics-savvy. It's like solutions in corporate [PR]: if I click on a company's web address and read that XXXX provides YYYY solutions, I still don't know what kind of a company it is- manufacturing? consulting? chemical engineering? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Solvent. That's what kind of company it is, or at least aspires to be. It offers solutions, so clearly it's solvent. ;) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete SoP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a German word but rather an English term used by Germans. (As seen by the grammar, which is incorrect for German.) It is not commonly used and it is perceived as an English word (in contrast to a 'German' word of English origin such as Pudding). I could not find any noteworthy citations and the official word-book says 'a meal in Anglo-Saxon countries', marking it as a foreign term for me.Korn (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Korn. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep if attestable. English has no word "Lunch" with a capital L, so it's not English. Equinox ◑ 12:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

English word 'lunch' doesn't have a genitive either. Compare every entry in Category:German borrowed terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But this is a slippery slope. The borrowed-terms list only includes words that have entered everyday/professional language. I would dislike this to be coalmine for "capitalising any word makes it a German one" or even "if a native [language]-speaker has ever used a word of a foreign language in an [language]-context, this word henceforth a word of the [language]". And, I don't know if this is relevant, but Google shows the word only in proper names.Korn (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep as German. The orthography of this word is not English and we already have an entry at [[lunch#English]]. [[Lunch]] would benefit from a trivial etymology as well as attestation.

We have lots of English entries for words that are direct borrowings (possibly as transliterations) from languages as varied as Indonesian, Arabic, Russian, Hindi, etc. Many of them "feel foreign" to me and to most other native English speakers. So what? DCDuring TALK 18:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans, as well as almost every other nation nowadays, borrows a lot of words from English. I found this example on a blog written in German: Das ist mein Lunch, also mein Sandwich. Und dazu ess ich immernoch Obst. Die anderen essen zusätzlich Chips, ich bin aber nicht so der Chips-Typ. It is easy to find usage for phrases like sein Lunch essen or Lunch gegessen. keep --Hekaheka (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the tendency. But just to make sure that the status of the word is clear: It is not a borrowing as e.g. sauerkraut is a borrowing in English. It is no word commonly or regularly used. It is as foreign as Mittagessen would be in English. I this stays, then, if I make an English entry mittagessen, a) saying: 'It is not capitalised, German words are capitalised' and b) finding some cite using "mittagessen" in an English text, that entry would have to stay as well. Again: The other 'borrowings' on Wiktionary, including chips, are very common in formal and everyday use in Germany, partially without any native German name (Pudding, Chips) and not simply words used sometime somewhere and written with a big L.Korn (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
ps.: Looking at the examples given by Hekaheka (in Google), there needs to be said: The long quote is from a girl writing about a trip to England. In the same vein all entries for "sein Lunch essen" concern travel to Anglophonic countries. True for the second, though with the second there seem to be (did not check the pages) very few which are not travel-/English-related, which are Swiss-domains only. So apart from the few Swiss entries, I refer again to the would-be "mittagessen" entry which could for example be found in a blog from a boy spending a year in Munich - used there for local flavour. Wouldn't make it an English word.Korn (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We'd accept mittagessen if used in running English text not italicized, or in running English text with English suffixes (e.g. -ed if a verb or -er if an adjective). That seems to be the common law here. (Italics are often used to indicate foreign words.)—msh210℠ (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How are foreign words distinguished in German running text? DCDuring TALK 23:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes with italics, but not as often as in English. Foreign nouns are often left uncapitalized, though. —An gr 07:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

move to RFV. I have the feeling this will prove to be unattestable. -- Liliana • 05:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be difficult. I have found more than enough at this bgc search. What the word attestably means (eg, only "a meal that a native of US would call 'lunch'" or "a light mid-day meal") is not be obvious to me. DCDuring TALK 09:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: It may be an English borrowing, but it's one with a long history in German. DC During's search (above) even finds an example from 1844 (there are earlier hits, but they seem to be OCR errors for words like Lauch). Applying the lemming test, the German version of The Free Dictionary has it (masculine, though I can't make sense of their declension notation - I think they're saying the genitive is Lunchs or Lunches, and the plural is Lunchs, Lunches or Lunche), as does the TU Chemnitz dictionary (which has it as neuter). Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added your 1844 find as a citation, which incidentally shows the word being used as a neuter ("ich nehme mein Lunch" rather than "ich nehme meinen Lunch"). —An gr 18:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Angr Thanks!

@Korn What do you mean by the "offical word-book", by the way? Unlike French, German doesn't have an official vocabulary (and even if it did, that wouldn't stop us including slang, like we do for the French Verlan) - are you talking about Duden? Duden's use of "Lunch" (masculine, in case you're wondering, and apparently in the top 100,000 of German words) doesn't look to me like they're saying "This isn't a real word" at all, it looks like they're just pointing out that its use indicates Englishness - much like how dejeuner (which we don't have an entry for in English, but probably should) indicates Frenchness. They do, after all, also have the verb lunchen (which isn't marked as an Anglo-Saxonism), along with Lunchzeit - defined as "Zeit, zu der gewöhnlich der Lunch eingenommen wird" and two spellings of Lunchbuffet ("Tisch o. Ä. mit verschiedenen zu einem Lunch gehörenden Speisen und Getränken, an dem sich der Gast seinen Lunch selbst zusammenstellt"). The fact they use "Lunch" seems to me to imply that they see it as a perfectly valid German word (a dictionary might contain a few loanwords that wouldn't really be considered words, but it wouldn't then use them to define other words). Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to resettle for move to RFV. I still can't see it as a normal German word; the 1844 quote again is from a book about very English ('Bellamy's and 'Esquires' and 'Sir's and 'Mr. Baily junior') people in an anglophonic environment and might just as well have been chosen to convey Englishness. Anyway, when would it be courteous to remove the RFD tag?Korn (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you a language purist? If so, *high fives* -- Liliana • 20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am. But then again I am well aware that this project's aim is to depict languages as is, including words that I would like to vanish. I simply cannot see how "Lunch" is part of the German language atm.Korn (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Dickens translation is not a very good citation for illustrating current usage. I would prefer to see it on the Citations page and replaced with citations other than translations. The pronunciation certainly seems unGermanic. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the pronunciation Duden gives (except for a ‿). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it was a borrowing, it wouldn't change its pronunciation. Modern (post 1800) borrowings into German usually keep their original pronunciation or at least the closest representation with sounds from the German inventory.Korn (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed RFD But I'm not sure whether I like what this implies. Korn (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like safe pair of hands to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

'Pair of hands' meaning what exactly, in your assessment? Ƿidsiþ 14:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's in several Learners' Dictionaries and Dictionaries of Idioms, including Oxford Dictionary of Phrase And Fable and phrasefinder. I have never heard a bungling politician described as a "dangerous pair of hands". Jnestorius (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've never heard this term at all, regarding politicians or anyone else. Is it more common outside of the US? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly used quite a bit in the UK, especially in sporting contexts (see the many articles calling new England manager Roy Hodgson a "safe pair of hands"). Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. If safe is taken as meaning secure or free from risk, then pair of hands would have to mean (something like) capability to perform a task - thus making pair of hands do the heavy lifting of the idiom, for no good reason. — Pingku^dimmi 15:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's marginal, but I lean towards delete as it's a pretty transparent metaphor. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep (sense 3 at least): Though pair of hands does have a metaphorical meaning, it's along the lines of "help" or "assistance" - "It's good to have another pair of hands around here". pair of hands meaning "management" is, as far as I can tell, a sense unique to this phrase. Not so sure about the "good at catching a ball" sense - that seems pretty clear, surely? Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sense 1 is defined as a verb and could be speedily deleted, perhaps replaced by {{&lit|safe|pair|hand}}. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps move to etymology section? Jnestorius (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We haven't made it a practice of explicating derivations of senses, but it might be useful. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As we feel compelled to lexicalize terms produced by normal operation of metonymy and live metaphor, this will be kept, notwithstanding my feeling that it be deleted. Something called "Phrase finder" (UK-based), the sole OneLook reference to have this, defines it as follows: "A reliable, if somewhat dull, person who can be entrusted not to make a mistake with a task." That seems to me sufficiently far removed from literal meaning to be includable. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

All I could find after googling لالیوُڈ was 600 hits, seemingly exclusively mirrors to a now defunct edition of the relevant Wikipedia page. لالی وڈ, on the other hand, gives 5,640 hits and is the term currently used on the English Wikipedia (although the Urdu edition, puzzlingly, has لولی_وڈ, which gives 1,090 hits). Saimdusan (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with the optional diacritic mark. The entry should be renamed to لالیوڈ. The page name should not contain diacritics. لالی وڈ is a synonym/alternative form with a space inserted. There is some inconsistency in space insertion in Urdu words, especially if they are borrowings or coined words like this one. Other alternative forms are لالی ووڈ and لالیووڈ. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 04:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Renamed. Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 04:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] go poop

This seems SoP. You can also go sit, go drive, go sleep, go swim in the water... —CodeCa t 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that way, but not to a native speaker: go is such a syntactically-complex word that it's easy to mistake one type of construction for another. I can't put my finger on the exact difference, but a clue is what happens when you omit the other verb: If a little boy says "I've got to go right now!", you can be pretty sure he's not talking about swimming or sleeping. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Then that seems like a sense of go. —CodeCa t 12:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree (w/CodeCat) — and so does our entry for go (see verb sense #41). —Ruakh_TALK 12:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I would find *"went sit", *"went drive", etc. to be ungrammatical, but our entries claim — and b.g.c. searches support this — that people do say "went pee" and "went poop". Likewise, for me the "go" in "go swim", "go drive", etc. actually contributes some semantics of going (I'd never say something like "I plan to get into the pool, then go swim for a while, then get out"), whereas google books:"go pee" finds some uses where I'm pretty sure it just means "pee". That said, I'm comparing the way that I use your example expressions to the way that some people use "go pee" — I would never say *"went pee", and to me "go pee" implies going — so it's possible that the only difference is between me and said people, not between "go pee" and those other expressions. (Also, even if this difference does exist between "go pee" and those other expressions, it doesn't necessarily mean that "go pee" is an idiom, though personally I would view it as one.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I previously speedily deleted go poop as not dictionary material. I stand by that. It's a sense of go as in "I want to go talk to my ex", "I wanted to go tell my ex to fuck off". Mglovesfun (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is indented like a reply to mine, but it seems to studiously ignore what I wrote. Would you ever say "I went talk to my ex", "I went tell my ex to fuck off"? —Ruakh_TALK 14:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, I haven't read any comments, I just tacked mine on the bottom with +1 colon to avoid confusion of both comments being by the same editor. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I don't even have to go ponder this. I'm going to go check that we have the appropriate sense of go#Verb after I go read what Huddleston and Pullum went and wrote in CGEL. DCDuring TALK 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, then, because I'm annoyed that the would-be deleters haven't even read the entry before commenting. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can come up with a few readings of this. Most interestingly, grammatically, it seems to me that pee and poop could be read as nouns as much as potty in go potty. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, note the numerous childish expressions: go beddy-bye, go sleep-sleep, go nighty-night, go night-night, go bye-bye, go walk-walk. In some cases go seems to serve as if an auxiliary. This seems to be a crude learner's grammar with the complement of go needing to be a repeating sound to indicate a continuing state or activity. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Go" seems to have a range of "light" uses, where its main purpose seems to be to fulfill English's requirement that clauses have tensed verbs. For example:

It can introduce a quotation: "Well, one day Johnny's teacher decided to do that, so she goes, 'Okay, class, I have something behind my back, and it's long and green. What is it?'"
It can introduce a gesture: "So, she goes like this. (swings arm forward), and I go, and I duck, from the _______, I duck and […] "
It can introduce a sound effect, as in "it just went 'plop'".
It can appear in sentences like "How's it going?", "Things are going well at work", etc., where I think it's just a place to hang an adverb.
It can introduce an adjective with negative valence, as in "he went crazy", "she went slack-jawed", etc. There it effectively means "become", but I think it's still semantically light, with the "become" meaning being a result of the aspect that it provides (compare "get", and contrast "be").

As a special case: go native, go Hollywood, etc.

It's used in various childish idioms, as you mention, and I think go pee and go poop ultimately derive from that.

All of these expressions can be analyzed as SOP by using senses that are or can be at [[go#Verb]], but such senses can't do always a good job of explaining which words "go" actually ends up collocating with. "Go crazy" is fine, but ?"go unhappy" is bizarre. "Go Hollywood" is well attested, but ?"go Wall Street" is not. Why?

—Ruakh_TALK 20:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

One can go also Beltway, Broadway, Main Street, Seventh Avenue, Greenwich Village, Nashville, Washington, Beverly Hills, Palm Beach, Las Vegas. All these toponyms seem to convey a kind of fashion/entertainment/political style. (And all of them should be included in the non-encyclopedic dictionary I would like Wiktionary to be.) DCDuring TALK 22:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And Madison Avenue. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ruakh: For the light-verb uses, CGEL includes go among the verbs that can be used to report speech and other performances.

In "How's it going?", it is very much like hanging, coming, progressing, doing, looking, shaking, than any of which it is certainly more common.

All the synonyms of crazy work, including most of the similes, but also bad and wrong and synonyms, and color adjectives and color NPs. These are not set phrases as adverbs can intervene. There are lots of other adjectives that work with go, though not every adjective seems natural. ("Now, don't go all lexicographic on me." seems silly, but not wrong.) DCDuring TALK 23:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Potty in go potty seems locative. In much reported (or imagined?) pidgin speech go occurs with a bare noun complement where a native English speaker would say go to. Go in go pee, go pee-pee, go poo, and go poop seems to me to the sense of go in "He went in his pants" with the nouns introducing a finer discrimination. The contrast between go pee and go piss is possibly telling. In the second case the sense of go is certainly "go away and". DCDuring TALK 23:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I've always understood this (with nothing to back me up beyond my being a native speaker with a soupcon of intelligence) as being go + noun, with go light and transitive, meaning something like "do": not the same as in go potty (where I think it means "travel to a destination", with missing to the) or in go in his pants (where it means "defecate or urinate").—msh210℠ (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be easy for me to agree with your reading were it not for the sense of go in "go in one's pants". Another reading is that go has a function of reporting an action. I have the recurring desire to call pee and poop adverbs in this construction, though that seems completely unjustifiable. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Straight out of MacMillan's BuzzWords. 72.200.200.69 16:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Or did they copy the word from us? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From the MacMillan page: "This article was first published on 11th July 2005." Page history of healthspan lists its creation date on July 25, 2005. If you look through some of the user's other contributions, it seems he copied some other terms verbatim from MacMillan, though somebody seems to have edited a lot of them. 72.200.200.69 16:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't spot that. I was looking for a date and I couldn't find one. Thoughts? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuke it, and anything else he originally copied. The terms themselves might be actual terms, but wouldn't any entry be a derivative work? 72.200.200.69 16:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, and recreated with {{rfdef|lang=en}}. Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Dug up citations attesting usage since 1992. Astral (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I meant that the definition text was a copy-paste of Macmillan's. 72.200.200.69 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Fair enough, and it's a good catch on your part. But the ideal solution, in my eyes, to finding verbatim plagiarism of another dictionary's definition here on Wikitionary would be to rewrite or remove the definition, and then to bring it to RfV if you think it might not meet the criteria for inclusion. But I don't see grounds to completely delete entries for terms that have appeared on MacMillan's BuzzWords — with terms that were already coined and in use before they appeared on that site (as I showed with healthspan), MacMillan would have a copyright on their specific definitions, but couldn't copyright the terms or their meanings. Astral (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  - I should add I don't see an issue with hiding the page versions with the copyvio, just with the complete deletion of this entry, for the reason explained above. Astral (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Sometimes the one entails the other, since hiding page versions means concealing who added what. —Ruakh_TALK 12:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] A bunch of copyvio

I've found more copyvio by that same user from Macmillan Buzzwords. A lot of these are in the page histories; the current versions would count as derivative works. The entry for "laggard" in particular is an exact copy. 72.200.200.69 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

al desko
alcolock
ambush marketing
aprium
awareness band
awareness bracelet
bluejack, bluejacker
broccoflower
cage diving
cyberslacking
dental spa
dog-whistle politics
fanfic
flyboarding, fly-tipping, fly-posting, fly-pitching, fly-poster
freegan
gay bomb
One of the old senses of googolplex
greenwash
grief tourist
homeshoring
ICE number, which is now a redirect and should probably be recreated
infomania (two of the items are switched around in the definition, otherwise it's the exact same)
laggard
living bandage
love bomb
marmalade dropper
me time, face time, windshield time
miswanting, miswant, miswanted
nanopublishing
nouse
orthorexia, orthorexic
Paralympian
paraskevidekatriaphobia
plagiarhythm
pluot
polypill
preheritance
QWERTY phenomenon
rumint
seachanger (and therefore probably also seachange)
security mom
shopgrift
sonic branding
speed networking
stage-phoner
stealth tax and stealth-tax
stress puppy
trifecta
ubersexual
virtual Friday
voice lift
Winterval
xenotransplantation

I should clarify; above, when I said that ICE number should be recreated, I meant recreated as a redirect. 72.200.200.69 19:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, rewrite as needed. The only way that I'm aware of for a word itself to be copyrighted is for it to be trademarked. I'm pretty sure a dictionary can't have ownership of the terms it defines — at least not unless it's coining them from scratch, as opposed to drawing on a pool of already-coined and in-use terms, as seems to be the case here for the most part — but only the specific wording it uses to define them. Any definition that's lifted verbatim from somewhere else needs to be changed, because it definitely constitutes plagiarism, but terms don't become the property of a dictionary when it chooses to define them. Especially not such commonplace ones as "awareness bracelet," "freegan," and "fanfic" — those were around before they were in any dictionary. Astral (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

copyrighted and trademarked are two completely independent things. Trademarked words aren't copyrighted in any way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Going through some of these, I see that an anonymous editor last October completely rewrote a lot of their defs, to the point that, in many cases, (1) I don't think the new defs can be seen as derivative works (in fact, I'm guessing that that was the editor's goal: (s)he must have realized that they were copyvios, and tracked down some other pages with the same problem) and (2) I don't think any attribution is really needed for the edits before that point. So for those cases, I'm just hiding revision text before that point, but leaving the current version intact. —Ruakh_TALK 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Title was: == Request Undeletion ==

Why is the entry posthabitum, supine of the Latin verb posthabeo deleted? Aetherlur (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Because that was not how it was defined (it was defined in error by a bot). Feel free to add a correct entry (properly formatted). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Closed. Entry automatically recreated. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] pamertje, pamertjes

Typo. Correct entries at pampertje, pampertjes. Saimdusan (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Next time, you can use {{d}} without also posting here. (This time, both were done.)—msh210℠ (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Middle English contractions

This is a mass RFD for all the Middle English contractions that I entered from this book a while ago. Please read Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Normalized_spellings_of_Middle_English for background. If there is consensus, I will track all of them down and delete them manually, re-entering the full forms where appropriate. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A month later, there are still no comments. Based on what more knowledgeable editors said at the BP discussion, and on Furnivall's own statements (quoted there), I will go through these manually and delete them (but not for a while - trust me, I will remember in two months or so). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have remembered.

Herkeneþ, þat loueþ honour, of kyng Metaknowledg & hys labour...

--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Closed. Metaknowledge remembered. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I almost speedy deleted this, didn't something very similar fail RFD recently? Anyway the sense "a term used to refer to the almost all of something". Other sense is speedy deletable. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Found it; see Talk:99.9%. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep the sense that originates from "We are the 99 percent" (or %), which I added. It can be easily attested. A simple Google News search (which I did for "99 percenter" to see if that could also be attested credibly) turns up the New York Post[2], New York Times[3], etc. That Guy Over There (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up that page. Bleakgh 14:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be adjective instead of adverb? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This nomination has become a bit screwed up, as the entry has different definitions to when I originally nominated it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I support deleting the sense "Almost all.", RFV "Those who are not part of the ultrarich.", and abstain from voting on "Almost totally." (but I still think it is an adjective). And I support the deletion of the now gone sense "(mathematics) 99 parts out of a hundred". Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: Both interjections. They are redundant to both verbs, simply the imperative of the verb. Compare Talk:halt where it was decided to delete the interjection as it was simply the imperative form of the verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete the interjections as redundant to the verbs and SOPs.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the verbs also. They are just "go for" (try to attain) + "it" or "go for" (undertake) + "it".—msh210℠ (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The verb idiom is not without support at go for it at OneLook Dictionary Search, notably RHU. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

RfD-sense X 4:

(transitive) To apply equally to.
(transitive) To go somewhere in order to do or to experience.
(transitive) To cost (a stated price).
(transitive) To endure, sustain, or spend (time).

All of these are encompassed by {{&lit|go|for}} DCDuring TALK 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all nominated senses as SOP. bd2412 T 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep the first one, which can't really be used without 'for'. Not bothered about the others (although the OED includes 1, 2 and 3). Ƿidsiþ 06:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Is the first one accurate? I have no problem with "goes double for" (meaning "applies twice as much to"), "goes for * to a lesser extent", and other uses where it clearly does not mean "apply equally to". So, I think we need to change that one to just "apply to" before we decide whether to keep or delete it. —Ruakh_TALK 11:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's right, yes. It should be "apply to" or "be valid". Ƿidsiþ 12:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the first one go ("to be valid or accepted"), which can occur without for? DCDuring TALK 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just half-asleep, but I can't think of how this can be used without for, except in certain constructions ("anything goes" and "what I say, goes"). What did you have in mind? Ƿidsiþ 12:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what you suggested, usage like the following (I had trouble finding search terms that yielded a decent percentage of relevant hits.):

2002, Chris, Morris Edward Opler, Apache odyssey: a journey between two worlds, page 231:
The old man said, "Look here, that kind of talk doesn't go here. You men should be praying in your hearts. ...."
1905, Harper's magazine, volume 110, page 37:
"Prayer," said the doctor, " is a good thing in its place, but it doesn't 'go' here. Come with me."
1953, w:Charles A. Lindbergh, w:The Spirit of St. Louis, page 48:
"That kind of thing doesn't go here," he says quietly, but with a tenseness that's in keeping with his finger on the trigger.

Doesn't this sense ("to be valid or accepted") cover the usage in the usex formerly shown for this sense: My wife hates football, and that goes for me as well.? DCDuring TALK 14:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the same thing. I'm not totally sure I agree that it should therefore be removed from go for, but I'm sure you could make that case. Ƿidsiþ 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Collins, at least, among OneLook dictionaries, but not others there, has the sense of go for in question, AFAICT.

It seems that there is an idiomatic construction, at least, though I don't think it conjugates. Is it not mostly colloquial, as in "That goes for him, too.", which could be read as "(I hereby declare that) that (the proposition in question) applies to him, too"? I believe that it could mean either that "him" is a supporter of the proposition or that the proposition applies to "him". It seems to me that it is mostly used in the present indicative, except in reported speech. If so, its possible idiomaticity may lie in its use in some sort of speech act. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep first nominated sense, delete the others. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

rfd-redundant, "A challenge to a duel", redundant to "a duel", though I don't think "a duel" is correct either. But we can correct that. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the general meaning, perhaps a feud would be more accurate, or a disagreement strong enough to evoke a duel:

2009, Wendy Leigh, Patrick Swayze: One Last Dance, p. 149:
By rights, the making of To Wong Foo should have been fun for Patrick, Wesley, and John, but from the first it was pistols at dawn.

Certainly any definition omitting the duel should provide an etymology explaining that the expression derives from the dueling practice. bd2412 T 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I was actually thinking is that it would have to be a duel involving pistols or at least some sort of guns. A duel involving lances couldn't be pistols at dawn, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the example above shows that the phrase can be used without there being any weapons involved at all. bd2412 T 00:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We're talking a bit a cross-purposes; I don't disagree with that, in fact I agree, but I think we need two meanings; the literal pistols at dawn, which seriously, even the literal meaning isn't that easy to decode, but also the idiomatic "conflict" meaning. I'm only nominating for deletion the interjection sense, which unless I'm missing something, it just the noun used on its own without any accompanying explanation, a bit like "drink?" can be used on its own. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Yes, this is sort of like, "Drink!" bd2412 T 13:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Duplicates of Horned God and Triple Goddess. The terms are proper nouns and should be capitalized. These terms have no plurals and if they are used outside of Wicca that simple merits a second sense not the invention of it as a regular noun.Lucifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding triple goddess: This is attestable as a general mythological term used to refer to triune/threefold goddesses (the plural form is also attestable). I've gone ahead and added this sense to the entry. So keep the new mythological sense and delete the old Wicca sense, as it seems to be a misspelling of Triple Goddess, a proper noun referring to a specific deity (similar to writing "god" when one means "God" — e.g., "thank god we made it out safe"). Astral (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

mythology definition is a sum of parts, just any goddess that is tripleLucifer (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Above you stated that the terms would merit additional senses if they are used outside Wicca. "Triple goddess," as shown by these cites, is a general mythology term. While "moon goddess" is arguably SoP, the meaning of "triple goddess" is harder to discern in isolation, because it's not immediately obvious what "triple" could mean in relation to "goddess." And it's arguably idiomatic, because the term doesn't always literally refer to one goddess, but sometimes to three separate goddesses who together form a unit.

I should also clarify that my delete vote above means to remove the Wicca sense from the entry triple goddess. I'm all for keeping this sense at Triple Goddess. Astral (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete There is no entry for Triple goddess so I am assuming that you are refering to triple goddess. We already have an entry for triple + goddess and the definition that you offer is easily deduced from the sum of parts. I see no idiomatically and I almost always see it.Lucifer (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, I couldn't guess the meaning from triple + goddess and I don't expect many other users to be able to either. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We have both clusterfuck and cluster fuck. Clearly we only need one. I'm nominating this version because the definition seems to be a lot worse - it rambles on about group sex a bit, gives an oddly specific definition, then notes "The looser usage, referring to any chaotic situation, probably prevails." Not sure whether the open or closed form ultimately makes more sense for an entry though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. —CodeCa t 14:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the page be turned into a permanent redlink, just scrubbed clean and turned into {{alternative form of|cluster fuck}} (or vice versa). My understanding is that I need to go through RFD to do that, right? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, this should be at Requests for Mergers. Closing. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Or just edit it.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In which case I think the lemma should be the one-word form- that's the one I've seen in use. Which one has the better definition should be irrelevant, since it's easy to copy-and-paste between the two to give the desired definition to either one. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

SOP, and the details in the definition don't save it, IMO. Once we've established that it's natural gas in liquid form, we can assume that it has been cooled and compressed, as any gas must be to assume the liquid state. It's often liquefied for transport, but that's not really part of the definition; it's LNG no matter what purpose it was made for. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How about liquid gas that happens to be divided into liquefied petroleum gas and liquid natural gas? In some languages LPG is translated simply as "liquid gas". Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 02:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Anatoli. --Dmol (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - definition is correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think liquefied natural gas would be a technically more correct term because natural gas is a gas in the temperature and pressure range available in the Earth's atmosphere. Thus it needs to be deliberately liquefied in order to become LNG. This form is also about 20 times as common in Google as liquid natural gas. In BGC the difference is "only" 5 times in favor of liquefied. "Liquified" is about as common as "liquid" in both Google and BGC. If only one of LPG or LNG is "liquid" it should be LPG, because it liquefies easier, i.e. in lower pressure and higher temperature than LNG. I suggest we move the content to "liquefied natural gas" and make "liquid natural gas" and "liquified natural gas" alternative form pages. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved per Hekaheka. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

liquid natural gas and liquefied natural gas kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(euphemistic) An old person. Seems literal rather than euphemistic to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether the context-free, euphemistic use of this constitutes an idiom. I could imagine someone saying "We are all older adults here." without a specific reference population for the comparison. As "oldness" in people is considered undesirable (in some cultures, for some purposes) and being absolutely old is possibly worse than being older than an unspecified reference population, the legitimacy of the euphemism tag seems clear. Suggesting possible euphemisms seems well within the scope of a capacious online dictionary. I'd say keep. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This locution is frequently recommended, and widely used, as an alternative to any of the various other ways of referring to an older adult. And it's interesting that "older adult" tends to be used more than "older person" (including in contexts where the latter would be perfectly clear), whereas "elderly", "old", etc., tend to collocate with "person". —Ruakh_TALK 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So maybe keep it only as a usage note for such "various other ways"?—msh210℠ (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the tendency has more to do with sound than semantics Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. "older adult" can literally referred to any adult that's older than another one (e.g. a 30-year old is an older adult than an 18-year old), regardless if that adult is an "elderly person", however the word "older adult" is often used euphemistic to specifically refer to old people (senior citizens). Shoof (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I would dispute that this is a euphemism. Equinox ◑ 09:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep The meaning is not clear from its parts. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not? We know what an adult is, so an older adult must be one who is relatively aged: exactly the definition. Equinox ◑ 09:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was my logic when I nominated it. I was a bit hungover yesterday so I couldn't be bothered to type it out articulately. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, personally. Ƿidsiþ 09:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Note from Google Books clear existence of younger child, younger teenager, older adolescent, etc. Equinox ◑ 09:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine those are all using it literally though, talking about a child that is younger/older than the child currently being discussed. Not quite the same as this. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, they are often not used that way, but the same way as this term. See G.Books. Equinox ◑ 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Every hit on the first two pages for "younger child" are either unclear or are referring literally to a child younger than another (often in inheritance cases). "younger teenager" gets a few hits that imply a setness of phrase, but most are, again, talking about a teenager younger than another. "older adolescent" does seem to be a set phrase though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Try the plural forms then. Equinox ◑ 11:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

older (2. elderly) + adult (1. A fully grown human or animal). Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep I don't see how we could delete this word, but keep senior citizen. It's as sum of parts as older adult is - it's a "citizen" that is "senior" (to another, hypothetical adult). "older adult" is interpreted as a single phrase, with a more specific meaning than it's sum of parts implies (I found a lot of sources that define "older adult" specifically as someone over 50, such as this guide to chemotherapy and the Older Adult Ministries association). If nothing else, it doesn't say who the adult is older than. The term seems to be used a lot by doctors, and many of them will be in their 50s and 60s. This is less SOP that young adult (due to the comparative) and young adult seems like a solid entry. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Senior citizen is a set phrase, where the second part is used for alliteration more than for any other reason. I can easily imagine debates about whether to deport senior citizens who are illegal aliens. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"older adult", judging from Google/Google Books hits, is a set phrase too. Smurrayinchester (talk)

Delete The euphemism is older, for which we have a sense. The rationale behind its use is similar to that for "the aging": aging is a continuous, varied process, not a binary state. There's a world of difference between a gray-haired marathoner (or someone correspondingly mentally active such as User:SemperBlotto) and a frail convalescent-home resident with advanced dementia. "Adult" here is just a placeholder- we also talk about "those who are older". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Shoof. bd2412 T 17:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox, Ungoliant, Chuck.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain, per everyone (lol). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that we have an entry for young adult. Is that sum-of-parts? Shoof (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] bare-bum

[edit] bare-arse

More Verbo/Fastifex spanking stuff (yes, I'm aware that isn't a deletion reason). Rationale, these aren't words but rather two words linked by a hyphen, and mean exactly what the sum of their parts expresses (bare ("naked, uncovered") + butt/bum/arse). The 'stark naked' sense I supposed could be rfv'd. Not sure it exists; not heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

barebutt, barebum, and barearse all would meet the CFI (the middle term was used by James Joyce in Ulysses and the latter appears in the poetry of John Cheever. bd2412 T 15:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep all. The "stark naked" sense (now cited) gives these terms a certain level of idiomaticity, and the existence of the compound forms barearse, barebum, and barebutt (also cited now) means they pass COALMINE. "Bare-bum" is also listed in a couple of reputable slang dictionaries as Australian slang for a short dinner jacket.[4][5] I couldn't find cites showing usage myself, but perhaps someone else will have better lucking hunting for them. Astral (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

All kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] funny ha-ha

[edit] ha ha funny

[edit] ha-ha funny

These strike me as SoP and unnecessary. "Ha ha" is simply the interjection used to clarify a word which can be ambiguous in certain contexts. I can also picture "heat hot", "spicy hot", and "sexy hot" being used, but I wouldn't count those as inclusion-worthy set phrases, either. Astral (talk)

I seem to recall we've already discussed one of these directly, but I can't find anything except talk:done done. Anyway, delete as SOP, I think: it's just funny with a synonym added to clarify which sense is meant.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A lemming check: Chambers has funny ha-ha and funny peculiar. Equinox ◑ 15:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an unusual construction, too: you would expect "ha-ha funny", or "funny as in ha-ha". Equinox ◑ 16:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep - ha-ha isn't an adjective, or even a noun. This is essentially a spoken determinative, and not really SOP, either. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I see why this was nominated, I also feel like this sort of language isn't easy to decode from the sum of its parts and would ergo pass WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. I tend towards keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone encountering "Ha-ha funny"/"funny haha" should be able to ascertain its meaning by looking up "ha ha" and "funny." The phrase itself supplies the information needed to work out which sense of "funny" is intended.

"Ha-ha" occurs as a noun:

1957, Ernie Kovacs, Zoomar, Doubleday (1957), page 28:

Ha-has from both sides of the door.

1983, Texas Monthly, March 1983, page 68:

You'll catch a few ha-has and even a golden memory or two singing along with the house piano player.

1996, Lois A. Chaber, "Sir Charles Grandison And The Human Prospect", in New Essays on Samuel Richardson (ed. Albert J. Rivero), St. Martin's Press (1996), ISBN 9780312125080, page 196:

She is not rewarded until she learns to reduce her expectations, and surprises (the ha-has of this novel) are the educational tool.

2005, Sue Grafton, S Is for Silence, Berkley Books (2005), ISBN 1101146966, unnumbered page:

If Kathy had been with us, she'd have countered with a few ha-has of her own, thus guaranteeing a laugh at his expense.

2011, Melissa Coleman, This Life Is In Your Hands: One Dream, Sixty Acres, and a Family Undone, HarperCollins (2011), ISBN 9780061958328, page 9:

Scientists say my waiting self could already hear the chirp of Mama's voice, the ha-has of Papa's laughter, […]

And also as an adjective:

1973, New Society, Volume 23, page 197:

Much of this book is written in a weak ha-ha style, confirming that the oldest jokes are not the best; […]

1990, Barbara Ehrenreich, The Worst Years of Our Lives: Irreverent Notes from a Decade of Greed, Pantheon Books (1990), ISBN 9780394578477, page 67:

"I'm just not the old ha-ha person I was before," Anne explains.

1994, Fred Hoyle, Home Is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist's Life, University Science Books (1994), ISBN 093570227X, page 46:

So here was a ha-ha situation from the outset.

Astral (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete all, add sense to Ha-Ha, when I ask someone, "Is this funny weirdo funny or ha-ha funny?" I actually pause between ha-ha and funny, they are two separate words I am afraid and that makes this an SOP.Lucifer (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep: it may be transparent but it is grammatically unusual to combine an interjection with an adjective. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks a little SOP --Maria.Sion (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(idiomatic, transitive) To survive solely by consuming a certain thing.
When he was in the rainforest, he lived on bugs and rainwater.
(idiomatic, intransitive) To endure.

How is this SOP exactly? It doesn't mean live + on. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it does; for one thing, it's synonymous with "survive on" and "subsist on". And I think this is the same sense of "on" as in "this medicine must be taken on an empty stomach", or "we drove five hundred miles on half a tank of gas". Additionally, you can say "he lived for years on bugs and rainwater", and you can't say *"he lived them on" (meaning "he lived on them"). (Note: I'm not arguing for deletion. I'm just trying to show you how it's SOP.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The second sense uses on#Adverb ("in continuation"). Examples with other verbs are "walk/drive/run on", "talk/prattle/drone on".

The first sense uses on#Preposition ("indicating a means of subsistence"). I am not convinced that this is the same as "on an empty stomach", but I think it is like the figurative sense "They won on sheer determination." as well as the sense used in the other examples. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep the second definition, convert the first definition to {{&lit|live|on}} with the same {{usex}}. It can be rephrase to survive on, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the second using the same sense of on as in party on, amble on, prattle on, write on, walk on, drive on, flow on, continue on, ramble on and many. many others? What makes it and the others lexical units? DCDuring TALK 00:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same as DCDuring and wanted to mention some examples. --BiblbroX дискашн 08:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We've got three senses right now:

(literal meaning) (transitive) To move to a position behind (something).
I got behind the wheel of my new car.
(transitive) To give one's support to (a person, project etc.)
We all need to get behind our leader.

[…] and asked for the fans to get behind their team as they […]
(intransitive) To fail to keep to a schedule; to fall behind.
Hurry up with packing those cases. We're getting behind.

Seems these are all just get+behind. Note that one can also be behind his leader or team, as in "I can assure you that they are behind Mr. Fuller, and as to Mr. Reid's testimony, they assured Mr. Fuller of their confidence in him and his ability to put across the job."^[6]; one can be behind the wheel of a car; and one can be behind in his work.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Kaldari (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The transitive sense doesn't meet the basic phrasal-verb test of accepting a personal pronoun between verb and particle. And behind retains the meaning with other verbs (be, stand, unite, fall in line). The intransitive sense seems non-idomatic as behind has the sense required with other verbs (lag, fall). OTOH, some other dictionaries have the transitive sense. DCDuring TALK 12:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The transitive sense is IMHO not easy to understand from its parts. Keep, at least as translation target. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Behind includes all sense used in these definitions. — Ungoliant ^(Falai)

Literal definition is sum of parts.
Second definition is just metaphoric. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep the second one. It's like the figurative sense at smorgasbord. It was new to me and the definition is useful. Equinox ◑ 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I heard this used in a business meeting recently; I knew what it meant, but was unsure if younger participants understood, or considered maybe this was a regional phrase peculiar to where I was raised. The fact that Equinox was able to find public quotations using the phrase within minutes of me creating the entry -- not to mention that he found it useful -- IMO is reason enough to remove the RFD immediately. Dharasty (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

RFV is the search for citations; RFD is when someone thinks it's a real phrase but for some reason not suitable for inclusion (like "brown leaf"). Equinox ◑ 16:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete I'm not convinced.Lucifer (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept, apparently (someone detagged the entry and struck this header). - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The definition for bork(rugby) actually belongs to balk in the sense of "(sports) deceptive motion". These two words are almost indistinguishable when spoken, and I suspect the definition under "bork" is the result of a misspelling and should be deleted.—This unsigned comment was added by Raoouul (talk • contribs).

Keep of course. (If you doubt a definition, take the issue to WT:RFV.)

—msh210℠ (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

maybe I didn't explain what I meant correctly - I meant the definition bork(rugby) should be deleted, not the entire entry for bork. The other definitions are fine as far as I'm concerned Raoouul (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved to WT:RFV#bork as suggested Raoouul (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

For the break meaning, I suspect there might also be some humourous allusions to the w:Swedish Chef character from w:The Muppet Show, who was known for spontaneously and gleefully yelling out "Bork! Bork! Bork!" while destroying some culinary recipe. The EN WP redirects w:Børk to w:Swedish Chef due to this strong association.

Plus, I've seen numerous instances of deliberately using more Germanic conjugations of this verb, such as geborken as the past participle. See google groups:"geborken" for some examples, mostly in English. (This search also introduced me to the wonderful term mitbuggiesgefilled, apparently as the past participle of mitbuggiesfillen: "It's thoroughly geborken and completely mitbuggiesgefilled.") Less commonly, I've also seen geborked as the past participle: google groups:"geborked". And, raising interesting questions about who's influencing whom, it looks like this verb is gaining some currency in German, with the past participle appearing as geborkt: google groups:"geborkt". -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Striking, then, as kept.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"A bite made by a tick that can pass various illnesses to the bitten host."

This is something like defining a car as a "vehicle that can be used for transporting groceries." The term seems SoP as understood by normal users. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, obviously. I probably would 'a' speedily deleted it had I seen it first.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 18:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the translations? —CodeCa t 01:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Who cares?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The "that can pass various illnesses to the bitten host" part is obviously encyclopedic, but I think the phrase itself might warrant inclusion. I notice that google books:"had a tick bite" gets hundreds of hits, suggesting that people are thinking of a "tick bite" as a distinct lexical concept (since otherwise the natural thing to say is that they had been bitten by a tick; contrast, say, "had a cat bite"). (I should note that some of the hits at the above link are not actually using "tick bite" as a noun compound — for example, the very first hit is "I've never had a tick bite me" — but the vast majority of them are.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, a fortiori, we need entries for mosquito bite, dog bite, snake bite, tax bite, bug bite, rattlesnake bite, and spider bite, just to mention those more common than tick bite at COCA. DCDuring TALK 03:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we certainly need mosquito bite. That one I'd definitely vote keep on. I'm shocked we don't already have it. As for the others — some of them may warrant inclusion, but rather despite what you say than because of it. Commonness is not the sole criterion for keeping an entry, or else we'd have entries for his daughter, two books, etc. a fortiori does not mean what you think it means. —Ruakh_TALK 11:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bite refers also to the welt or injury present after being bitten by a small creature. IMO "had a tick bite" uses this sense of bite.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. —Ruakh_TALK 11:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet that attestation can be found for all of them, even taxbite. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Aaargh. Fine, keep then.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha; keep accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose COALMINE says keep, and I voted for that. Little did I know. (The stain says hot, the label says not!) Equinox ◑ 00:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the somewhat recent attempt to overturn COALMINE failed. However, is anyone interested in a "no-brainer" addendum? The addendum could allow us to choose to overrule COALMINE if, say, 10 users agreed to delete a term, and those 10 were to be in the majority. I haven't thought out the details, but just something so we could get rid of tick bite and Chinese man and yet keep the rest. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

keep per coalmineLucifer (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] para aqui

Both are sum of parts of para ("towards; in the direction of") + cá / aqui ("here"). Other SOPs are possible, such as para longe ("towards far away") and para lá ("towards there"). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 03:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. SOP. --BiblbroX дискашн 08:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete also. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] full - etymology 2

Are these really nouns? Could one use them as a subject or object of a sentence? The senses are:

Utmost measure or extent; highest state or degree.
I was fed to the full.
(of the moon) The phase of the moon when it is entire face is illuminated, full moon.

The full was shining on a cloudless sky? We were watching the full, hand in hand? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim of a separate etymology certainly needs deleting. I'm not sure how we treat adjectives that seem to be used as nouns in certain fixed phrases. Both Defoe and Dickens used "The moon is/was at/past the full", and Burke used "at the full" with the meaning of "to the fullest extent". There is also the (rare, and only in Kent?) sense of a ridge of sand or shingle. Dbfirs 17:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete the first, the second I've never heard of, rfv it if needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Etymology section, sense 1 (widespread use in set phrases?), sense 2 could use some examples which might support an "archaic" or "obsolete" tag.

Century has it.
Use as object of prepositions could still make it a noun.
Assuming the existence of the ME. nouns shown in the etymology, it is plausible that there be some earlier usage (EME or later) or dialect usage as subject or object of a verb.

The first sense seems to me very restricted in current English to use in prepositional phrases, largely set phrases at that. Some indication of when it lost its use outside of those phrases would be useful. DCDuring TALK 22:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It is clearly a noun: and the continuance of an older term, nowadays perhaps less common. Whether it can serve as the subject of a sentence is more a matter of usage than POS. Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I've now added a citation using plural "fulls" (of the Moon): that shows it's a noun. Equinox ◑ 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this just means "religion that is Abrahamic"; you can also say "Abrahamic faiths", "Abrahamic traditions", and so on. (I don't actually feel very strongly that it should be deleted, but if it's kept, I think it should be rewritten to be more forthright about its SOP-ness.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Mandaeism does not worship Abraham (they object to him circumcising his son), but is still a member of the family of Abrahamic religions by being descended from Judaism. Thus Mandaeism is an "Abrahamic religion" but not an "Abrahamic" "religion". Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing to vote to delete now the page Abrahamic is more useful. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(Alternatively, this could be deleted and a new definition added to Abrahamic, but currently the relevant definition is "Pertaining to the Abrahamic religions." If we deleted this, we'd have to find a new way of writing that sense) Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

[citation needed]. Actually, two citations needed: one for your claim that Mandaeism is an "Abrahamic religion", one for the claim that it's not "Abrahamic". Bonus points if these two citations manage not to overtly disagree. —Ruakh_TALK 18:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You might be right; it's a least not as clear cut as I thought it was from the Wikipedia article, which has Mandaeism categorised as an Abrahamic religion. g/alt_mean1.htm This source says it's generally not considered one (along with Samartians and Rastafari), this source suggests that it possibly is but that Muslims may not consider it Abrahamic. That said, the fact that apparently other faiths which do revere Abraham - eg. Samaritans (source) and Rastafari (source) - are sometimes not considered Abrahamic is still a good reason to define the term as something other than "Related to Abraham" though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, [[Abrahamic#English]] could use some work: more thorough defs, more quotations, maybe some usage notes. —Ruakh_TALK 20:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had a shot at tidying it up. If nothing else, it's no longer got the circular "Abrahamic means Abrahamic" definition. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks much improved, thanks. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 22:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep per SMurray's point about Abrahamic's lack of helpfulness in this regard.--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Set phrase which serves as an umbrella term for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and (sometimes) Bahá'í, making it possible to discuss these religions collectively. I also think there's an element of idiomaticity to it, since 1) the most significant common denominator between these faiths is arguably their veneration of the same God rather than their all tracing their roots to Abraham, and 2) "Abrahamic" could be taken to imply that Abraham was personally involved in the founding of each religion, which isn't possible, since most of them postdate the period in which he is thought to have lived (the possible exception being Judaism, as I understand it). Astral (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: points #1 and #2: Well, but what that means is that the application of "Abrahamic" to these religions is interesting and bears mention at [[Abrahamic#English]]. It doesn't mean that all phrases containing the word "Abrahamic" (Abrahamic religion, Abrahamic faith, non-Abrahamic religion, etc.) are "set phrases". —Ruakh_TALK 03:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that the meaning of "Abrahamic religion" can't be derived from the current definitions of "Abrahamic" and "religion" alone — specifically, which religions count as Abrahamic, and which don't. Yes, there's a usage note at "Abrahamic", but if it's necessary to read a usage note to fully understand what Abrahamic + religion means, I don't think said phrase can be considered SoP. Someone would need to know which religions count as Abrahamic to understand the term based strictly on its parts, and I don't think it's necessarily safe to say that most have that knowledge.

"Abrahamic religion" seems to be the prevalent term. It's what the Wikipedia article on the subject is called, and "Abrahamic religions" gets twice as many hits as "Abrahamic faiths" on Google Books. "Abrahamic faith" might warrant an entry as an attestable synonym, but "non-Abrahamic faith" doesn't, since it's possible to prefix many things with non- ("non-citrus fruit," "non-quadrupedal animal", etc.) in this way without creating a unique term. Astral (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think whether the information is kept at Abrahamic or Abrahamic religion, we still need that usage note. The odd subtleties of the phrase - some religions that revere Abraham are Abrahamic, others aren't, and not everyone draws the line in the same place - are just too involved to put in the main definition. We would also have the problem that there are a very large number of attestable synonyms/near-synonyms, all of which are just "Abrahamic + word for religion" - Abrahamic faiths, Abrahamic traditions, Abrahamic mythologies, Abrahamic creeds, Abrahamic sects, Abrahamic cults. If someone came across any of these in writing, they'd almost certainly look up "Abrahamic" before looking up the two word phrase. Keeping the definition at Abrahamic just seems neater than spreading it over half-a-dozen pages. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. That there is scholarly (?) disagreement on which religions fit the definition does not really change the definition. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete Abrahamic religion and improve Abrahamic as needed. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I think this sort of entry is a Wiktionary-specific problem. Other dictionaries might include "Abrahamic religion" as a run-in entry under "Abrahamic", where it's also useful to people interested in "Abrahamic faiths", "both religions are Abrahamic", etc.; in essence, explaining "Abrahamic religion" can be a very intuitive way to explain the relevant sense of "Abrahamic". But since we reject run-in entries entirely, we're stuck choosing between various less-than-ideal alternatives. —Ruakh_TALK 20:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

People have suggested a "Common collocations" section. Might be a good idea (for some entries).—msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete this is not a word it is a fragment, one already covered by Abrahamic.Lucifer (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP per nominator.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete SoP per nom.. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This page had previously been deleted (the reason for the deletion wasn't given in detail). Since it is, however, a valid declensional form of Latvian word vārdnīca (several forms, actually), I have recreated it. I hope I haven't done anything wrong or against the local standards/policy here. --Pereru (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. The previous page consisted of three words with no dictionary material, so the deletion doesn't reflect on any other version that might be created. In general, if your page meets WT:CFI and the deletion message doesn't raise any general issues about the term, feel free to create an entry with the same name as a deleted one. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really an RFD. Struck. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just a capitalization of civil war, which is common practice when referring to a specific one ("After the Civil War, renewed industrialization paved the way for..."). The entry claims that it is just used for the American Civil War, but that's just plain wrong - I know I could cite it for the English Civil War and the Roman Civil War as well, and probably many others. Therefore, I believe this entry is misleading, inaccurate, and not worthy of having an entry (except perhaps as an alt-form of civil war). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Irish Civil War, English Civil War, Angolan Civil War, Argentine Civil War, Nigerian Civil War, Rhodesian Civil War, Congo Civil War ad nauseum. There's dozens more. Listing them is Wikipedia's job, and someone has already done that. See List of civil wars .--Dmol (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete (replace with {{alternative form of|civil war}}) Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What Smurray said.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep and add any missing attestable referents. None of the stated reasons would warrant deletion under WT:CFI. They would be reasons to add senses. There are many entries that are principally present because they are ellipses.

In the US, the only civil war that can be referred to in this way (with capitalization, without context) is the w:American Civil War. It is even in widespread use attributively in expressions like Civil War reenactment, Civil War history buff, and more. This is about the strongest non-encyclopedic case for inclusion that can be made for a proper noun. I don't know in what places other civil wars can be referred to in this way. If they can be in some places, those definitions should be added. DCDuring TALK 10:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But we'd have to add every known civil war. Obviously, in American contexts, Civil War means the American Civil War, but it doesn't mean that to me at all in the phrases you mention. Ƿidsiþ 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, bonnet, lift and rubber don't mean the same thing to me as they do for someone from the UK, but that's why we have context labels and usage notes. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at it this way: are you going to cite every possible Civil War and write the usage notes? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But an American writing a book to be published by an American publishing house and marketed in America would call the Borovian Civil War "the Civil War" if his book is about Borovia. This is not a dialect issue but a context one.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If I told my friend Sam that Joe was a Civil War buff in a response to a question about Joe's hobbies, Sam would not be in any doubt what I was attributing to Joe. The sole context required is {{US}}. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring, you could cite David Beckham the same way, David Beckham fan gets 45 Google Book hits alone. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Convert to alternative capitalization of, I note we have Prime Minister. Also President doesn't say "president of the United States" while Civil War does say US Civil War. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that if kept, we can't just pick one civil war over all the others, we have to list all the attestable civil wars with the capitalization Civil War. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the consequence of including proper names as entries whose "sense" is a mere specific referent. There is an a fortiori case for including nicknames of the referents whose fuller name is included. To the extent that Wiktionary merely describes the language rather than attempts to be useful to the general user I think it is seriously misleading and wrong to exclude a term that, for a large population of users, has no other referent than the one given in the entry. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. To Americans, this is has a lot of meaning aside from its literal interpretation, like Mom and apple pie and the Fourth of July (or "Americans", for that matter). We have an adjective, antebellum, based on its significance as a change of eras. By all means, the fact that it doesn't have the same meaning elsewhere needs to be pointed out, just as "God Save the Queen" (that refers to w:Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, right?) does for the UK Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I vote delete, it's either that or add ten more senses. Ƿidsiþ 14:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If necessary, we should. The vote seems to be lining up neatly along national lines, which is itself significant. Civil War may be SOP to the rest of the world, but in the US it isn't. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see it that way, that's fine, but it's not true. I'm American, but I recognize that civil wars are a common trend in history, and every Anglophone nation that has had one will naturally use it this way, capitalized, to refer to whichever one they had. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was citeable for countries like Russia as well.--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep: widely used term. In America, there are civil wars and the Civil War. I don't find the "if we keep it, we'll have to add more senses" argument compelling at all...we're a dictionary, we're supposed to have lots and lots of senses Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
So are you planning on adding the senses and citing them? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In America, there are presidents and there is the President. So what? This is beyond the realm of lexicography. Ƿidsiþ 16:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
If somone would propose that we exclude all proper names of specific entities (not name components, like John and Smith), unless used attributively and with other restrictions, I would support it. We could carve out any exceptions needed for, say, taxonomic names or exclude them, too. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Because we are a wiki, all of our entries are works in progress. If we deleted any entry that wasn't "complete", we'd need to:

have standards of completeness,
enforce them, and
accept that we would probably have to delete many entries for common English words for which we lack senses that other on-line dictionaries have. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I cannot vouch how speakers in other Anglophonic speakers use "Civil War" or "civil war," but in the US, the meaning of "Civil War" is as distinctive from "civil war" as "the White House" is from "the white house." The OED does not recognize this US meaning even in its citations (even though it's updated to 1998), but the AHD does. It has four meanings, two of which are:

Civil War - The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
Civil War - The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.

In the Mac dictionary, the English-English dictionary includes references to American Civil War, English Civil War, Spanish Civil War, and the Japanese-English dictionary includes the American and English Civil Wars (with slightly different dates from the AHD). If British speakers agree with the AHD and the Mac dictionary that "Civil War" has the meaning of the English Civil War, I will believe them. I think we need both citations and native dialect speaker intuition here to sort these out. --BB12 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, in English contexts, it has the menaing of "the English Civil War", just as in American contexts it has the meaning of "the American Civil War". It can in fact mean any civil war, that is the whole point of this debate. No one is disputing that it can mean "the American Civil War". The point is that in different contexts it can mean any other civil war. That's the whole issue at hand. Ƿidsiþ 11:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any evidence that in English it can refer to just any civil war, except as an anaphora. I don't think that the civil war going on in Syria is thought of by any English-speaking population as "the Civil War".

The point, I think, is that Civil War has some attestable meanings, apparently different in different places. This is similar to Constitution and constitution.

Again, it seems to me to be a matter of policy that could be resolved by being much more explicit about what kind of capitalized English terms we include and why. Since the deletion of the section of CFI about "specific entities", the arena of Proper nouns has been a free-fire zone. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it could refer to a Syrian civil war. This is the first time Syria has really had a civil war, so there isn't much literature on it yet. But neighbouring Lebanon has hundreds of examples -- from Google Books I see "Before the Civil War, Lebanon was extolled by many as the "Switzerland" of the Middle East"; "by the onset of the Civil War in April 1975, political fragmentation was accelerating"; "Cadiz and Lebanon became very different societies in ways pertinent to the Civil War, and for reasons dating to near their origins"...etc etc. Must we really go through a process like this for every single country before you accept that the only limit on the number of referents is the number of civil wars that have taken place? Ƿidsiþ 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In reply to "In America, there are civil wars and the Civil War." What about President, to Americans that implies the current US president while in the UK it doesn't (France has a president for example). Ditto Prime Minister in the UK implies the UK prime minister, I suspect in Australia it implies the Australian prime minister. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that many Americans would change "the President" to "our President" in speech when someone from a different country was present, or at least have a strong understanding that doing so is appropriate. But for Civil War, I think people would be much less likely to use "American Civil War" because the meaning is very specific (to the point that probably many Americans do not consider the Civil War to be a civil war per se). I can even imagine people saying, instead of "the American Civil War," "the Civil War, when Americans fought each other" to explain the term to a foreigner. --BB12 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete and make a usage note at civil war saying that in the U.S. "the Civil War" capitalized but unmodified is generally understood to refer to the U.S. Civil War of 1861–65. I've done something similar at Uachtarán#Irish, the Irish word for "President": it's usually understood to refer to the President of Ireland, but can refer to other presidents as well. —An gr 19:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep as American English. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji, what if I add a sense to President {{US}} The current US President. It would not be incorrect not any more than this is. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete, otherwise, make it generic, something along the lines of used to refer to various national civil wars (e.g. American Civil War, Spanish Civil War, etc.) Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made all of the specific wars subsenses of the general sense "Any of several civil wars". I have added seven new senses, with citations: the English, Russian, Chinese, Irish, Spanish, Greek and Lebanese Civil Wars. At least a dozen more remain to be added. I notice, incidentally, that we are missing an English section at [[Nationalist]]: that word is attested with at least as many senses! - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Er I've lost track, do you actually want to keep all these, or is this just you on one of your reductio ad absurdum things? Ƿidsiþ 20:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what 'wanting' has to do with it, unless you want to delete these merely for being 'less common' than the American Civil War sense. Earlier I changed an instance of [[Empire]] to [[empire|Empire]], I wonder if we should in fact create Empire as a capitalized form of empire, per King, Queen, Prince and so on. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have temporarily reverted -she's edits. We have two opinions here:

keep the article because the Civil War means the American Civil War in America, or
delete it because it is clear from the context.

In either case, adding the other civil wars is misleading in the current discussion. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is seriously wrong to delete content out of process in this way. I have restored the edits, pending the conclusion of this discussion. DCDuring TALK 04:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I understand. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I've reverted the article to the state in which it was when it was sent to RFD. This was a reasonably useful state, possibly worth including. For the revision created by -sche and dubbed by Ƿidsiþ reductio ad absurdum, see this revision. The entry is governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, along with World War I, World War II, and other Category:en:Historical events. Dictionaries that have "Civil War" as a proper name include AHD, and Collins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@DanP: Could you direct me to the part of WT:CFI#Names of specific entities (or elsewhere that gives license to this entry in any form? I thought this was just a voting slugfest. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: reduce the definition to something like {{form of|Alternative capitalization of|civil war}} used when referring to a specific one. Explain in the usage notes that in the context of American/English/Irish history, it means the American/English/Irish Civil War (as those are the ones fought by English-speakers), and that in other contexts it refers to other civil wars. (And keep all of the citations I added. Why would you want to bin those?) - -sche (discuss) 13:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- What -sche said.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with what -sche said. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete all specific senses, leaving only the general definition ("Any specific civil war") and several quotations to illustrate different usages. The phrase "Civil War" can refer to any specific civil war, and trying to enumerate them all is absurd. "Civil War" doesn't refer solely to some well-defined, specific set of civil wars; it can be applied to any civil war when the context is clear, whether that's the American Civil War, the Lebanese Civil War, or the Klingon Civil War. It wouldn't make sense to have our entry on Constitution be a bulleted list of dozens of different constitutions (all of which are sometimes called "the Constitution"), or Parliament have links to the dozens of parliaments that exist in the world (since each of them can be referred to simply as "Parliament"), and similarly it doesn't make sense to treat Civil War as a term referring to an ever-expanding list of specific wars. —Caesura ^(t) 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I count 11 people in favour of "deleting" the entry / making it an {{alternative form of}} entry: Metaknowledge, Dmol, Smurrayinchester, Widsith, Mglovesfun, Angr, Leasnam, msh210, Ungoliant, Caesura and myself.

I count 6 people in favour of keeping the entry with specific wars as senses: DCDuring, Matthias Buchmeier (without rationale), Chuck Entz, Purplebackpack89, BB12, TAKASUGI Shinji.

Unless I have made an error in counting, that is a 64% (almost two-thirds) majority for deletion. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this supposed to be? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I bet this was supposed to be on the citations page for enemy combatant. --BB12 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to refer to a discussion at Wiktionary:Tea Room#enemy combatant. Basically, Geo Swan (talk • contribs), who created the page, wants to add an additional sense to enemy combatant, meaning specifically "a supporter of Al Qaeda or the Taliban", since they see the US Government document Order Establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunal (which is what is being quoted here) as creating this sense. Presumably they created this page as a place to house the relevant sentence, not realising "references:" isn't a valid namespace. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I moved it to Talk:enemy combatant. Simple enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sense: (computer graphics) A type of skin used in Mozilla software. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Does a sense invented specifically for one piece of software satisfy CFI? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WT:BRAND is probably the closest we have. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Compare registry (which only Microsoft Windows has). Equinox ◑ 19:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Compare also hotel (the Monopoly game piece), which only occurs in that game. Equinox ◑ 00:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This lists medical history as a separate sense, and I'm not seeing it. One example sentences are "A personal medical history is required for the insurance policy." (i.e. a personal history, specializing in the medical aspects, is required). "He has a history of cancer in his family." is interesting; "he has a history of" seems to be a very medical turn of phrase, looking at Google Books, but it looks like people will say stuff like "He has a history of shoplifting and taking money from his mother's purse." and "He has a history of reportedly attacking other students." and (more atypically) "He has a history of being right, in the face of doubters." and "He has a history of many different living arrangements..." It seems like the sense of history above it, "A record or narrative description of past events."

(I didn't tag it, but (computing) A record of previous user events. seems like it go for the same reason.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely keep computer sense ("He cleared his history" doesn't seem to make sense in terms of any other meaning of "history"). I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the medical sense if we had the more general personal history sense you talk about, but none of the other senses quite fit. So unless someone can persuade me that "a history of heart disease" is just "the aggregate of past heart disease", I say keep for now. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on why (maybe it'll come to me), but the medical sense seems distinct to me.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing we lacked was a sense like "A set of events involving an entity." This is distinct from "a record of such events", for which we had a differently worded sense. The usage in "What's the patient's history?", implying "set of medically relevant events" does not seem to me to be any more distinct than any other occupation- or institution-specific use of "history". But we have 5 senses of history and MWOnline has 10 senses and subsenses. AHD has 11. Both see fit to include the medical history sense. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that these dictionaries have two groups of senses, one focused on real events, the other on records or narratives. Their medical and criminological senses focus on the record aspect, even the formal record. I would have thought that usage would at least equally be concerned with the actual events, whatever the state of a formal record. DCDuring TALK 02:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A cautious keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well then, gasping for air is related to respiration but it is not one of the criteria for respiratory sounds. This is a term you would find in any medical dictionary and if we have room for sports terminology and every combination of vulgarities how can we be treated seriously if we refuse medical terms?Lucifer (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Any organism which has been genetically modified. According to Wikipedia, what we call "recombinant DNA technology" is the totality of the techniques used to genetically modify something. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral observation: this term is commonly expressed by an abbreviation, GMO. Equinox ◑ 22:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why this is listed. If the definition is wrong, that's an RFV issue (or it could by changed without RFV). But the term has long-term wide-spread use, so Keep.--Dmol (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No it's right, see my comment "Any organism which has been genetically modified". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the listing. It's like, say, "genetic tampering" (which can be found in very many texts), where it just refers to tampering with genes. The ol' sum of parts. Brown leaf. But I'm not taking a stance with this one at the moment. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That reply was for Dmol (just in case it wasn't clear). And obviously I don't oppose GMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia also gives genetically engineered organism. I've added GEO. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. "Genetically modified plants", "genetically modified animals", "genetically modified microbes", "genetically modified rice", "genetically modified crops", and "genetically modified livestock" are all very well attested: each has at least a few hundred hits on b.g.c., and a few are in the tens of thousands. (Not that I really trust b.g.c. counts, to be honest. But it's better than nothing.) So, maybe redirect to [[genetically modified]]? —Ruakh_TALK 23:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, fine, or delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Am actually fine with the redirect for once; searching for genetically modified organism seems to not bring up genetically modified at all, which is worrying. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirected. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Adjective PoS. "very good". No usage example or cite is given, but it is indicated as comparable. If it is only used as part of a predicate, it is almost certainly interpretable as a noun phrase, to be covered at [[treat#Noun]]. Is it attestably gradable or comparable? How could it be positioned as an attributive adjective without the noun interpretation being more natural? He is an a treat goalie. or, postpositively He is a goalie a treat.? DCDuring TALK 18:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This is clearly covered already by the second noun definition. --BB12 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, absolutely. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@BB: How do you parse the phrase when used adverbially? DCDuring TALK 13:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That usage was new to me. Even thought it wasn't nominated, I Googled it and was surprised to see it's in common use. FWIW, I think it has to stay as I cannot see how it could be subsumed under "treat." --BB12 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. As the adverbial use is in the language in the UK, there might be a case for this term being 'felt' as an adjective by UK speakers. But I would really like to see more use besides in a predicate to accept that. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

google books:"very a treat" has no relevant hits; "very much a treat" has quite a few that are at least arguably relevant. Plus what others have written above; delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Gone.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually just all#Adverb + for#Preposition. Usex: I'm all for people being able to edit this dictionary. But this kind of entry makes you wonder of the wisdom of it. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, this feels rather idiomatic to me. You certainly can't necessarily translate it into other languages by translating the relevant meaning of "all" followed by the relevant meaning of "for". —An gr 18:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, instinctively. Also you can't say all against which makes me think this isn't a sense of against, but rather a two word idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Angr: Isn't it just all#Adverb ("intensifier") + for#Preposition ("advocating, in favor of"). Lots of frequently used collocations seem to have stronger glue linking them than normally combining words, which in turn have stronger glue than novel combinations like raspberry printer. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@MG: By the stated argument we should have utterly against (and probably others), because one cannot readily find utterly for with this sense of for. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose, if retained, this should not be an adjective, but rather a preposition, as it takes a mandatory complement and forms, with that complement, a phrase that serves just like a PP headed by for. This offered all in good fun. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it makes me wonder why you can't say "I'm all against having people editing this dictionary". Equinox ◑ 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems you can, though it appears much less common. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You evidently spent ages trying to find that :D. I've got a hunch we should have an adverbial sense at all meaning entirely, but could it be used in other phrases? I'm all over...? Hmm? Maybe not. Equinox ◑ 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We have it as all#Adverb ("intensifier"), but I think it needs a gloss-type definition as well. We can select from the set of all intensifiers, the ones that are closest: wholly and quite are what MWOnline has, entirely seems even better. But there might be others, too. Probably all intensifiers should have glosses and some may not. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring, you kinda misinterpreted me. What I actually said was I don't know if there is such a sense of all, unless it is used in the phrase all for. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 06:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So Equinox banned me for creating this entry stating typical Lucifer trash. defined as "a bowdlerization", but a barebutt is not a bowdlerization. just a mess.), however this term is a bowdlerization of bareass just like any word with butt in it is used as a bowdlerization of ass, i altered it to specify it means nudity of the buttocks even though i find this redundant since it is covered at bareass, it should also be noted that Equinox is not very educated about anatomy based on the fact that he stated "typical lucifer trash what the hell is a buttocks", since he does not know what a buttocks is it is obvious he thinks terms for your rear end/ass/behind are not notable, he also made untrue statements that I formatted the plurals incorrectly which I did not.71.142.69.216 07:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think his point was merely that buttocks is a plural and so can't be preceded by the indefinite article a. You can't say "a buttocks" any more than you can say "a scissors" or "a trousers". —An gr 07:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that you "can't" say "a buttocks," people certainly do. The use is easily citable: [7], [8], [9].

As for "barebutt," all the uses are adjectives, not nouns, so the part of speech and definition need to be revised. --BB12 (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Angr: But people do say "a scissors is needed". DCDuring TALK 14:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For me, it's the same issue. People do say it, but it's wrong to my ears and I would mark it wrong if I were grading a paper. That's why I put quotation marks around "can't" :) --BB12 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't so much making an empirical claim about English grammar as explaining that when Equinox wrote "what the hell is a buttocks" he was complaining about Lucifer's grammar, not being ignorant of human anatomy. Whether you can actually say "a buttocks" in English isn't really the point. —An gr 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As usual, Lucifer makes ridiculous arguments and attacks people personally rather than defending his pseudo-"words" with any acceptable scholarly evidence. Equinox ◑ 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I went ahead and converted this entry to adjective. It's attestable as such. I found nine cites featuring unambiguous uses of "barebutt" as an adjective. All can be viewed through the snippet/preview feature on Google Books, with the exception of the Frank Chin book, which can be viewed with the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon. Astral (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 06:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Equinox also deleted this entry for no reason except bullying and personal spite stating, "Lucifer rubbish. no evidence for this. nonstandard, not in books, not Aussie as claimed.)" But this is not rubbish, it is a durable citable word, a one word compound at that, whether it is non standard is irreverent and not grounds for deleting, it is in google books so Equinox is lying or did not check as a search for "barebum" immediately renders numerous hits on the first page, bum is typically used instead of butt in commonwealth english especially australia and for someone that is completely wrong or lying on all counts why should we take his word for it that bum is not australian?71.142.69.216 06:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This entry is not deleted now. The 1982 citation looks like it might be a mention rather than a use. The 2008 citation looks like it should be "bare-bum," though I don't speak that dialect and cannot make a reliable judgment. The 2010 citation is definitely adjective use.

For an adjective, starting with "having" is an easy way to write some definitions: "having exposed buttocks."

Also, two related words not in Wiktionary are "plumber's butt" and "plumber's cleavage," both citable. (Japanese = 半ケツ.) I believe these are primarily US and that there are different expressions elsewhere in the English-speaking world. --BB12 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I recalled the term: plumber's bum, not in Wiktionary, either, but easily citable. Probably a number of other words similar to this. --BB12 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We have plumber's crack and builder's bum. Astral (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The "numerous hits" that Lucifer refers to, on the first page, are non-standard poetry, and discussion of obscure poetical usages like James Joyce. Equinox ◑ 01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when is inclusion in poetry a consideration? I would think it quite the opposite, as any poem by James Joyce is liable to meet the "well known work" standard for inclusion. bd2412 T 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to point out is that Lucifer would push this as an everyday, common alternative spelling, while it's actually only in very stylised and unusual writing like poems, where rules are deliberately broken. In other words, it is either misspelling of or requires a strong usage note. Equinox ◑ 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem with labeling it as a rare alternate spelling. --BB12 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support a strong usage note, as indicated by Equinox. bd2412 T 16:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete the first noun sense. The only unambiguous usage of this sense of "barebum" I could find on Google Books was in James Joyce's Ulysses. Both the 2008 and 2010 cites are broken with a hyphen and spread across two lines, so it's unclear whether these actually represent "barebum" or "bare-bum." Delete the second noun sense, too, as it only gets one hit. Keep the adjective form. Astral (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep the first noun sense. "Ulysses" counts as a "well-known work." --BB12 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

From User:DCDuring/UncategorizedTemplates: a template created by Dubaduba in 2006 and seemingly only used by them in two entries, which I've since switched to using a standard epenthetic schwa (דמות and רגז, see RFC). - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This should have been at RFDO, but whatever, the template's gone now. -- Liliana • 17:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Profane, non-existent. —This unsigned comment was added by AnonymousDDoS (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 June 2012‎.

It obviously exists, but: what's the proper capitalization? Is lowercase really correct? -- Liliana • 16:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it exists. It is, however, normally capitalized. (and profanity is irrelevent) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it? The Wikipedia article writes it only in lowercase. Is there any significant usage in lowercase elsewhere? —CodeCa t 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

+++[->++++[->++++++<]<]>>+++.<+++++[->+++++<]>+..<++++[->+++<]>-. ;-) (Keep). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I'm used to seeing this in lower case, as stated in the header of the WP article:

"The name of the language is generally not capitalized except at the start of a sentence, although it is a proper noun."

-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, why was this nominated? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, newbie user seems to have nominated this in good faith. Two points for him/her. Wiktionary is not censored, and 'existence' is determined by WT:CFI#Attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see that somebody has removed the computer language sense. Would someone be so kind as to restore / add it? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I added it. According to the Esoteric Programming Language Wiki "The title of this article may well be brainfuck, due to typically being lowercased except, often, at the start of a sentence.". — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Eirikr, not removed, nobody had added it until Ungoliant did it at your request. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ungoliant, @Mglovesfun -- thank you! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was added, it was even the only sense there until PalkiaX50 moved the entry to Brainfuck, leaving brainfuck with no entry. —CodeCa t 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. There was originally an entry for brainfuck featuring the programming language sense (created in 2007), which PalkiaX50 moved to Brainfuck, leaving no redirect. I knew there was also a non-programming-language lowercase sense, so I recreated the brainfuck entry after digging up a few cites. Astral (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 07:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this just armed used with a hyphen? Numerous such 'combining form' entries with a hyphen have been deleted/redirected, I'm not even sure we need to debate this, but here it is, just in case we do. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this can be speedy redirected to armed, potentially after copying missing senses and translations. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned up armed in both etymologies so that this could be redirected. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirected. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 07:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is take + chill pill AFAICT. It would be a good redirect to chill pill or, conceivably, take a pill. Chill pill is abundantly used with other verbs and copulas. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. If you read this as SoP, then 'take a chill pill' means 'take an imaginary pill that calms you down' which doesn't really support the actual meaning (although it somewhat implies it). Would we say 'take some ritalin' hoping that it would be understood as 'stop being hyper'? —CodeCa t 21:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The sound of chill pill makes it a bit different from other pills used in metaphorical expressions. Also, would we want to have need a chill pill, give someone a chill pill, require a chill pill (all from COCA) let alone those with modifiers of pill?

I feel differently about take a pill, which is a colloquial idiom IMO. The variations of that expression just seem to be alterations of the imperative Take a pill for politeness or reported speech. Pill alone does not have the meaning by itself. DCDuring TALK 22:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Unless this is used to instruct someone to have a dose of an anxiolytic medication, it's idiomatic, as one can't "take" an imaginary pill. Compare take a breather, take a seat, etc. Astral (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to chill pill per nom: if a chill pill is an imaginary medication, then taking it clearly means to imaginarily take medicine. We don't need to include every collocation of chill pill with a verb. (Fwiw, somewhat related but not directly relevant is talk:silly pill.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirected by Wikitiki89 (talk • contribs). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WT:TR#worse concluded that this isn't a noun, but an adjective. Compare something like "the wetter the better". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete after checking for use in fused-modifier construction in citation or usage example. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Adjective: 4 senses: "More ill", "Of lower quality, less desirable.", "More severe or serious.", "More evil."

The sole remaining sense would be as comparative of bad, which covers it, IMO. And why does this have a translation table (fortunately only one, though without gloss)? DCDuring TALK 12:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably because the word 'worse' is often suppletive compared to 'bad'. Languages may even have several terms meaning 'worse', and they may not all be a comparative of the same base word or even of any word. In particular, Proto-Germanic and its earlier attested descendants had several comparatives and superlatives meaning things such as worse, better, greater, smaller with no corresponding base form. So it comes down to this: if X is a translation for bad, it does not imply that the comparative for X is the only possible translation for worse. Such terms would be literally 'lost in translation' without a translation table for worse. —CodeCa t 13:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't those differences show up in the translations of the different senses of bad, through the comparative formation process for each translation? DCDuring TALK 13:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, that is the point I was trying to make. A word such as 'bad' may have more than one comparative and superlative like in several Indo-European languages. But, even in Dutch, the comparative minder can translate as worse even though its base form weinig never means bad. So, someone looking in the translations for bad will not see weinig listed there. However, minder would certainly belong in a translation table for worse! Another example which pertains to suppletive comparatives in general occurs in Gothic. The Gothic comparative adverb mins means "smaller, less". But it has no corresponding base form, so it is a comparative but it is not a comparative of anything. I believe Latin has similar cases as well, though someone who knows Latin would need to confirm this. In any case, for sitations like this it's hard to assume that base forms and comparatives map one-to-one because it's more complicated than that. Some comparatives among world languages are the comparative of more than one base form (like more is to both many and much), some may have no base form, and some may have senses that their base form does not have. So, certain comparatives may have to be treated as independent lemmas because there is no other way. And as such, there would have to be translations linking to them as well, or risk having a translation 'blind spot'. —CodeCa t 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Might that not apply to other polysemous adjectives, too? What makes this one different? Is it just that even the ancestral PIE comparative was also quite distinct from the PIE for "bad", so this is a highly unusual case? I suppose the same might be true for better.

In any event, it seems to me to make the entry for worse worse for a user simply trying to understand English, because it introduces the possibility that the meanings for worse shown explicitly differ from those implicit in the "comparative of bad" line. Do we care about such users? DCDuring TALK 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I'm not sure there's much benefit in merely saying that a given term appears in some translation table somewhere; it has to be actually findable. I think that within-language usage notes are more likely to be helpful than unexpectedly-placed translations-tables. —Ruakh_TALK 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Gothic mins I can't think of anywhere to place such a usage note. Can you? —CodeCa t 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That one would go in the translation table at less#English, so there's no problem. (Less is a lemma.) I was talking about cases like minder, where the English translation is not a lemma. —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Resembles others by this contributor. Not in any dictionary at armhair at OneLook Dictionary Search. WP has a redirect to w:Androgenic hair. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But... what's the deletion logic? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

SoP. Meaning is per normal construction of noun-noun noun phrases. DCDuring TALK 00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone should double check that the citations in the ineptly-formatted [[armhair]] entry aren't just as wrong/misleading as the citations in the head-, neck-, leg- and bodyhair entries which are currently being re-RFVed. - -sche (discuss) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The citations at armhair seem correct, though they do not support their placement under the sense plural of armhair. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually two of the three are good. The third work contains one instance each of armhair and arm hair, suggesting that the generally much less common form, armhair, is an error. I was rendered cranky and careless by confrontation with contributions made during a user's piliphiliac (unattestable, I think) episode. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WordNet only at OneLook. Seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proof at facialhair or Citations:facialhair? Not as of this date. DCDuring TALK 12:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing (as DCDuring). :) - -sche (discuss) 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, to save time, citers should make sure that the orthography is unambiguous: "facial-hair" with the hyphen appearing at the end of the line is ambiguous. It could be hyphenation of facialhair or it could be facial-hair. And it saves time if the url is specified. DCDuring TALK 13:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Granted, but this is not WT:RFV#facialhair! Mglovesfun (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep per the "especially..." part of the definition, which is not guessable from facial + hair. The peachfuzz on a woman's or child's face is generally not what people mean by "facial hair". —An gr 15:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but the peachfuzz on a woman's or child's face is also generally not what people understand by "the hair of the face". See google books:"hair on her face". I think [[hair#English]] needs to be significantly expanded. —Ruakh_TALK 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep: per Fan Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Who or what is Fan? Equinox ◑ 02:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Mglovesfan... Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Eyebrows and eyelashes are hair located on the face, but they generally aren't considered facial hair. Hence I wouldn't count this as SoP. Astral (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any citations that contradict those on Citations:facial hair which indicate that facial hair includes eyebrows and eyelashes? The citations on that pages, incidentally, suggest that "man's" is not part of the definition because both women's and animal's facial hair is included in normal use of the term, when women or animals are under discussion.

That is, the definition is wrong. Cloaking an SoP term in an unsupportable, falsely narrow definition is a commonly used device to complicate the deletion process. I find it hard to believe that it is always done in good faith. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And another thing. That women don't normally have facial hair is a fact about the world, the kind of thing that fills encyclopedias. What women have on their faces in non-normal situations is called facial hair. This is the kind of thing that is part of language. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Astral has produced clear evidence that many users think of facial hair in the limited way the definition provided. I don't agree with "man's" rather than "one's" as the definition should include women and animals as usage indicates. We don't want to be unwarrantedly speciesist, do we? What goes inside an "especially" phrase, OTOH, probably should reflect human, male beard and mustache, though I don't think neck hair necessarily merits inclusion. Alternatively, we could have two "senses", a pseudo-sense using {{&lit}} and a sense such as might go inside the "especially". DCDuring TALK 23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  - (This is mainly a reply to your first post above) It wasn't my intent to suggest the term "facial hair" is never inclusive of eyebrows and eyelashes. Rather that, for many, "facial hair" means only the beard and moustache, and that because of this narrow usage, the term itself can't be considered SoP, even though it's sometimes used in a SoP-y way (as the citations you provided show).The current definition, "the hair of the face, especially…", is smart because it allows for both eyebrow-inclusive and eyebrow-exclusive usages. But I agree the "man's" portion of the current definition is inaccurate, and should be removed. Astral (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Having seen too many tacky commercials aimed at women that offer to "get rid of unsightly facial hair", I would suggest rewording that part to something like "especially of the characteristically male androgenic type such as beard, mustache and sideburns". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Androgenic seems like a particularly poor word to use in a definition, even one with wikilinks. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Another case of 'not a suffix'. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Compare short-haired, where short- is not a prefix nor -haired a suffix. Equinox ◑ 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have added the sense of backed up by as in a government-backed loan. Check it please. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: "An administrator responsible for selecting which players will play for a side." It's really someone who selects. If you watch the England side play, they often talk about the side selection, but we don't have a cricket sense for selection, because it's the "Something selected." definition applied to cricket (NB yes the definition is lame). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep, at least while there's no sense of "To choose players for a sports team" at select. The first few random hits for 'selector + cricket' on Google Books (ignoring sport dictionaries) were:

Allan Border: ESPN Legend No 25; scored a Test record 11,174 runs in 156 Tests for Australia between 1978 and 1994; captained Australia in 93 Tests between 1984 and 1994; now a TV commentator and analyst, and an Australian selector; Legends of Cricket selector.

As other selectors have recognised over the years, it is very difficult to have more than eleven players in a cricket team.

In 1999 Mike Gatting was president of the Professional Cricketers' Association. Gatting and Gooch were England selectors in the late 1990s.

Obsessive focus on the captain, the coach, the chief executive or the chairman of selectors is a distraction.

The second one is arguably understandable by context, and the fourth one uses the word in a lot of other contexts where its meaning is clearer, but certainly for the first and third ones, I don't see why it should be obvious that what these people select are players. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we are missing the sense at select#Verb, though of course it does only refer to sportspersons, I can select a jumper from my drawer. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No wait it is there, "To choose one or more elements of a set, especially a set of options." The sportperson sense is just this sense, but applied to sportspersons. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was more that "selector" is used in sport without ever making explicit what is being selected. It's a bit like how we have separate senses under painter for "Person who makes pictures with paint" and "Person who paints surfaces". Strictly speaking, the first is just a subset of the second, but generally we say that someone is a "painter" without specifying what they paint. Keeping them separate means that should someone ever come across "Michaelangelo was one of the leading painters of the Renaissance", without it being specified that he painted pictures, they'll still hopefully be able to twig that he was an artist, not just a guy who whitewashed walls. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mg and favour deletion, although Wikipedia has w:Selector (sport), suggesting it might be appropriate to broaden and keep a sporting sense. - -sche (discuss) 10:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

WT:CFI says "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers." This is neither very common or useful to non-native speakers. When was the last time you desperately needed a postcard? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

People often say "I need" when they mean "I would like (to buy)". —An gr 21:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should be renamed, lest translation-adders not pick up on that detail, and add literal translations that wouldn't work in shops. - -sche (discuss) 09:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Angr yes that may answer my last point, which wasn't a CFI point anyway, but the two CFI points I made remain (neither very common or useful). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete. --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - nobody uses simple postcards these days. If you want to send a pictorial one home from your holidays, you select one from a rack outside a shop, take it inside, give it to the person behind the counter and ask if they sell stamps. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In our descriptive mode, we would keep dated expressions.

Does the phrasebook need to have its own rules and principles? How are we supposed to implement "considered useful by non-native speakers"? I don't know of a corpus of useful, colloquial "very common expressions". In the absence of one, we could use out-of-copyright phrasebooks, but "Where is the telegraph office?" might not be useful anymore. Apply our contributors' judgement is not really consistent with our principle of being "descriptive". We also have trouble limiting destructive controversy in areas where we depart from the purely descriptive with relatively objective criteria.

For a phrasebook, is an expression adequately "useful" if it communicates? What if it also clearly marks the speaker as a non-native speaker or, in this case, a time traveler? What if it violates politeness norms? DCDuring TALK 16:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "marks the speaker as a non-native speaker": I've never seen a phrasebook that didn't. If we want to be in the phrasebook business, and for some reason we apparently do, then that's just how it works! (Also, I'm not sure that the best advice for phrasebook-dependent foreigners really is to say things the same way a native speaker would. I remember once, in college, being stopped by a group of four Japanese tourists trying to find the Cleveland Museum of Art. I really could barely understand them: only one of them had the confidence even to try to speak, and he could barely string two words together. An American asking the way might have asked something like, I don't know, maybe, "Hi, excuse me, sorry, but do you know how I can get to the art museum from here?" If this guy had attempted that, I doubt I would ever have figured out what he wanted. What did work, however, was repeating the phrase "museum of art" three or four times — incredibly rude if an American had done it, but very sensible given the situation. No offense was given or taken. Though sadly, the museum was closed for renovation at the time. I suppose that even the best phrasebook in the world would not have helped that.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering whether we should simply forget about being a phrasebook that looks like a conventional one and just include the common collocations that our contributors seem to want to provide. A noticeable percentage have at least some justification on some Pawley grounds. Only MW and OED seem to hold on to the standard of purely 'lexical' entries, excluding proper nouns and encyclopedic content and being fairly strict about what are included as idioms. Our descriptivist and inclusionist principles and slogans would be honored and we could stop trying be what we cannot readily be. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

delete. Rolling the dice, there is one single phrasebook in Google Books that has this phrase. This proves that there is no real need for it, and that this phrase is not common at all. -- Liliana • 19:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In some places (OK, at least one place) they don't have picture postcards in racks outside shops, you have to go into a bunch of different shops and ask if they sell postcards, then when you do find a shop that sells them they take them out of a drawer. 193.61.28.91 13:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

An "I would like to buy ________." phrasebook entry would be more generally useful. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In British English "I need a postcard" seems too impolite to use a shop worker that one doesn't know, I'd be much more likely to say "I'm looking for" or "I'd like". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds rather peremptory in American English too, but I've definitely heard it. Standing in line at Burger King, for example, you might hear the person in front of you say "I need a Whopper, large fries, and a Coke". I heard it a lot when I lived in Texas, and I always had to bite my tongue not to say, "No you don't, you want that. But you don't need it." —An gr 18:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind if this particular entry gets deleted but please don't go and delete other phrasebook entries, including some "I need ..." phrases. The rules for them are different from word entries - CFI are yet to be defined and approved, so some entries are less than perfect. It is a separate subproject here, which has a number of contributors and enthusiasts. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 23:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There is one idiomatic sense in here, IIRC. This one isn't it however, it just means am + Ende. -- Liliana • 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I can kind of see how "in the end" and "down the road" could be sort of synonymous, and it might carry over into the German equivalent of "in the end" as a minor sense, but as the only definition for am Ende, this is so useless that it may very well justify speedy deletion. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't "Ich bin am Ende" mean "I'm exhausted, I'm worn out, I'm all in"? Certainly that sense is idiomatic, I think. "Down the road" really doesn't seem like an adequate translation of "am Ende" at all. —An gr 21:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was the "idiomatic sense" I thought of. -- Liliana • 21:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We currently have the English in the end as an entry, which seems equally SOP as am Ende. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like später + einmal -- Liliana • 20:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, though not with any of the meanings of einmal currently there. Neither [[einmal]] nor [[mal]] lists the practically untranslatable sense of hesitancy or diffidence that these words can convey. At any rate, delete. —An gr 21:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe this should have been created with a capital. It is an order. I am going to create the capital version now.Speednat (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see now that there was one at one point, and it got changed to the lower case. I will wait and see what you guys think.

So in a nutshell: It is a taxonomic order. Speednat (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably better at WT:RFM. It looks like the move to lower-case was done by a bot as part of the mass-conversion of the entire dictionary from capitalized to lower-case entry names 7 years ago, and this was collateral damage. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added a Latin section for the species epithet, which is lowercase. It is marked there as New Latin. If this term was used uncapitalized, not in italics, in English text in the senses in which it is defined, then we should Keep it. That is not a voting matter, except possibly for the suitability of the attestation items. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I only found a single use of Abranchiata/abranchiata at Google Books. But it was the capitalized form in what I think is a well-known work by Agassiz. I don't see how a single citation can support two definitions. I found abranchiata abundantly at Google Scholar as a species epithet, but some of the raw hits there may be for a capitalized form as some taxon. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

First sense is defined as: "Indicates that a smartphone application is available to perform a specific task."

Our definition for app covers "smartphone application". Existential there. Deixis. This is just a catchphrase. Contrast with an earlier catchphrase, where's the beef, which came to use beef in a meaning ("substance; (figurative, static) meat") it did not have and still doesn't have apart from this expression, AFAICT, so that it is not SoP. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, on WT:RFV#there's an app for that I said "Deleting the first sense if these two fail is trivial so I'm not even gonna tag it." where "these two" refer to the other two definitions present in the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to just speedy the entry. -- Liliana • 16:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a smartphone application available to perform that specific task. DAVilla 08:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep: Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Any reason, or just because you created the entry? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If we keep it, we need to clean it up. The definitions explain vaguely what the term is thought to mean rather than defining it clearly. Explaining is for usage notes, if needed at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing more than the sum of its parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete. What does this have to with smartphones? You can say that for *any* software on *any* platform and carries *no* idiomatic meaning other than the fact that yes there is an application for what you've described. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that at first glance, a non-native reader might assume this means an "overweight drinker". However, if they did look it up, they'd almost certainly go to heavy first, which has:

(of a person) doing the specified activity more intensely than most other people.

He was a heavy sleeper, heavy eater and a heavy smoker - certainly not an ideal husband.

A lot of agent nouns can take "heavy" - "heavy snorer", "heavy dancer", "heavy thinker", "heavy gambler", "heavy DIYer", "heavy reader", "heavy flyer", "heavy borrower" and more are all attestable, as are more complicated compounds like "heavy tea drinker", "heavy newspaper reader", "heavy poker player" and "heavy buyer of books". It's nonsense to assume that any of these are undecipherable idioms - they are all "heavy" + agent noun. Including heavy drinker. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad guys in the movies do seem to consume a lot of alcohol... Seriously, though, Delete Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd make it a redirect, both to discourage someone adding a replacement entry and to get users to heavy where they could find the sense. Alternatively, we could delete and rely on the search engine if we had a usage example at [[heavy]]. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No redirect as it can't redirect to both heavy and drinker. This is an excellent example of when a redirect won't work. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent example of the benefits of recognizing which one of a list of possible redirect targets is overwhelmingly more/the most likely to help a user. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from 'heavy drinker' and 'heavy drinkers' (which won't show up if deleted) 'heavy' is the first search result for heavy drinker. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I firmly disagree, it is not clearcut which of the two words to redirect to. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep or delete, but do not redirect. DAVilla 08:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This spelling was imported from the 1913 websters and a google search shows nothing under this spelling. Absaroka seems to be the correct spelling. Speednat (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, when you say "a google search shows...", that's a strong hint that this belongs at rfv, since the question seems to be not that there's something inherently wrong with it, such as being sum-of-parts or a brand name, but that it's not used. To save that step, though, I should mention that there are more than enough examples in Google books, including one in a work of Edgar Allen Poe. None of those seem to be less than a century old, so it should be marked obsolete or archaic and converted to an "alternative spelling of" entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything Chuck just said. —An gr 17:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the weigh-in. I will fix it if it hasn't already been alt form'ed. Speednat (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sense: "A person who speaks Mirandese." There is a Japanese linguistics professor who speaks Mirandese. Would he be called a Mirandese? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete It started out as part of the other definition (which doesn't need it any more), and makes no sense by itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Debatably should be RFV, but I think it's just a pure error, so delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that someone could find (valid) citations that apply to the second sense and claim it also applies to the first. Perhaps what the writer meant was something along the lines of "A person from the region where Mirandese is spoken natively." — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The original sentence was: "A native or inhabitant of northeastern Portugal; a person who speaks Mirandese". A couple of edits later, the phrase "A native or inhabitant of Miranda do Douro in northeastern corner of Portugal" was brought back from the original version of the entry to replace the part before the semicolon, and the part after it was made into a separate sense. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time (it certainly improved the original sense), but that second part isn't a complete definition by itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(Latin) Encyclopedic information about the s-mobile, not a prefix with a meaning. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, it has only an etymology, but even the entry says "it carries no meaning". Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedied. Not dictionary material, lacks meaning and thus inherently unciteable. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 12:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense. Um, a needle used for darning seems unidiomatic. (The second sense, an insect, is fine.) --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The WP article implies that regular needles are used for darning. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Striking my vote. I was wrong, darning does use a different type of needle. But I'm still not convinced it's idiomatic. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The only defence is that {{&lit}} pointlessly requires that someone go look up the component terms to understand the logic of the idiomatic sense of this term. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, also looking up words is not pointless. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought darning needles were big. Siuenti (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, keep, google results show that it's not just my impression. Send to RFV if necessary. Siuenti (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What about other names used to describe the same physical object, but differentiating by purpose, such as tapestry needle, crewel needle, upholstery needle? DCDuring TALK 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends if they have specific characteristics. They don't appear to be used for size comparisons (no hits for "big as an upholstery needle" etc ) Siuenti (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the reasoning. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotations like the following indicate that word conveys an object of a particular size:

"The wispy leaves of low-slung mesquite trees shield thousands of razor-sharp thorns the size of darning needles."

"and the entire soup was full of these fish bones that were the size of darning needles!"

"pejibaye, which grows as high as a five-story building and has a trunk covered with bristling black spines as big as a darning needle"

Siuenti (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Just because bigger needles are used for darning than for sewing, and just because writers assume that readers have that encyclopedic knowledge, that doesn't mean that readers have a lexical entry for the phrase "darning needle". google books:"the size of one of those" finds examples like the size of those old foot-washing basins and the size of one of those round watermelons and the size of one of those strange little three-wheelers they used to give disabled people in England and the size of an enclosed motorcycle sidecar; but it goes without saying that those phrases have no place in a dictionary. —Ruakh_TALK 18:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This term is included in Random House and Collins, both of which define it, basically, as "a long needle with a long eye used for darning." I think those specific characteristics — above-average length and a long eye — set it apart from an ordinary sewing needle. Astral (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then our definition needs to be fixed, because I wouldn't have RFD'd it if I had seen defining characteristics. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep In general, a specialised version of a tool seems like perfectly acceptable fodder for an entry, especially when it's not clear from context what form the specialisation takes. Otherwise we'd lose rolling pin (a pin for rolling?), snow shovel, butter knife, pepper mill etc. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] birthday card

A card for Christmas? Really? The definition isn't even exactly right about the "decorated" part - I've seen undecorated Christmas cards. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we also have birthday card. -- Liliana • 04:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have RFD'd that as well. Thanks. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, any card can be known by what it's intended to commemorate or refer to. Get well soon card for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How do we know from the 'parts' that these are greeting cards and not calling cards or playing cards? Keep, I think.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By the usual principles of constructing meaning-in-context, the details of which elude me, as the process is unconscious. There are a lot of theories about it though. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There wasn't a sense listed at card matching the one used in these terms ("a greeting card") until I just added it just now. However, as Msh210 pointed out, there's still ambiguity over which sense of "card" it is that that these terms are employing. If someone says, "I'm not taking the trash out today because it's my birthday," I suppose they could be described as playing the "birthday card," but that's not what most people mean whey they use the term "birthday card." Astral (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Christmas cards are paper. We're not Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this your favorite argument that we should keep any jumble of words simply because we have the space to do so? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what NOTPAPER says, buddy. Sorry, my vote is completely in compliance with guidelines Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that WT:NOTPAPER doesn't even exist, NOTPAPER (on Wikipedia) does not mean that anything may be included, Equinox and I have both said that we have lots of room for pictures of kittens because we're not paper, but that doesn't mean we should include lots of pictures of kittens. It seems to me, hilariously, that you don't have a counterargument to that, if you did you'd've replied by now. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not it's not. It says "There is less need to exclude arguable entries", it doesn't say There is a need to keep arguable entries.— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by any of the reasoning here. If we keep these, as we all agree that we are not space-limited, why shouldn't we have several more of these, especially valentine card/Valentine card, valentine's day card, saint valentine's day card, Mother's Day card (various orthographies), holiday card, sympathy card, condolences card, get-well-soon card, AARP card, union card, actor's equity card, donor card, access card, cue card, draft card, trading card, baseball card, rookie card, drawing card, time card, place card, discount card, insurance card, warranty card, registration card, bank card, debit card, service card, report card? Note the spotty coverage. Is there a rationale for including some and not others? DCDuring TALK 18:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
money card, cash card, seating card, safety instruction card/safety instructions card, safety card, instruction card. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A slippery-slope argument is not a valid reason for deletion. NOTPAPER is a guideline, so it is. I frankly don't understand why we waste so much time deleting two-word phrases that are commonly used...we could be using that time to write definitions of more two-word phrases Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should not be wasting time writing definitions for trivial terms.

I'm not arguing slippery slope. I'm asking if there are principled distinctions here or just whimsy for what we include or exclude. Or is it just that we haven't gotten around to them? Is it your belief that all attestable collocations should be in Wiktionary? If it is, I suggest you make a proposal as soon as possible and that we vote on it. Certainly many agree with you.

One test that can be made to see whether something is a set phrase is interesting. One can see whether the modifier term can appear in coordination with another term modifying the head of the noun phrase. As I see it, both birthday card and Christmas card would fail this test as one can say both "They just send us birthday and Christmas cards" and "The just send us Christmas and birthday cards." Also "I don't remember whether they send us Christmas or birthday cards". So the relationship between the modifiers and the heads is not very tight.

You could take the trouble to see whether the solid-spelled compounds are attestable. We have been interpreting that as conclusive evidence that the terms are thought of as a unit. We are picky about the attestation being unambiguous (not based on Google's interpretation of an end-of-line hyphen or on a possible scanno or typesetting error contradicted by spaced spelling in the same work. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to list all possible combination of cards, other entries should be considered case by case as always. Christmas card and birthday card should be kept as they are words and are often included in foreign language dictionaries, are as common items as postcards or envelopes and are also borrowed into other languages as single words. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 03:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The first requirement is that we have a good English dictionary that responds to the needs of English users without wasting their time. If you made arguments about the presence or absence of the terms in monolingual dictionaries, it would be easier to agree. The sole monolingual consideration that you raise is also unhelpful: a collocation like "broken chair" would also meet your common-item criterion. DCDuring TALK 10:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we wasting the time of English users? We would be if we had a policy that required all users to read every single definition in the dictionary. However, we have no such policy, so English users will likely never see definitions for terms that they are not looking up. Presumably, those who do look up birthday card or Christmas card are doing so because they are fuzzy on the meaning and would like to see a definition. Usage statistics might be helpful to see whether these definitions are actually being sought out. bd2412 T 14:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Two arguments that could bring these discussions to a close are:
1. The attestability of Christmascard and birthdaycard.
2. The inclusion of Christmas card and birthday card in other monolingual dictionaries.

Such arguments may not be intellectually satisfying or involve sophisticated analysis of what constitutes an idiom, but they are definitive or close to it. DCDuring TALK 10:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have found a definition for one in Cambridge dictionary. Will come back when/if I find for the other. "Broken chair" is a free collocation, I understand your exaggeration but it's not valid. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 23:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of Christmas card in English monolingual dictionaries:

Cambridge dictionary: a decorated card that you send to someone at Christmas.
Merriam-Webster dictionary: a greeting card sent at Christmas. (a "greeting card" definition: a piece of paper or thin cardboard having any of a variety of shapes and formats and bearing a greeting or message of sentiment

My search for the definition of birthday card hasn't produced anything yet (I didn't search thoroughly, though) but I found a few instances of birthdaycard (solid) in Google book searches. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 05:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We can define it if we know we want it. It is just a question of whether other dictionaries have it (and also which ones). I use OneLook (eg, birthday card at OneLook Dictionary Search) for that kind of lemming check. It's easy enough to do. WordNet tends to be the most inclusive of multi-word terms. DCDuring TALK 06:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we need to update these definitions. I've received plenty of birthday cards and holiday cards in my email, and obviously those were not folded pieces of paper, but only electronic versions of the decorations and messages. If someone sends you an email that says "Get well soon", you wouldn't say they sent you a card, but if they sent the same email with the text in the middle of a big, brightly colored rectangle festooned with pictures of balloons and puppies, then you very well might say they sent you a "card". As it happens, I also have a "credit card" that is not an actual card, but is a fob on my keychain. If I sent you one of those for Christmas, you wouldn't think of it as a Christmas card. Therefore I would suggest that there are a lot of things out there which can be called a "card" these days which are not the traditional pieces of stiff paper, and we must reflect which of those collocations support these broader definitions. bd2412 T 14:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If it comes to that, if your birthday present or Christmas present to me were a credit card (or a hand-held tool for preparing materials for spinning), I wouldn't think of that as a birthday card or Christmas card either. Still, we want to avoid arguments like "red house isn't SOP because it doesn't mean 'communist dynasty'" too; just because a collocation of "X Y" can only refer to a subset of the definitions of X and a subset of the definitions of Y doesn't necessarily mean that that collocation is idiomatic. —An gr 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Red has a sense for communism and house has a sense for dynasty. Do we need to add a sense at card indicating an electronic salutation with some elements of the presentation of a traditional paper card? Actually, it's beyond that now, as there are e-cards that contain sound and animation. bd2412 T 16:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. They are transparent but fixed enough in the modern Western culture. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep birthday card. It's not a card stating your date of birth, is it? Worth defining. This, that and the other (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A prepositional phrase headed by for is just one of the possible adjuncts of the relevant transitive and intransitive senses of run. For example, "He ran in the 2008 race", "The Socialists ran her on their line", "He ran over the objections of his advisors", "He ran away from his record", "She ran with Mondale". (Yes, run + over, not run over and run + away, not ran away.) DCDuring TALK 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to run.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer outright deletion to a redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The def is "To try to obtain political position through the democratic voting process", with the example sentence "John Smith is running for President". What has this to do with "He ran over the objections of his advisors"? What is the sense of "run" with respect to which "John Smith is running for President" is a sum of parts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Senses 15, 16, 17 cover the sense. 16 and 17 are transitive and intransitive specializations of sense 15. There are a wide variety of PPs that fit with those senses. There is no change of of sense of the verb with the various adjunct PP phrases. DCDuring TALK 18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sense 16 does it: "(intransitive) To be a candidate in an election". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. "For" is merely the common preposition used in connection with elected office-seeking ventures. One can just as well "stand for" office, "campaign for" office, or "be a candidate for" office. bd2412 T 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@BD2412 yes that's the reason. Also I don't think we want to remove the sense from run, or separate it in two, having two rival entries covering the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Common idiomatic Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence, perhaps someone may agree with you. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd stipulate that there is attestation, as there is for countless other common collocations involving these words, such as "run on (one's record)", "run against (an incumbent)", "run to (the left/right of)", "run in (an election)", etc. None of these involve changes in the senses of run that pertain to this RfD.

I suppose that, since this is a presidential election year in the US, we could make a special effort to make sure our coverage of common collocations found in journalist coverage of elections is complete. We might discover some new words, idioms or arguments for including or keeping some that seem SoP. Any volunteers? DCDuring TALK 20:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to run. You can be in office or make your way into office, so for office is nothing special. Equinox ◑ 20:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sole sense: Using film as opposed to a digital camera.

Aside from the laughable wording, the definition is context-dependent. Any term can be defined as having a meaning contrasting with some other meaning. This still means on + film. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, and yeah almost speedy delete for no usable content given. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete NISoP. Equinox ◑ 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tok Pisin SOP. bilong ("of") + husat ("whom"); it seems to me that the current definition, whose, is equivalent to of whom. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - does indeed appear to be SOP rather than a unique term. BarkingFish (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

—Ruakh_TALK 13:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WT:TR#wheelchair fencing et al. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a table of medals. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Before someone asks, the sense of table is "A classification of teams or individuals based on their success over a predetermined period." which I think was added by the same user as created medal table. FWIW I think that sense is accurate if not imprecise, the table refers to a visual representation of the classification of... Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep as translation target. Contains many one-word idiomatic translations. I think there should be a rule to keep entries with one-word idiomatic translations. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep the Olympic sense only. This table shows numbers of logical medals per country, not physical medals per individual or team. (In team events, each person gets a physical medal, but only a single logical medal is awarded to the country represented) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep per above. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sense: To bring down by cutting. Usex: They want to cut down several trees to make room for the parking lot.

There are two other senses (and another on the way) that are the kind considered phrasal verbs. They seem OK. I have inserted {{&lit}} which, it seems to me covers this. We can keep the usex. DCDuring TALK 21:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep, although possibly reword. "cut down" as in "they cut down the pinata (that was hanging from the ceiling)" seems SOP (which I assume is what the &lit refers to), but "cut down" as in "they cut down the tree (that was growing from the ground)" doesn't. I can't place my finger on quite why, but it seems idiomatic in this case. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to share this intuitive seeming, but I don't. I don't see a sense change in cut. A tree or a pole or a vertical timber or even a similar tall, thin metal structure can be "sawn down" or "sawed down" or "chainsawed down" or "chopped down". I suppose one might search for attestation for cutdown#Verb. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant:

A routine visit to the doctor, dentist, or the like.
The appointment was just for a checkup.

Redundant to:

A routine inspection.
I took my car in for an annual checkup.

—msh210℠ (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which part is the checkup? The whole visit, or just the part in which something is inspected? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Which definition were you asking about? DCDuring TALK 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Both. Each seems to imply a different answer to the question. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you think the trip to the doctor's office or garage is one sense and the inspection is another? I doubt you're right, frankly — I suspect inspection is the only correct sense — but it's possible that cites will support it. If they do, we'll see whether they support it only for a medical visit or generally; in the latter case, we can delete the sense I nominated, and in the former not. Right?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To me the big difference is that I can go away while the car is in for a checkup, but not while my body is in for a checkup. For many definitions, the distinction between person/animal and deemed-nonsentient object suffices for a sense distinction. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

But if you take your kid in to the pediatrician for a checkup, you can go away while he's in there. Does that make the kid more like the car and less like you? —An gr 20:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They are two possible differences. There is a pretty big difference between you and not-you that may often dwarf all other differences. Selfish-gene theory might be taken as implying that your child might be much more you than you if you were near death and child was not. DCDuring TALK 20:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep: You getting checked up and your car getting checked up entail completely different things Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- But this RFD is about the noun, checkup, not about the action, getting checked up.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  - When you're checked up, you receive a checkup. If the senses of the verb are different (e.g. replacing an air filter and using a tongue depresser), the noun ones are too Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. falloff does not have all the meanings that would correspond to the verb fall off, for example. Equinox ◑ 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, checkup does. Whether falloff does or doesn't is immaterial, it's not at RfD Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Just because you say so? Evidence please. You missed my point: obviously falloff isn't listed. It was an analogy. Equinox ◑ 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Instinctively keep, but for reasons I can't articulate. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. You can get a checkup done on anything that requires routine maintenance, be it a machine, human, animal, or plant. Consider the following examples of things that can get checkups (these sentences are made up, but similar uses can be easily found in the wild):

I went to the oncologist for a checkup.
I took my kid to the pediatrician for a checkup.
I took my cat to the vet for a checkup.
I hired an arborist to give the trees out front a checkup.
I took my car to the mechanic for a checkup.
I took my laptop to the help desk for a checkup.
I scheduled a time for the HVAC company to do a checkup on my air conditioner.

I think these are all the same sense (even though they are all performed by different kinds of experts and entail different kinds of tasks). Maybe we could write a unified definition that is more explicit about the range of activities it covers, something like "A routine inspection, such as a routine medical examination or routine maintenance on a car" perhaps? —Caesura ^(t) 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep: without any further clarification, I would the word checkup on its own refers to a routine visit to a physician. Also looking it up on a few dictionaries (Webster's, oxforddictionaries.com), it seems that the medical sense is the primary use of the word. The example at oxforddictionaries.com also seems to imply that a checkup need not be routine: "a mother and her young daughter were taken to hospital for a check-up after a fire at their home" --WikiTiki89 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually a counterexample; that could still be considered routine. It's easy to find plenty of analogous examples that explicitly include the word routine there. "Brasov was taken to a local hospital for a routine examination after officers noticed a bump on her head." [10] "Curt Gitch was taken to Allen Hospital for a routine checkup after being rescued by local responders…." [11] Routine doesn't just mean "occurring on a regular schedule". —Caesura ^(t) 01:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Caesura that a unified definition would be best, but avoiding "routine" (the fact that checkups are often done routinely is not relevant to the meaning). The OED has "A careful or detailed examination, scrutiny, or comparison with a list; spec. a medical examination." Dbfirs 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sense: (computing) The user-specified settings of parameters in interactive computer software.

This looks like the plural of preference. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This should not be listed separately under the plural, though we might need a new sense at singular preference to indicate a computer program setting. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Can it be show that this usage is plural only as much as sneakers is? Facts are permitted in discussions despite the recent practice of closing discussions that have had no facts and little discussion. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Defined as "unneccesary things". This looks like a plural fused-head construction in the sole citation. There are a number of these with various degrees of claim to being plural nouns. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For me the immediate question is whether the singular noun exists (cf. unlikely, unlikelies). Unfortunately, searching for "an unnecessary" finds any number of adjective instances preceding some other noun, so it is hard to know. But I don't see the rationale for deletion as long as it's an attestable word. Equinox ◑ 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's just a misspelling/typo. PalkiaX50 suggested that it was eye dialect, but AnWulf (this entry's creator) reverted him. AnWulf claims that it is a "simplified spelling" even though there is not much to suggest that. If it really is a misspelling/typo, it's certainly not common enough to merit a {{misspelling of}} entry. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete In every example given (except for Man in India, for which I can't find either word), the book contains hits for both "suthern" and "southern". Clearly a typo. (At any rate, it seems like a poor simplified spelling, since it obscures the connection between south and southern) Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are different ways to "simplify" a spelling system, but the idea is usually to make sound-spelling correspondences more consistent. Given that "south" and "southern" are pronounced completely differently, it's reasonable that their simplified spellings would be different. But that's neither here nor there; it's not our job to promote simpler spellings, and when they're rare and currently nonstandard, it's not our job to include them at all. —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a protologism, especially the edit summary 'simplified spelling' which makes it sound like it's invented by the user. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"A feature in video games that allows players to work together as teammates with the absence of player-controlled competitors." This is gameplay that is cooperative; the entry is encyclopaedic, IMO. Furthermore, co-op gameplay does not need to be free from computer opponents; for example, in Doom you can play co-op against computer-controlled monsters. Equinox ◑ 23:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom, purely SOP. bd2412 T 16:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: The Rhodesian Army unit. Seems oddly specific; I can say with reasonable confidence that there are numerous army units named "SOMETHING Scouts" whose title is corrupted to just "Scouts" for convenience Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's specific for that very reason - it refers to a specific historical group, and is well cited as such. The fact that there may potentially be other groups is not a reason to delete, it is a reason to include others if they are listed.
If, (and I think it's unlikely), there are several different groups, we can then combine the defs in to one. But for now, it's a well cited entry which means exactly what it says.
Compare Guards, Marines, Tans.--Dmol (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask that the deletion of television show be reconsidered for the following five reasons:

There weren't a significantly greater number of "delete" votes as "keep" ones, as such, the RfD should have been either closed as "no consensus" or kept open longer
It's been a number of months since the RfD, consensus can change
SOP doesn't apply in this case because the meaning of "show" is ambiguous
Potential translation target; likely that some languages have a single word for the concept
It's a commonly used term; there's generally been a consensus to keep stuff like that.

Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 14:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a decent shout for an undelete. The typical argument for deleting this is that since show has more than one meaning, any use of the word 'show' can be ambiguous, which is precisely why we define them at show and not in various other entries such as TV show, radio show and so on. Similarly television doesn't only go with show put also television program/television programme. Anyway, over to you guys to keep debating. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The first reason looks valid. The fourth and fifth are not reasons to have entries. The third isn't either (meaning, SOP may well apply even though a part is ambiguous). And the second is insufficient IMO to re-raise an RFD, else we'd be rediscussing everything all the time. But per the first reason, I'm happy to continue the RFD discussion here, bearing in mind that it's a continuation (i.e., should be read with the old one).—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: point #1: by my reading, those supporting deletion were msh210 (talk • contribs), Mglovesfun (talk • contribs), Jamesjiao (talk • contribs), Prosfilaes (talk • contribs), and Ric Laurent (talk • contribs); those opposing deletion were Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) and Lucifer (talk • contribs). The non-voting commenters were 86.160.220.165 (talk • contribs)/86.177.106.236 (talk • contribs) (who rejected some of the deletion arguments, but explicitly wrote "Comment" rather than "Keep"), EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) (who seemed to prefer keeping, but again, explicitly wrote "Comment" rather than "Keep"), and DCDuring (talk • contribs) (who seemed to prefer deletion). The entry was deleted, and discussion closed, by Liliana (talk • contribs), who had not participated in the discussion before that point. All told, this looks like a correctly resolved RFD. (Note: I'm not commenting on whether this collocation should have an entry, only on whether the previous RFD discussion was closed correctly.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I guess you're right. I rescind my note just above.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As a set term and also I believe it is included in the OED perhaps we should reconsider. PBP why don't you create citations for it first, perhaps some that show the ambiguity between show and (tv) show?Lucifer (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

5 votes for deletion and 2 for keeping? Strikes me as significantly greater;
Yes it can, so let's see where this RFD goes. I abstain for now but unless some good evidence and arguments come I'll vote don't undelete;
Context makes it clear, thus is still non-idiomatic per bank parking lot example;
Could be, but that's hypothetical;
So are white sheet, green leaf, television screen and millions of other SOPs.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Also "It's a commonly used term; there's generally been a consensus to keep stuff like that" I don't think so, we have a lot of common terms here on RFD that are common but don't meet CFI. If you can providence to support your opinion, please do. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep I believe it's not SOP, as, after Wikipedia, it's synonymous to television program, while the German translation by parts, Fernsehshow, means a different format (i.e. something like sense 1. of show), but definitely not any program (sense 4. of show). Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Free formed collocations and phrases like "nice weather in London" don't count.

Does this dictionary count as a good source? television show@dictionary.com as per DCDuring's suggestion to check in monolingual dictionaries (see Christmas card, birthday card discussions)? Definition: a program broadcast by television, synonym: television program (also has a definition). Undelete --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 13:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary.com reports w:WordNet's entry for the term. All of the inclusions of television show at OneLook Dictionary Search seem to be based on WordNet. WordNet is not a dictionary. It has been funded to provide a database for machine processing of natural language. It is distributed by various online dictionary-type portals because it is "freely and publicly available for download". I am not sure about its current criteria for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the verdict, DCDuring? The word does exist in monolingual dictionaries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a set phrase, as it fails coordination tests (eg, "television or radio show"). The meaning seems compositional to me. The translation-target argument ought to be irrelevant. Tho sole "real" lemming is WordNet which is conceptual, rather than linguistic in its focus. OTOH, some online dictionary sources find WordNet worth following. It would be a limited accommodation to the desired to translate some common SoP collocations to include terms from WordNet automatically. It would not overwhelm us with SoP drivel to respect WordNet as a lemming. This seems to me to possibly worth a BP-level discussion. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with coordination tests. E.g. "status and progress bar" splits status bar and progress bar, also "double and triple star", "giant and red panda", "polar and brown bear", "CD and DVD player" and there could be many other examples. Like CD player, "television show" or "TV show" doesn't seem to me a SoP. The translation-target argument should be relevant but not with all languages. It also demonstrates that somewhere this argument has been already solved, e.g. Russian "телешоу" (telešóu). At least, we should have it as a translation target where a target language is a solid word ({{translation only}} producing: This entry is here for translation purposes only.). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 04:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not every idiom is a set phrase. I only mean to disagree with the notion that the incantation "set phrase", which I have never seen here with any empirical support, applies as a unquestioned rationale for inclusion of this term.

The vernacular species names are associated with different species. Have the other terms gone through RfD?

If other Wiktionaries would like to include SoP translation targets that option is available to them. I don't participate in discussions on this Wiktionary involving languages I don't know, so I can't speak to that example. I confine my advocacy to practice about the English language. I really don't understand why considerations of other languages should govern practice for English. Conversely, I've often wondered why there is almost no effort to translate English idiomatic terms, such as those in Category:English phrasal verbs. DCDuring TALK 08:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea is, that if a translation is not possible based on the translations of the parts, then it makes sense to include those translations. On the other hand if a SOP term has mainly one-word idiomatic translations, then this could be taken as an indicator of a certain setness similar to WT:COALMINE. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Well, I thought this was a dictionary of English, not mentalese; that it covered language, principally the English language, not concepts. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Contrast with car show. It's a show on televisions, not someone showing televisions, like a car show is showing cars. 4.238.7.29 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Then we should add car show auto show, automobile show, hot rod show, gun show, flower show, horse show, antique show, computer show, consumer electronics show etc because folks won't know which kind of show is involved. And in some cases we would need multiple definitions because both kinds of show exist and maybe even more, not to mention the possibility that the other term might be ambiguous, too. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't undelete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a common spelling SFAICT. —Ruakh_TALK 01:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep per recent change by LW, to rare alt-form. It's hard to demonstrate, but I see no reason why it is not true. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it is in pretty common use, although somewhat rare compared to verbally so we should keep it.Lucifer (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Filtering out Dutch and Afrikaans brings it down to about 50, with less in Google Books filtered the same. definitely uncommon, if not rare. Many of the book examples (the ones that aren't scannos or foreign-language books that slipped through the filters) are in quoted text that's left unedited to show how quaintly-out-of-date and/or misspelled it is. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeping this would be as silly as having an entry docter as a misspelling of doctor. I vote delete, but if it is kept it should be changed to misspelling rather than alternative spelling. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

We actually do keep common misspellings and they are not silly, they are part of the lexicon. Furthermore it is cited in three or more (four) durably archived citations and therefore meets the CFI.Lucifer (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How common is it, absolutely and relatively? I don't think it is common either way. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Google Books reports verbly with 8,370 raw hits and verbally with 2,860,000 (0.3%).

Google Web reports verbly with 106,000 raw hits and verbally with 21,100,000 (0.5%).

From these simple searches I conclude that verbly is relatively uncommon and that it is likely to be a misspelling rather than an alternative as its frequency is higher at the less edited Web. From Chuck's analysis one could conclude that it is absolutely uncommon. Ergo, delete DCDuring TALK 21:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, rare misspelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not an accepted "alternative form" (as the current entry claims). Since we don't have a "rare mis-spelling" template, I suggest we change the entry to "eye dialect" which seems to be the intention of some usages ... or delete it if that's the majority view. Dbfirs 18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We could combine rare and misspelling templates side by side, but I like your idea of an eye dialect spelling.Lucifer (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: it seems a misanalysis of verbally as verb + -ly rather than a misspelling. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have definitely used it to mean "verb"+"-ly" when I needed an adjective for verb as wellLucifer (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The adjective would be "verb-like", and how you could possibly use "verbly" adverbly? Dbfirs 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We call basicly a "common misspelling of basically". It is even more justifiable as a misconstruction, as basical is nonexistent in COCA and quite infrequent (0.004%) relative to basic. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition claims it is "A type of ice cream". It is clearly the name of an ice-cream company. No more valid then, for example, Fudgie the Whale. --Le Fondu (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs to pass WT:BRAND (not inconceivable that it could). Equinox ◑ 16:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion to RFV. bd2412 T 16:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, belay that, as the word easily meets WT:BRAND:

2012, Debbi Rawlins, Barefoot Blue Jean Night, p. 22:
When she wasn't gallivanting about the globe, gathering interesting tidbits for her travel blog, she adored holing up for days at a time with a few pints of Häagen-Dazs, leaving only to go for a dip in the rooftop pool or for a workout in the building's fitness club.
2007, Shiloh Walker, One of the Guys, p. 42:
"So you get an invitation to the wedding from hell and instead of crying or calling me or overdosing on Häagen-Dazs, or all three, you drink an entire bottle of expensive wine and cut your hair."
2006, Betty Londergan, I'm Too Sexy for My Volvo: A Mom's Guide to Staying Fabulous, p. 44:
Bonus! A side of liposuction with your c-section! Of course, my doctor was a big killjoy and looked at me like I was overdosing on Haagen-Dazs when I suggested it, but I thought it was a great idea.
1992, James Melson, The Golden Boy, p. 194:
In my depression I was back gorging on two pints of Haagen Dazs a night.

I wager that a person who hadn't heard of the brand name would presume that Häagen-Dazs was a beer, given the references to it being consumed in pints and to people overdosing on it and then behaving oddly. These authors presume that their readers understand Häagen-Dazs to mean "ice cream". Therefore, keep. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The cites are good (for once) and this really does get mentioned frequently without context. But let's please gloss it as a trademark. Equinox ◑ 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

One more citation:

2007 October 25, Secret Diary of a Call Girl, Season 1, Episode 5:
BELLE: Would you, erm, like to hang out sometime?

NAOMI: Does it involve shagging?

BELLE: No.

NAOMI: Does it involve eating Häagen-Dazs and watching Pretty Woman?

BELLE: Christ, no.

- -sche (discuss) 06:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep, passes WT:BRAND. —An gr 10:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Kept, per apparent consensus. - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sum of parts. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep for idiomatic translations. —CodeCa t 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Translation considerations are irrelevant. Why don't you try citing for a COALMINE justification? Or find a dictionary that includes it? DCDuring TALK 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Keep per COALMINE. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 14:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, I believe they are relevant to the usability of Wiktionary. —CodeCa t 14:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that those entries are relevant, however our current CFI does not grant inclusion, unless COALMINE is met. What do you think about extending WT:COALMINE to allow terms with less common idiomatic synonyms? Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment if this is deleted, the translations should be moved to wolfling . Also there are a lot of Google book hits for "wolfcub" (even more for "Wolfcub") so it passes WT:COALMINE, if you like that kind of argument. Duologist (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Propose the change to CFI.

@Duologist: Cite wolfcub. That is part of CFI. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep despite CFI, as a translation target for single-word non-compound non-English terms: Italian: lupacchiotto, Russian: волчонок, Slovak: vĺča. The translations could be alternatively hosted at wolfling, but wolf cub seems more common. Which leads to a tentative COALMINE-like criterion, pointed to by Matthias Buchmeier above: for an attested multi-word term that is a semantic sum of parts to be included, it suffices that it is significantly more common than its single-word synonym. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep as a set phrase. Wolf child is wrong (unless you're talking about a human child raised by wolves); wolf pup is sometimes used but not as often and is not technically correct. bd2412 T 03:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep, per bd2412. This phrase belongs to the vocabulary of the English language. My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it (it's spelled wolf-cub in my dictionary, but, very clearly, it's the same word). Lmaltier (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing about this that would say that this is a suffix rather than side in combination. DCDuring TALK 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For cogent arguments on the other side of this point, see Category_talk:English_words_suffixed_with_-side. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix and keep: Words like stateside, poolside... Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What definition of side would this be? Do we have it? Should we have it? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that it is just one sense, but MWOnline has "an area next to something — usually used in combination <a poolside interview>". Stateside seems to involve a sense closer to MW's senses of either "a position that is opposite to or contrasted with another" or and extension of "a place, space, or direction with respect to a center or to a line of division (as of an aisle, river, or street)" to 'area of division' to allow an ocean to fit more comfortably to explain its origins. Of course, there is no reason why a current definition of need have an exact fit with each current meaning, just as -le does not have an adequate sense to explain the current meaning of hustle.

I think our closest sense is "A region in a specified position with respect to something." but the reader would have to realize that the something can be defined by context, as in stateside. We are not too consistent as to whether we rely on context to make up for deficiency in our definitions or forbid using context because doing so would deny lexicographic legitimacy to some content. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Adjective: Sense: Run or brought ashore.

Unlike the figurative sense, which seems to behave more as an adjective, this literal sense does not. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the "noun" sense looks like it's supposed to be an adjective. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep the adjective sense: In the sentence, "We came upon a beached whale", "beached" is functioning as an adjective Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood DCDuring. He was suggesting that the first sense is not an adjective while the second (the one in the example) is an adjective. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. If this were a true adjective, it would sometimes appear modified by too or very or in "more beached than". I didn't find such for this sense.

Any past participle can be used to modify a noun. Not every past participle has any other attributes of an adjective or has a distinctive meaning when modifying a noun. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying into the argument that "it's not an adjective unless it can take an adverb", nor the argument that "if it can't take an adverb, axe it", nor the argument that all past participles can or are used to modify nouns Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not for sale anyway. So there. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep - that seems to be what the adjective means. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That's what the past participle of the verb means. This is not used as a true adjective, unlike the other sense. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The example shows it modifying a noun - that used to make it an adjective when I was at school. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It functions as a modifier of a noun, as can virtually any noun or present or past participle. It fails to clearly behave as an adjective distinguishing itself from the behavior of a participle, not being gradable or comparable.

It would be a colossal waste of time to present all of the senses of all nouns and present and past participles redundantly as adjectives. It might lead non-natives relying on this dictionary to use such words in ways that natives would not. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say keep due to the presence of the second sense. Were it not for this, I would prob agree that there is nothing really special enough about the past participle to warrant its own entry, but for the fact that it's already there...it's not wrong to go ahead and show it. Leasnam (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think something that can take the place of an adjective is not necessarily by extension an adjective. The same that pronouns aren't nouns and nouns aren't pronouns. However, it's probably ok to keep this one as long as the other adjectival sense is kept, as it seems silly to delete one and keep the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Leasnam. DAVilla 00:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an important grammatical test case. Why do we have eaten (consumed by eating) but not bitten (attacked by biting)? Why would we have any of them when it's obvious from the past tense? Are supporters suggesting that we should have an adjective for defragmented, as in "a freshly defragmented hard disk"? Equinox ◑ 00:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

= ding + up#Adverb ("thoroughly, completely"). This is not a phrasal verb. It is a verb intensified by adverbial use of up. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But by definition << A phrase, consisting of a verb and either or both of a preposition or adverb, that has idiomatic meaning.>> isn't this what a phrasal verb is? To ding = "strike, beat, thrash" but ding up is more than just to "beat up", it's to "fill full of dings, injure, damage". I could be wrong, but sense 3 appears to be a back-formation from ding up, as I do not see it in older dictionaries with this particular meaning of "injure". Leasnam (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think common, easily found examples, such as a tornado dinged them up pretty good. (c.f. a tornado dinged them pretty good.) seals the pro phrasal verb argument IFAIC. -- ALGRIF talk 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Leasnam: The sense of ding is the one of "To inflict minor damage upon, especially by hitting or striking." A common usage concerns small dents on cars. "Up" adds the idea that there are many, well within the scope of intensification. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Correct. And it is this sense ("To inflict minor damage upon, especially by hitting or striking.") which may be the back-formation of ding up, rather than its parent + up. Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Leasnam: And how would you tell whether that was so? Has the verb been in continuous use? I had always thought of ding#Verb as denominal, as it was in my idiolectic experience. Frankly, this seems extremely implausible. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Algrif: Does "look it up" seal it for look up? Phrasal verbs can be separable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Algrif: I had originally thought that it was part of the long-awaited definition of a phrasal verb that it be idiomatic. Apparently, this is not true. I have amended my indictment accordingly. I wonder how many other non-idiomatic phrasal verbs we have. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DC. Have you forgotten the example of cut up amongst others that we talked about in the past? There is a world of difference between He chopped the log. and He chopped up the log. or again He cut the paper. and He cut up the paper.. A phrasal verb does not have to be idiomatic. It simply has to have a specific definition that differentiates it from the plain verb. Granted that most are noticeably idiomatic in some way, but not all. Hence, I give the (real) example of the tornado that dinged it pretty good, or dinged it up pretty good. You would be obliged to use the phrasal verb ding up if the statement is to make any sense at all. -- ALGRIF talk 12:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] absolute URL

[edit] absolute position

These seem very much SoP... —CodeCa t 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And also rather poorly defined. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, many of them seem either wrong or defined poorly enough that I genuinely can't understand them. Basically check EVERYTHING by AnonymousDDoS (talk • contribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We do need better definitions at absolute and relative though. It seems like both of them already have some senses relating to 'dependent' or 'independent' of context. I wanted to group all of those senses of absolute together, and add the computing sense to that as a subsense, but that group of senses meaning 'independent of context' would include the grammatical definition that's already there, which would then create sub-sub-senses. Is that desirable? —CodeCa t 21:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep all, but the definitions need a lot of improvement. There's no way of knowing which of the dozen meanings of absolute or relative is combined with URL. Context is needed also.--Dmol (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But there is nothing idiomatic about this if we consider other combinations. There are also relative and absolute paths, relative and absolute XPath expressions and so on. All of these uses make use of the same two definitions of relative and absolute that are common throughout computer science, when talking about references in a hierarchial or tree-like structure. —CodeCa t 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The only useful info with these is which of the adjectives is meant, but as soon as you know it's a computing term, it's obvious which one. Absolute and relative are well-known terms in defining any kind of path, whether it's a 1980s MS-DOS path to a file on disk, or a modern path within an XML document, or any number of other things. As with so many of our pseudo-technical entries, we just need good adj definitions at absolute and relative, rather than adding a zillion possible collocations — and trust me, there are very many that we could cite. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dmol, words/terms appear in context in the real world, where we define them in isolation. So the context comes from the real world. Also, since relative and absolute have so many meanings, would we allow any combination of words with these two words? If so, why even bother having entries for absolute and relative, should we delete the English definitions of these two and have people simply look up two word terms? Having entries for every two word term that might be ambiguous seems to defeat the whole premise of a dictionary, to look up words/terms one doesn't understand. To be honest Dmol I think I'm wasting my time as your argument has been consistently rejected by the majority of Wiktionary users at least since I started editing here in 2009. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This is a no-brainer. I've added the relevant sense to [[relative]]. —Ruakh_TALK 14:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Making sites usable to all people regardless of disability." Dunno what to say really. I feel like this should be at RFV as I don't think it means this, or at RFD because if you correct the definition it's SoP (the accessibility of the Web). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Making sites usable to all people regardless of disability." is what it means to me. See also Wikipedia:Web accessibility and Google results for the term. Maybe accessibility could be adapted instead, to mention access for disabled people. Siuenti (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems SoP to me. "Accessibility" is a widely-used term, encompassing desktop software etc., so "Web accessibility" is just that for the Web. Equinox ◑ 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, accessibility doesn't mean "making something accessible" but "the extent to which something is accessible". Accessible backs me up on this, but if you two who know more than me on the topic think it does mean "making something accessible" then do add it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. And even in the context of the Web, parties who use the phrase "web accessibility" also regularly use phrases such as "website accessibility", "HTML accessibility", and so on. —Ruakh_TALK 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I added a citation from the book I found the term in. AnonymousDDoS (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep why? Mglovesfun (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There isn't much to expound upon for this term. Honestly, I created the page rather impulsively, without any searching for an already existing entry. So, I propose that we delete this term and add it to accessibility. Additionally, the definition is pretty vague. I will work on improving that. Thoughts? -AnonymousDDoS (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox: semantic sum of parts with respect to the sense of "accessibility" pertaining to software user interfaces. However, the "accessibility" entry is missing that sense, as long as its definition goes beyond the generic "The quality or state of being accessible", and accessible misses a suitable sense.--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not sure it exists. Something like "improving web accessibility" refers to the definition we already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The current def at accessibility reads "The quality of being accessible, or of admitting approach; receptiveness." That does not convey the requisite meaning to me, especially the "receptiveness" part, but also the "of admitting approach" part. I do not know what it is for a web site to "admit approach" or to be "receptive". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, what I'm saying is the definition of web accessibility may be totally wrong instead of sum of parts. Or to say the same thing in a different way, sum of parts but using a definition which does not exist in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point; the definition "The process of making websites usable to all people regardless of any disabilities they may have" would have to be replaced with "The quality or state of being usable to all people regardless of any disabilities they may have". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an accurate definition. Equinox ◑ 14:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a [[stimulus]] [[package]]. Actually, I'd call this an error rather than a SoP. When Obama talks about a stimulus package, it's not a single term but two consecutive one word terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's a set term for a specific government program. Not guessable from its parts.--Dmol (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep at least for now. I don't think we have the right definition of stimulus at the moment - "Anything that may have an impact or influence on a system" is far too vague to give anyone a clue what a stimulus package would be. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat unsurprisingly, it's not a specific government program. It's attestable before 2008. For example it's attested in 1988. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly a shortening of something like (government Keynesian economic) stimulus (action) package. But the same vague combination of things might refer just to legislation, proposed by anyone or passed by either house; any subset of the total package, as for a given cabinet department; items undertaken by executive action or by the Federal Reserve; and that's just in the US. The common element is (economic) stimulus + package. Delete. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete, by the way I heard relief package on the BBC news a few days ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Noun (???) meaning "sort of". The citation is clearly not for a noun. In fact should we just speedy delete this? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a noun followed by a preposition. It's not any POS or even a syntactic constituent. I suppose we could call it a contraction. —An gr 21:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It has to be attestable, but it's not a noun, just a contraction like Angr said. —CodeCa t 21:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not just call it a phrase, even though it isn't one, and "define" it using {{eye dialect}} of [[sort]] [[of]]? We have plenty of items in Category:English non-constituents. Widespread use. It also doesn't fit our definition of a contraction. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the use that we're calling an adverb is widespread. I'm not sure how widespread the use we're calling a noun is. And why doesn't it fit the definition of a contraction? —An gr 23:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The last time I looked our definition included the word apostrophe, which is certainly the 'folk' understanding of the term among English speakers. Basic grammar books continue to present contractions with this language. Our use of the Contraction header need not be bound by this, but, at the very least, we need to add an appropriate linguistic sense to [[contraction]] and the sense we use at WT:Glossary, unless we don't want to communicate with normal human users.

You may be right about it not being "widespread", but it would certainly be no great effort to cite the non-adverbial use properly, as this Google Books search for "sorta thing" suggests. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we call German im a contraction, and it doesn't have an apostrophe. WT:Glossary doesn't define "contraction" at all, but Appendix:Glossary does and also mentions the apostrophe. —An gr 00:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I regularly confuse the two glossaries. At least the term is in the right glossary. I think we can just "especially" the apostrophe in both our definitions. That should keep us and our users on the same page. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Even with an "especially", we also have to add an "in English" since other languages do not necessarily put apostrophes in their contractions. —An gr 20:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix and keep: There's no argument for deletion here; no evidence that the phrase is SOP or non-attestable or any other reason. All we know is that it ain't a noun. So change it to something else Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep it as an adjective. Contraction is not a part of speech but an etymology. See also helluva. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to qualify nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So what would witcher and yabbut be? There is no absolute necessity that our L3 headings be limited to a scheme of grammatical categories that would satisfy a linguist, let alone a traditional grammarian. We put things under L3 "Phrase" header that are not phrases. See Category:English non-constituents for other syntactically problematic entries. DCDuring TALK 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Witcher is an adverb like together (or the Spanish contigo), and yabbut is a conjunction like but. There are many words that are contractions etymologically, but if they are fixed enough, they should be classified in an appropriate part of speech. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What are dincha and dontcha? Equinox ◑ 00:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would categorize them as auxiliaries just like didn't and don't. The weakening of a postposed pronoun is a common phenomenon and it may become a personal ending eventually. Think about another, which is clearly an + other, but that is just an etymology that doesn't affect the classification. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

cf kinda - has adverb and noun defs. --BiblbroX дискашн 19:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I like to think that I'm smarter now than when I added the noun PoS. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to point any fingers - I didn't know who put that noun def - I just wanted to illustrate similar thinking as I thought it may be useful. Actually nouny meanings seemed far-fetched to me rigth from the start but now I am a little more convinced that I can voice my opinion.--BiblbroX дискашн 23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it kinda funny. I'd always thought that these non-constituent terms needed more attention, which is why I created Category:English non-constituents. I now think that many of them should be under the Contraction header, the Phrase header, or possibly the Preposition header (for so-called phrasal prepositions). But there are some that can be analyzed as if they were an ordinary part of speech, like kinda#Adverb. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(Portuguese). "the auditorium of a school or university," that's not a proper noun and therefore isn't capitalised. An example is given: the w:pt:Aula Magna, but that is capitalised because it is the name of a specific building. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Added by an IP who probably didn't realize that we're case-sensitive. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --BiblbroX дискашн 12:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently deleted. DAVilla 00:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant: Isn't "To flee; to withdraw from" the same as "To depart secretly; to hide from; to steal away"? Also, some of the usage examples are not intransitive. —Internoob 01:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily redundant, but the examples for the first sense seems more appropriate for the second sense. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the senses are different enought to create the need for the separate senses.Speednat (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I will RfV this once the RfD is closed unless someone produces some cites before then. I agree with MWOnline and others that only a "to depart secretly and hide oneself" sense is current.

Webster 1913 has intransitive "hide" as sense 1. I don't think that is current either.

There's been a fair amount of wasted effort on translations. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be water + footprint (sense "The ecological impact of a human activity, machine, etc."). FWIW, the OED does include it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, on seeing the title I assumed it was an imprint somehow left in liquid water. I suspect even encountering the term in context it'd be less than obvious what it refers to (such as "freshwater" not any form of water). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the primary meaning of "footprint" is strong enough that most people won't think of the ecological meaning. Either people will think it's the footprints Jesus left when he walked on water or they'll think it's a footprint made of water (as when someone whose feet are wet walks across a dry sidewalk). I think this is a case where keeping is the better part of valor. —An gr 17:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The other side of this is that this term cannot be used without a definition outside of a usage context in which footprint would have the required meaning to those involved in the communication. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that the definition of footprint can't be ambiguous when used in context. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep per ambiguity. DAVilla 00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep due to ambiguity.--Dmol (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed: adjective "that has been hidden". Presumably this is just the past participle. I always feel a bit uneasy about these, as they're sort of redundant to the verb form but as adjectives. Citations like "very hidden" wouldn't clear the matter up anyway, as adverbs can qualify both adjectives and adverbs. So guys, have fun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's often hard to distinguish a past participle of a verb from the adjective that describes the state or quality that results from that verb's action. Indeed, this distinction didn't even exist in Proto-Indo-European: a participle was an adjective that described this state of being; the idea of using it to refer to a former action came only later. I would personally like it if English participles could be treated this way too, i.e. as a special part of speech "Participle" that may be both verbal and adjectival. That way we won't have unnecessary definitions, and just the definition 'past participle of X' would automatically include any implicit adjectival senses. —CodeCa t 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two other adjective senses not being challenged. The uncited definition given is exactly the definition wording appropriate for a past participle. The "definition" of the English -ing-form in our presentation is present participle of. Why would we need more? DCDuring TALK 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need this, but it might be valid, and if it's valid we keep it whether needed or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the examples given are covered by the previous definitions. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Although a bit off topic, I support CodeCat's proposal of a POS Participle. This would make even more sense for languages which inflect participles just like adjectives. As long as we don't have that, I don't see a reason to keep the definition in question. Longtrend (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. But the definition should be changed: something may be hidden without having been hidden (cf. the example provided: hidden talents). And French inflects past participles like adjectives, but the sense is dfferent: participles refer to the verb action (therefore, they are verb forms), while adjectives refer to a state, a property, not to the verb at all, despite the fact they share the same spelling. This word clearly shows that it's the same for English. Lmaltier (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice the other two senses? I think they include all the most common adjectival meanings of hidden. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sum of parts; it's just cangarú ("kangaroo") + óg ("young"). —An gr 12:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

But does it specifically mean a joey, or just a non-adult kangaroo. The two are not quite the same.--Dmol (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything that the English phrase "young kangaroo" doesn't. —An gr 14:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete simply because I trust Angr's judgment when it comes to Irish. (You could've just circumvented RFD and nobody would have noticed...) --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Embryomystic probably would have. I nominated it rather than speedying it without discussion just in case he actually has evidence I'm unaware that this isn't POS and wants to discuss it here; but I'm quite sure it is POS. —An gr 19:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Synonym for zosuquidar. I dispute that this is English — maybe a Translingual entry is appropriate, but it seems more like a reference number than a word. Equinox ◑ 17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Compare E250 et al. (the E numbers). Therefore, keep and move to Translingual. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We were missing a sense of core here, which has since been added. Now this can be analyzed as nuclear reactor + core. -- Liliana • 11:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Straightforward delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Reactor core (without the nuclear) is just as common. Core of a reactor. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete Even core by itself often means the same thing. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But is this nuclear reactor + core or nuclear + reactor core? —CodeCa t 18:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed (I haven't checked Category:Requests for deletion in quite a while) with the simple logic 'not a suffix'. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Not suffix. Equinox ◑ 00:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, tagged but not listed, "not a suffix". Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See headed. DCDuring TALK 21:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Not suffix. Equinox ◑ 00:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: we have redirected -cheeked to cheeked, not deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a de facto delete as -cheeked has no content, it's been deleted and replaced with a redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to headed per all. DCDuring TALK 12:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

adjective: Bound by the articles of an apprenticeship.

The definition of the transitive sense of article#Verb is "to bind by articles of apprenticeship." The derived term at the adjective articled clerk is shown as a DT at article#Verb. This is shown as noncomparable. Nothing comparable or gradable appears at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know Finnish. But this looks a lot like bulgarian ("Bulgarian") + kieli ("language"). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It probably is, and it's got plenty of companions: ruotsin kieli, norjan kieli, venäjän kieli, italian kieli, espanjan kieli, islannin kieli... In Finnish the name of a country and its language are often only separated by capitalization: Ruotsi/ruotsi, Norja/norja, Venäjä/venäjä, Italia/italia, Espanja/espanja, Islanti/islanti. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the forms x:n kieli are quite common. Whether they deserve entries of their own, I leave to others to decide. I have no strong opinion to either direction. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. Keep, though we have an entry for ware with this sense, the usage example actually back up this and not that. Unless it's trivial to cite that sense of ware, I say rfv it and keep this in the meantime. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The sense of ware has now been cited. Debate on, guys! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep #1, unsure about #2. But tweak it to note that sometimes -ware is tacked onto proper nouns, like "Revere" Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cautious keep, feels like a true suffix, as the suffix is current while the noun is archaic. Mglovesfun (talk)

Keep the noun, while we're at it. Being archaic ≠ being deleted. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ware seems to be completely current in use semantically. No native speaker would have trouble understanding it. It is only its relative scarcity in singular use other than in open compounds like silver ware that gives a dated feel to it.

It would not be bad to add the specific ways in which ware combines, using the wording from -ware#Etymology 1, though I wonder if there are really only two. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's invention. Besides the definition makes no sense. It's people who are promiscuous, not their organs or orifices. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The definition says it's the person who is promiscuous. —An gr 23:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That'll teach me to read properly :) *hides*. It's created by the same person who created pearl eye patch. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the term gets plenty of hits at b.g.c, so it's not just "someone's invention". The only remaining question is, is this an idiom or a transparent sum of parts? —An gr 23:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sexual references such as "fuck my hole", "fill my hole", and "plug my hole" abound, so it seems that "hole" can be used by itself to mean a sexual orifice. bd2412 T 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Seems like an open-and-shut case: def 2 at whore + def 10 at hole. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probably just a metaphor rather than an idiom, a live metaphor as apparently they are called. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

keep. This word gets hits on google, I thought I made it up until I searched it. I was actually disappointed to find that I had not created it. Their are many listings of it including the urban dictionary, not that it helps. I get the feeling that the urban dic is not much liked aruond here. Anyway, many hits on google, its real. Im no scholar and if the definition makes no sense please help fix it. Thanks Sonic Matrix (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Red umbrella" gets many more hits on Google, but that doesn't make it a word. bd2412 T 13:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just like #bulgarian kieli, except that this time, it's a Tbot entry in Lithuanian. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would want a native opinion here. I know nothing of Latvian but e.g. in Estonian the forms with keel ("language") seem to be more common than those without. In Finnish, on the contratry, the forms without the word kieli ("language") are much more common, and as native speaker, I wouldn't shed a tear on the grave of bulgarian kieli and others of the same type. There's some analogy to the discussion we once had of entries of the type nominative case / nominative. I don't remember why, but the consensus was then to keep both. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not native but in Lithuanian it's much more common to say tadžikų kalba (lit.: language of Tajiks) than tadžikų where it is genitive plural of tadžikas (a Tajik person), "tadžikų" is an abbreviation. Same with other language names. The same applies to Latvian (adjective + noun), Slavic (especiallyEast Slavic languages), a lot of South East Asian (vi, th, km, lo, id, ms), where it is a MUST to use the word "language, "etc. Even though the Russian таджикский can be understood as a language name, it's more correct and common to use "таджикский язык" to refer to the language, even if these entries are missing. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] ticket stamping machine

Sum of parts, it's basically defined as 'automatic machine which stamps tickets'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

delete both. Definition is obvious. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete both. It hardly gets more SoP than this. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep as translation target (Non-SOP translations in German and possibly other languages). Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- English translations of such single-word terms terms should be ticket stamping machine (for example). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete per SemperBlotto. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@Matthias Buchmeier surely we can't keep every possible English multi-word term that in German can be translated as a single word. Certainly your argument is outside of CFI, even WT:CFI#Phrasebook wouldn't allow this sort of entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete "automatic ticket stamping machine"; it has very few hits anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ticket stamping machine?

As regards "ticket stamping machine", I am inclined to keep regardless of CFI. If "ticket stamping machine" is what you would most often call the thing that, when calqued from German, would be called "ticket devaluator" and that looks like the thing in the picture to the right, it seems worth having in a dictionary. Admittedly, ticket stamping machine at OneLook Dictionary Search finds nothing, yet washing machine at OneLook Dictionary Search finds a lot of dictionaries, even though it is defined in Wiktionary as "a machine, usually automatic, which washes clothes etc". OTOH, the argument for keeping "washing machine" could be that a machine for washing dishes is not a "washing machine". Using a similar argument, ticket machine would not be a sum of parts, as it is a ticket vending machine. Furthermore, "ticket stamping machine" could be a nice translation target if other languages than the compoundforminglanguage German have a single-word term: French composteur seems to be the case in point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me highlight the advantage of translation targets. Given the question 'how do I say "Entwerter" in French?', a translation target helps you get from the German term to the French one ("composteur"). Given the question 'how do I say "ticket stamping machine" in French?' (assuming it is the most common term referring to the thing in English), a translation target chosen as a common term gets you to the French term. Translation targets are unusual in monolingual dictionaries, but useful in a multilingual dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could be useful, but so could including translation tables for every entry in every language, or full definitions for every inflected form. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Including translation tables for every entry in every language is an option; English Wiktionary has chosen to avoid it. Actually, translation targets is an alternative to that option: if you have translation tables in non-English entries, you do not really need translation targets. Full definitions of every inflected form create a maintenance nightmare, as far as I can see, with very little benefits. Keeping translation targets does not create any maintenance nightmare. I have not seen any convincing argument against translation targets yet, if any argument at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tried lots of variations on regular Google; "ticket validating machine" and "ticket validation machine" seem to be the most common terms. w:Ticket machine refers to a machine that sells tickets rather than one that (only) validates them. —An gr 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
My search finds this: google:"ticket stamping machine": 109,000 hits; google:"ticket validating machine": 81,100 hits; google:"ticket validation machine": 80,200 hits. In the searches, I have clicked "Next" several times to verify the numbers are stable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete both.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Presumably, the stamp serves a specific purpose. A parking validator also stamps a ticket, but the purpose is to avoid charge, so it would not be a ticket stamping machine. DAVilla 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Defined as ad infinitum#English.

See ad#Latin + infinitum#Latin. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is defined through English - this is an English dictionary. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, what exactly is the problem here? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is SoP in Latin, but not in English, which borrowed it from Latin. So the Latin phrase should be deleted. —CodeCa t 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be SoP in Latin, but if so what do the parts mean? Is it used in Latin, or coined outside of Latin a bit like en suite in English where it's coined in English based on two French words. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, if it is SOP in Latin, the Latin entry should be deleted. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes but like I said... if. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that it is SoP in Latin. It may be a set phrase, but not an idiomatic phrase. —CodeCa t 19:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep and send to RFV. I can't articulate why exactly, although I suspect that it wouldn't matter, because I think it would be damn hard to cite anyway. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of switching venues? If someone can show it to be a set phrase, they can do so while it resides here. I have no doubt that the phrase would be attestable with some kind of meaning. I just expect the meaning to be directly construable from the basic meanings of the components. That's what RfD is supposed to be for. If the problem is that not enough people with knowledge are around, then we shouldn't be closing out RfDs, we should be waiting for knowledgeable folks to return, new knowledgeable folks to arrive, or for regulars to get more knowledgeable. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're either missing or ignoring the point; what are the senses of ad and infinitum that mean this would be sum of parts? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, ad only has one sense and either of the two senses of infinitum would work. It's the same as English to + infinity, (which is not too common, but since it is SOP, people understand it). --WikiTiki89 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point, in English you can't say "I did the washing up to infinity". Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete Latin as SOP. If we want to make exceptions for these awkward situations, we would have to accept English sum-of-parts phrases that are set phrases in other languages. DAVilla 00:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who speaks Latin think this is SoP, or do only people who don't speak Latin think this is SoP? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. People who advocate the deletion don't boast great skills in Latin. We all know the components but who can prove that it's not idiomatic? Even if it's a very common set phrase in Latin, it has given rise to expressions in other languages, so the entry should be kept and improved by knowledgeable people. In my scarce studies of Latin back in Russia, it's one of the first phrases I learned and it was popular among my classmates (Russian hasn't copied it from Latin, although dictionaries may now include "ад инфинитум", we just use до бесконечности (do beskonéčnosti - "to/till infinity"). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] vow of chastity

vow of silence has been deleted, I suggest we delete these as well but perhaps we should add them to vow under "common collocations" or additional senses in order to provide translations since all three are religious in nature and they may be terms someone would want to search and therefore would desire a translation but a literal translation would not necessarily yield the proper translation, a translation guide entry for phrases may also answer that question.PureWhiteKnight (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Just like vow of silence, vow of secrecy, ..purity, ..abstinence, and you can replace vow with oath or promise to get plenty more collocations that can be trivially understood from their parts. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete The several vows should go through the process, though. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete, maybe add some vow of... citations to Citations:vow. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] have an ax to grind

This is have ("possess") + an + axe/ax to grind ("POV to push").

It is not a set phrase as ax/axe can accept modifiers, such as no, personal, institutional, etc. and coordinates. ax/axe to grind often appears as object of the preposition with.

The strong relationships with have and with are the stuff of redirects and usage examples and notes. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete ax to grind unless it can be demonstrated that "ax to grind" is used with verbs other than have/has/had Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's used with get, e.g. "got an axe to grind": see Google Books. Equinox ◑ 00:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to put that one up for RfD or RfV or whatever. This does not concern that entry. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"ax(e) to grind" is fairly easy to cite without have (and also with pronouns like "his" and "her" in place of the article). Like DCDuring says, "with an axe to grind" is a common phrase. Mark Twain for instance said "To every man cometh, at intervals, a man with an axe to grind". I can also cite "What was his axe to grind?", "Choosing an ax to grind in today's world isn't easy" and "None of them carried an ax to grind." have is overwhelmingly the most common verb to take ax to grind as an object, but it's not the only one. Redirect to ax to grind/axe to grind Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The definitions at have an axe to grind and ax to grind are a bit different. I don't know if that means that they mean different things or if ax to grind just needs to be updated, in which case I vote delete have an axe to grind and have an ax to grind. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Or does have an ax/axe to grind need to be corrected? DCDuring TALK 12:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix and redirect per SMinC. DAVilla 00:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

+ all the other "XXX language" redirects: shouldn't they all be deleted as unnecessary SoP redirects? I've marked all the ones I found with {{rfd}}. --Pereru (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Note: Pereru, you should probably compile a complete list here, and instead of having {{rfd}}, they should have {{temp|rfd|fragment=Japanese language}} so that they all link here. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I previously voted keep for all these entries for a really stupid reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of the ones I found (there probably are others):

Spanish language, Portuguese language, French language, Italian language, Hebrew language, Arabic language, German language, Dutch language, Danish language, Russian language, Polish language, Greek language, Urdu language, Turkish language, Chinese language, Japanese language

--Pereru (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Latin language. (If I find any more, I'll post them here.) --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bicolano language, Leonese language, Low Saxon language, Old English language, Persian language. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also possibly Gheg Albanian, Lipan Apache. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

These crop up every so often. Hard redirect to Japanese or the like unless there is some additional reason to keep any specifically. DAVilla 00:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep some of them. For example, Chinese language means Mandarin (or sometimes Classical Chinese) while Chinese languages means a language group of Mandarin, Wu, Cantonese, etc. In the latter case, you don't say Chineses. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

But why redirect? The fact that Chinese language means Mandarim sounds to me like ==Usage notes== material, not a redirect. Or else, why isn't French language the same? After all, it doesn't refer to Breton, Alsacian, Wayana, or other languages natively spoken in the territory of the French Republic, but only to the official language of that state.

Also, my point here is about lack of unified policy. If Urdu language is deemed a "useful" redirect, then why not Latvian language, which was deemed worthy of immediate deletion? Or, conversely: if Latvian language should be deleted, why not delete Urdu language? What's the big difference? --Pereru (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Chinese language", like "Chinese", is easily attestable in either sense—Mandarin specifically or the Chinese language family generally. (Here is one example of the latter. More are easy to come by.) There appears to be no distinction in meaning between Chinese language and Chinese + language. —Caesura ^(t) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that these "* language" terms are older than "*". Thus, the term "English language" would have been used at a period at which "English" would not have been used to refer to the language. If that is so, I would like to keep "English language" as the only English term referring to the English language in that period of language. But this is a mere hypothesis, which I do not know how to verify. Some more thoughts: in German, "Deutsche Sprache" seems to be preferred in formal publication, or at least it used to be so, or I have got something wrong. This, again, would be a hint for me to want to keep the terms under discussions, both the English ones and non-English ones. But as all this is just a guess and hypothesis, I abstain. Let me add that the redirects seem to be some sort of recognition of semi-inclusion-worthiness of the terms under discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word "English" alone to mean "English language" is as old as the English language itself; OED has citations dating back to early Old English. And if there is some register difference between "deutsche Sprache" and "Deutsch" (which I doubt; "Deutsch" is surely easy to attest in even the most formal settings), I can't imagine how that could have any conceivable bearing on the idiomaticity of these phrases in English that are under consideration. Delete them all. This is a straightforward case of SOP. —Caesura ^(t) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because Unicode has it doesn't mean that we have to. We don't include every codepoint imaginable (or do we...? Well, we shouldn't). I'd rather that somebody spent their time creating 㶷, the real character which this attempts to duplicate. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's correct that this is a mistaken duplicate, then hard redirect IMO.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That will only work if someone creates the page for it to hard-redirect to (see my comment above). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I see two possibilities, if this is actually used as a mistaken encoding for 㶷 then we should redirect there (when it exists) and explain that. If this is a mention-only term, only ever mentioned as a mistake or in lists of characters, then we should delete it. No need to catalog every error by every organization. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If 𤈎 is an exact duplicate of 㶷, how can you tell which is wrong? - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Because one of them is widely supported, and the other isn't. It would fail RFV — should I post it there, too? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Create 㶷 and redirect there. bd2412 T 05:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've nothing against autists but, how is this phrasebook material? It is certainly not any common. -- Liliana • 18:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, it is around here! Equinox ◑ 18:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this even how it's usually said? Isn't I'm autistic more common? --Yair rand (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the usefulness of letting company know that one is autistic or possesses autism was reason enough to conserve this. Some entries, such as 'I need a razor' are not common in writing but are, I suppose, still permitted if they are convenient. Since I (apparently) do not have a good grasp on what is either useful or common, I can stop creating more phrasebook entries if anyone desires, since they are not that important to me. In any case, I have to admit that I honestly do not really care if this entry becomes deleted or not. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(Re Yair:) I don't know. I do know that literature from diabetes organizations refer to people with diabetes as just that, not as diabetics.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I'd rather see this as I have... with also I'm... and I need... rather than naming every single noun and adjective. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per MG; sounds like a good solution. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"An instance of buying or selling." I think (i) this isn't a perfect definition, since other deals can potentially occur in business (e.g. cross-licensing) and (ii) as any kind of deal done for business purposes, it's sum of parts. Equinox ◑ 00:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. It's been here since 2002! And no translation table.

More common Noun-Noun collocations at COCA are budget deal, peace deal, book deal. Also common there are record deal, plea deal, package deal, trade deal, land deal, drug deal, sweetheart deal, movie deal, real estate deal, endorsement deal, arms deal. How do we pick the ones that we pick? It is obviously not frequency in print and other media. DCDuring TALK 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We should have drug deal, because there is an implicit understanding that it only refers to illegal drugs, and sweetheart deal because it doesn't involve an actual sweetheart. I would delete business deal as SOP, and not have trade deal, land deal, movie deal, real estate deal, or endorsement deal. bd2412 T 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, we should have movie deal, as it can refer very specifically to a deal in which an actor agrees to star in a certain number of movies. bd2412 T 13:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

re: drug deal: Pfizer In 4 1/2-Year Accord: Drug Deal May Be Worth $117 Million. Boston Globe.

re: movie deal: Or it could mean any of a number of other things, relating to the script, production, finance, or distribution. I guess we could have each kind of deal because, after all, how would someone not in the industry know which one was meant, except from context. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Pfizer article, that would be the SOP meaning of drug deal, which is no different than if companies enter into a "computer parts deal" or an "aluminum deal". As for the different meanings of movie deal, it seems that the primary meanings are 1) for an actor to agree to star in a set number of pictures for a studio, 2) for a studio to coem to an agreement to make a movie out of some oter source material, such as a book, a play, or someone's life story; and 3) a coupon or similar bargain for the purchase of tickets to see movies. bd2412 T 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete, sigh. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete business deal only. DAVilla 00:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only does the definition not make sense to me, but I also think this looks like either a breakdown of the structure of work, or a structure for the breakdown of work, both of which are SOP. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. The vocabulary of linguists and computerists (eg. free morpheme, preferences) has curious subtleties that the jargon of management does not. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have been written by a native English-speaker. Borderline improvable, but I would not mind it being deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, it was written by DCDuring who's known to quite like to use difficult words when simple words will do, but usually only in the Wiktionary: namespace! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It says (This entry is here for translation purposes only.) but there aren't actually any translations on the page! Oh the irony. -- Liliana • 11:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I kinda want to make a serious comment, but I can't think of one. Just instead I'll just say 'hahahahaha'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty no more. A-ha. Ha-ha. :-) --BiblbroX дискашн 12:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway delete as SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

But is pastry shop i.e. patisserie completely synonymous to cake shop? Does it sell only pastry (A baked food group which contains items made from flour and fat pastes such as pie crust; also tarts, bear claws, Napoleons, puff pastries, etc.) by default, or can also offer ice-cream, halva, w:bajadera? Anyway does ice-cream contain any fat paste? I thought cake shop is a more broad term for a kind of shop having any type of cakes. But I guess cake is not the same as confection, right? Is there a more contemporary term for confectioner's shop? --BiblbroX дискашн 13:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The same thought occurred to me, but we do have cakery. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will come along any minute and point out that there are many meanings for cake and for shop, and that we have to let people know which apply to this combination. I'm sure these same people have their closet doors at home marked with signs saying "closet" so their guests won't wander in and get lost while looking for the bathroom. Think of all the countless kinds of small retail establishments that one finds in any directory, and then think of creating entries for all of them ... and then vote Delete as I'm doing here. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I found that one also. Anyway I removed my translation entries and put them into sweetshop since I believe the def corresponds to them. So perhaps cake shop is indeed for deletion as SoP, but wouldn't pastry shop be also then? As it is tagged as for translation purposes only but also has no translations in it? --BiblbroX дискашн 14:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE (and add an actual definition to cake shop instead of {{translation only}}). I've added citations to cakeshop. —Caesura ^(t) 15:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, keep per COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

rfd-redundant: "A patient's struggle with a long-term, potentially deadly illness, such as cancer". This is just the struggle sense in a specific context. Overly specific for my liking too, as you can battle any illness whether potentially fatal or not, or battle against injuries. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. You can have a battle with cancer, a battle with a cold, a battle with an injury, a battle with your conscience, a battle with your hair, a battle with your anxiety, and so on. These are all captured by the sense "struggle". —Caesura ^(t) 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete, and move the 2012 citation under either 1 or 2. Leasnam (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep or Move. I thought about creating lose one's battle instead; can you lose your battle with a cold or an injury? I think you can only lose your battle with a fatal illness. This is an idiom not directly translatable into all languages that have sense #1 or sense #2. If you view it as the same as #1 or #2 you might as well delete #2 and just leave #1. As well as which, someone need not necessarily be "struggling"; maybe they are actively taking drugs or trying treatments or consulting doctors, but maybe they are just lying in bed hoping they get better. One might say their body is struggling, but again that's at one remove from #2. Jnestorius (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Though I see someone changed my definition to "specifically, A patient's struggle..." which framed it nicely for a delete. I've changed this to "A patient's suffering from ..." as it's not necessarily a struggle. Jnestorius (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think you've made the definition worse, it probably qualifies for speedy deletion now for being just plain wrong, as it does refer to the struggle not the suffering. I will therefore revert to the correct (but in my view redundant) definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. Regardless of the level of abstraction/metaphor, a battle is something you fight, and fighting is inherently active, not passive. Although you could quibble about whether "struggling" is the best word, it's got to be some synonym that involves active opposition. As for losing a battle with a cold, if I feel like I might be coming down with a cold, I do everything I can to help my immune system so I can fight it off. In that sense, ending up with a full-blown cold is indeed losing a battle with the cold. Any outcome which you've unsuccessfully tried to avoid can be metaphorically described as having lost your battle with that which caused the outcome. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For example "he lost his battle with cancer" doesn't mean "he lost his suffering against cancer". Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A battle with a cold or injury is still a battle between you and the illness/trauma. Even if "you" are not actively participating, your immune system still is, and your immune system is part of you therefore "you" are struggling with the other combatant. If a person is in a coma and suffering from cold, is he/she struggling with illness? I'd say yes. Delete --BiblbroX дискашн 10:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This term is commonly associated with these types of struggles, moreso than battles with hair. Hardly a contest as the cancer also loses in the end. Reword with the angle of a personal struggle, using a terminal illness as a "such as". Specifically already marks it as a subsense. DAVilla 00:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems SOP. Compare "scare ___ witless", "beat ___ senseless", and so on. (Also, if we do keep this, then the correct entry title is scare someone senseless, or just scare senseless.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just one of at least hundreds. Delete. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Instinctively delete, but I can see why you might keep it. The number of such combinations doesn't mean that the combinations are all easy to understand; we certainly don't cover this at senseless. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

rfd-sense: To use and adopt (information) in order to understand an issue, make a decision, etc.

We can't go on what this map says; it's twenty years out of date.

I didn't make a decision because I didn't have anything to go on.

This is go ("proceed") (or other senses) with a prepositional phrase. That is exactly what a phrasal verb is not. In many cases the prepositional phrase could be headed by with or by with similar meaning.

In addition, there is nothing special about information. We can't go on one tankful of gas. We can't go on a cup of coffee and a piece of toast. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep, MacMillan defines it as "to base an opinion or decision on something" [12] and IMO you can't get to "base an opinion or decision" from "go". The police had nothing to go on after a master criminal stole their toilets. Siuenti (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this definition of go on is unduly specific. I don't think that go on is limited to "information". To me it seems that any kind of material supply, information, or even emotional support could follow the preposition/particle on.

Consider non-information as complement of on:

He's going on just a half charge of his cell phone. He'll never make it.

Why do you think you could go on a piece of toast and a cup of coffee?

I don't think we should go on his word.

In addition we can substitute by and with into the usage examples for the sense. Does that mean we need to add one (or more) senses to each of go with and go by? DCDuring TALK 17:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring and would add that "go from" can also be used this way. With that in mind, this seems like it is indeed merely another sense of the word "go". bd2412 T 04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Siuenti has a point, go on its own doesn't seem to mean act on information. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How would you reconcile the non-information usage examples above with our entry for go? DCDuring TALK 10:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Those examples seem strange to me, without context I would interpret them as referring to actual movement. On the other hand, if a duration was added ("go the whole morning on a piece of toast") I would interpret them as meaning "endure", but that's a very different sense from "make deductions". Siuenti (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What does He's going on just a half charge of his cell phone. He'll never make it. mean? Is this charge meant as charge of the battery? If so, I don't think this necessarily refers to some movement. --BiblbroX дискашн 21:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@Siuenti: Go is a wonderfully flexible word that can be used to mean almost anything that can be viewed literally or metaphorically as a journey. But it is a light verb, so it seems to need some kind of supplementation to heavy it up, like the temporal "all morning" or a locative or a particle.

The usage examples don't seem strange to me, though all morning is a good addition.

He's going on just a half charge of his cell phone. He'll never make it. going = "proceed through his 'day'/'morning'/'journey between recharging points'".

I don't think we should go on his word. go = "proceed"

I think that the solution of adding meanings to go doesn't work because the putative prepositional phrases can't survive some transformations with meaning intact.

He went on a hunch - *On a hunch he went. - *It is on a hunch that he is going.

Similarly:

We can go on his word. - *On his word we can go. - *It is on his word that we can go.

If this is true, I wonder how many senses we might need to add to [[go on]].

The first usage example in the challenged definition does not well illustrate a phrasal verb go on as it is ambiguous. It can easily be read as go (journey, proceed, travel, depart) + PP. The negative-valenced usage examples, though natural enough, add semantic complications to transformational tests, it seems to me. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Restored and still under RFD. Can't determine why this had been deleted. DAVilla 03:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to cocksucker. There are various other ways to spell the same thing most of which can probably be attested (e.g. c*cksucker, c***sucker, c---sucker, etc.). --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Send to RFV. The only durable citation currently in the citations page is of a different spelling. - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It actually seems to be a clerical error Talk:c**ksucker demonstrates a clear pass, reopening this debate at this time seems wrong based on such a clear pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I felt that such censored forms (being a stylised way to rewrite any word) should not be included, but I seem to remember the vote went against me. Equinox ◑ 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems SOP to me. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It seems like set term with a defined legal meaning (although I may be wrong), and we have a habit of keeping those (compare due process, for example). The legal setting is, of course, halachic. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on keeping vs deleting, but as Metaknowledge says, this may pass the "prior knowledge" test, and Ruakh or someone else with Hebrew dictionaries could check to see if it passes the lemming test or not. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: the implied question at the end of your comment: The only one of my dictionaries that seems like it conceivably could include such a specialized Medieval/Jewish-law expression is Even-Shoshan, and so far as I can see, it does not. I think the lemming-test is inconclusive. —Ruakh_TALK 02:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This is not something I know anything about, but according to multiple of my dictionaries, as well as to w:he:נבלה (הלכה), the noun נבילה \ נְבֵלָה (n'veilá) ordinarily refers to the dead body of an animal that either died naturally or was killed non-kosherly (see w:Shechita) (well, there are some other senses, too, but none relevant); so, the use of חתיכה נעשית נבילה ("the piece [of food] becomes a n'veilá") to refer to mixing-of-milk-and-meat–type problems (see w:Kashrut#Separation of meat and milk) does, on the face of it, seem like it must be idiomatic. (And, lest there be any doubt, w:he:חתיכה נעשית נבילה does confirm that that's what it refers to, and that article feels the need to put נבילה in scare-quotes when it tries to explain the expression. By the way, that same article also mentions that this phrase is abbreviated חנ״נ, and while the existence of an abbreviation is no guarantee of idiomaticity, it is suggestive.) Also, quite frankly, I trust msh210's judgment. He is knowledgeable about this stuff (unlike myself, and unlike Wikitiki89), and he's no rabid inclusionist, and we know that his original decision to create this entry wasn't just a fluke, given that he made further edits to the entry more than two years later. —Ruakh_TALK 02:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's just that to me it seemed more likely to be a figurative usage of נבילה than an idiomatic phrase. I'm not one to say whether נבילה is ever used like that outside of this phrase. I hadn't thought to check who added it but since it was msh210, I guess we could keep it as a non-idiomatic phrase even if it is SOP. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

rfd-sense:

2. (as a prefix): To excess.

He is over-zealous.

The latest policy was over-conservative.

This is a prefix, not an adjective. The proper place for this sense is at over- (where, of course, it already exists). —Caesura ^(t) 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete according to those usexes. If it's used without the hyphen then it could be a different matter. Equinox ◑ 23:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete But do we really think that words are really formed from a prefix over- rather than by combination of over#Adverb. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It is a prefix. over zealous seems like it is only used informally since informal English seems to hate hyphens. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Used to make adverbs from -handed, which was itself deleted per a WT:TR discussion. Not a true suffix (compare the -mower in lawn-mower). Equinox ◑ 23:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there is nothing at -handedly at OneLook Dictionary Search or handedly at OneLook Dictionary Search (Click on the apparent links for handedly). Whether you look at this diachronically or synchronically this seems implausible. Diachronically, it seems implausible that there should be a term ending in handedly before there would be the corresponding term ending in handed. Synchronically, I an skeptical of rare compound affixes. Unless evidence or authority is produced, delete. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi off-topic, right-handedly is probably a rare or nonstandard form of right-handed ("Albert Pujols batted and threw right-handed", rather than right-handedly). Delete, cannot see this being controversial. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Also, I think the baseball example is an example of adjectives being used in place of adverbs. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a potential difference between a word ending in "handed" vs "handedly". For example:

He went though life single-handed. (deprived of one hand) - ???He went through life single-handedly.
He had play the game single-handedly. (using just one hand) - ???He had to play the game single-handed.

The handed forms relate to attributes, usually durable, of the subject when engaging in the activity conveyed in the verb. The handedly forms are clearly manner adverbs, confined to the duration of the verb. But one can say He's is batting right-handed today, which does seem adverbial. One could use right-handedly in the context of the second example sentence at least. (He tried to play the game right-handedly, then left-handedly.). DCDuring TALK 12:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any difference in meaning between -handedly and -handed (when used as an adverb). Also, I think that in both of your examples, single-handed(ly) is more likely to have the figurative meaning of "without the aid of others". one-handed(ly), on the other hand, does not have this figurative meaning and whether it means "using just one hand" or "having just one hand" depends more on context than on which form is chosen. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The extralegal trade between Greenlandic natives and Scottish whalers during the period 1814-1940.

This is a particular instance of the ing-form of troak ("barter"). Whether it is attestably distinguishable from the generic term seems implausible. I didn't find evidence at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Recently failed for noun sense. Seems like verb sense doesn't offer much more. DAVilla 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this failed RFD or was swept under the rug with the above. DAVilla 02:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"A fictional furry creature in the Gremlins films."

Doesn't seem to meet the fictional-universe rule of WT:CFI as it apparently hasn't attained independent use like lightsaber. Astral (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I think the furry creature in Gremlins is merely a specific example of the legendary Chinese creature. We wouldn't have a separate sense under Bigfoot for a specific fictional Bigfoot that appeared in a specific film. bd2412 T 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the definition should be "a species of furry creatures", the rule is "never feed a mogwai after dark" IIRC. One citation could be from Enimem's "here we go": "I don't gas my Mercedes after midnight, I treat it like a Mogwai Cuz it will turn into a Gremlin, and run over kids, women and men" Siuenti (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

SoP. Besides, this term means (a) "good shooter" rather than "sniper". - - Dixtosa 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have done some percursory searching, as all my sources show the many variations of "abbasi"; however, they do not show this word as a variation of the singular, only the plural, and all my searching via "google books", has shown naught. Speednat (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So WT:RFV then? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could try an evidence-based RFD, i.e. solve it here. google books:"an abassis" turns up nothing, and google books:"one abassis" turns up four instances of a personal name. Delete the singular sense. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see at least a couple of Google Books entries supporting a plural of abassi. Did you mean to apply (rfd-sense) to only one of the two senses? Equinox ◑ 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that was clear from the comment. Speednat isn't as experienced as some other editors and probably doesn't know the {{rfd-sense}} template. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry all, I was running out the door to church, and wanted to finish the three things I had going on before I left. The answer is, just the singular sense, not the plural. I was trying to look up an "rfd" for senses only but couldn't find it, and I gave up, due to time constraints. All my searches pull it up as a plural. It may have been entered inadvertently bu whomever originally entered it and no-one caught it.

On another note, Wiktionary isn't as organized as Wikipedia, as I never seemed to have trouble finding what I wanted on Wikipedia, but I seem to struggle over here. That is not a personal cut on anyone, just an observation. As always, thanks for pointing out better ways to do things and mistakes that I make. (again no sarcasm intended) :)Speednat (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of searching under "one abassis" or "an abassis". That just shows that I shouldn't be editting on Sunday mornings while rushed.Speednat (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's alright, you wouldn't have found anything if you had searched using those phrases. That supports your suspicion that "abassis" is only ever the plural of "abassi", not a singular. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Striking and moving to RFV. The nomination clearly fits to RFV rather than RFD, as the question is whether a term is actually ever used in a particular sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be common to see this at the end of a place name, but does it actually have any meaning in modern English? Or is it just a cranberry morpheme? —CodeCa t 10:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I'm surprised that survived so long with various people editing it when the definition is completely wrong (you can't romanize something that is already in the Latin alphabet). As far as I can tell it is nothing more than -ing +‎ -ton.

Wow that's terrible, I say speedy delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've improved the entry by removing the 'definition' (sad but true). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we think that -ingtun#Old English is any better? DCDuring TALK 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether -ingtun should exist or not, but the current definition is very bad. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This is simply the case of two independent, no-longer-productive morphemes being coincidentally found together in some place names (and the surnames derived from them). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And, while we're at it, delete, -ingtun, which seems to have been created solely as something for -ington to link to. I would be astonished if it existed as an actual suffix in Old English. I also have my doubts about -tun, which seems to be just tun as used in compounds (though I notice we have -town). At the very least, we need to take out the reference to -ington/-ingtun Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And delete -ingatun, too Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Does a suffix have to be productive in order to be catalogued as an entry? I thought it just needed meaning. It is a very prevalent place-name termination (Lexington, Arlington, Wellington, Washington) and the origin is not always simply -ing + -ton. However, to be honest, I really see no value in having place-name terminations in a dictionary, except for interest's sake (the entry at -ville is very informative). What then about -ville? Don't we have to be fair? Or can we get -ington up to the same level? My vote is to improve and re-assess and see if it's worth anything before removing. Personally, I often find myself wandering in thought about such things like: does the '-ington' in "Washington" really mean anything? Where did it come from?. Is Wiktionary the place to help answer these types of questions? Leasnam (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It should have been demonstrably productive at some time, I would think. If not, it doesn't seem to meet the linguistic definition of suffix. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that it isn't a suffix at all. It's two suffixes: -ing, which is used by itself in many town names, as well is with other word elements such as dale and worth, and -ton, which is also commonly found without -ing. It's really a two-step suffixation process: first add -ing to denote "something/someone related to..." and then add -tun "town". In other words, it often means "town of the X-ings". Don't forget, also, that there are Old English personal names ending in -ing, so it sometimes originally meant "X-ing's town". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The two-step suffixation is a strong hypothesis in two senses: it seems likely to be usually true and it can be disconfirmed with a single counterexample. Some contemporary compound suffixes seem to have been productive in the sense that there is little or no evidence that any intermediate form came into use before the word with the compound suffix. IMO, the synchronic approach to etymology has a lot to answer for here at Wiktionary in terms of failing to meet any burden of empirical demonstration for claims of affixation. DCDuring TALK 14:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] -ingtun

Many of the same issue apply. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Compounding can be a generator of new suffixes: -ation, -ative, -ling, -kin, -ren were all created in this way--though some of these have not remained as transparent as -ington. Leasnam (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But have either of these ever actually been productive? DCDuring TALK 21:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] -ingatun

I don't necessarily favour deletion, I just thought this entry needed to be considered along with -ingtun. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sense: "Street address of a person."

Sole citation:

1859 Easton, Alexander, A Practical Treatise on Street or Horse-Power Railways, p 108, "Rules adopted by the Sixth Avenue Railway, N. Y.":
4. You will report accidents or collisions at the Superintendent's Office at Forty-third Street, immediately on arrival, with the names and residences of witnesses.

By the same token, based on this usage example, we should have a sense for accident ("a written or verbal description of a mishap"). DCDuring TALK 13:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation is not really relevant as it is in common use, but I agreed that this is more of a pragmatic reading. DAVilla 06:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This to me looks like a distinct sense, hence a keeper, DCDuring's comparison doesn't seem to work. Address also has both of these meanings. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction; address has neither sense. I mean what the Hell? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the two senses; I guess 'street location' which I removed was a very, very poorly worded effort at one or both of the senses I just added. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything new at this entry. What does what you added at address have to do with this? DCDuring TALK 23:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone says "Give me your location", do we really need to have a definition of location ("address or coordinates of the place of interest")? And does "Now tell me the guests." mean that we need guest ("name of person visiting")? I don't think that the metonymy from name or other index (such as address to named or indexed entity (residence, destination, birthplace), which might be includable as a sense in all the main terms for names and indexes, needs to go the other way. Every entity has a name and location (in various locational schemes, no less) and may have other indexings (IP address, serial number). That seems to be a characteristic of the very act of naming or indexing something, that is, part of syntax. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete For this to be a distinct sense from "The place where one lives.", it would have to only apply to cases where a home had a street address. As far as I can tell, that's not the case. If the witnesses lived in a caravan, or a tent, or a houseboat, they would not have street addresses, but for the superintendent's purposes, these would still be their residences. As DCDuring says above, it can be assumed that any definition that covers a location also covers a verbal statement of that location. "Write your town in the box" sounds perfectly normal, if slightly informal (there's an example on this website of a herpes clinic), as would "street", "county", "country", "state", and any number of other places that people could be said to live in. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

just one of many collocations that occur with iron fist -- Liliana • 11:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete The usage example conveys the common collocation. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. rule with an iron fist. bd2412 T 04:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This namespace represents an alternative transliteration system for Egyptian. I've shifted the data on the page to b3, so there is no need for this version to remain. Furius (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. In cases such as this where there's no reason anyone would object(as well as for vandalism), you should just use the {{delete}} template to mark it for immediate deletion. That saves clutter on this page. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or does b3 not exist? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I may have to undelete it and move it to the correct version. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It's created now. Perhaps the edit was still open when he/she posted here. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We should teach the new people how to move pages. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gypsy

RFD-sense: I think the sense "Of or belonging to the Gypsy race (Webster)." is redundant to "Of or belonging to the Romani people or one of it sub-groups (Roma, Sinti, Romanichel, etc)." - -sche (discuss) 01:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Not just redundant, but circular and outmoded, to boot. Incidentally, the word "Webster" in this definition is not, as you might think, an indication that this definition was taken from Webster; it was not. Rather, it is a reference to the Webster 1913 definition of gypsy, which used to be present in our entry verbatim. So this sense is just an orphan from that time. —Caesura ^(t) 17:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Webster 1913 had:

One of a vagabond race, whose tribes, coming originally from India, entered Europe in 14th or 15th centry, and are now scattered over Turkey, Russia, Hungary, Spain, England, etc., living by theft, fortune telling, horsejockeying, tinkering, etc. Cf. Bohemian, Romany.
Like a right gypsy, hath, at fast and loose, Beguiled me to the very heart of loss. Shak.
The language used by the gypsies. Shak.
A dark-complexioned person. Shak.
A cunning or crafty person [Collog.] Prior.

Note that three are claimed to be attested from Shakespeare, though obviously Shakespeare doesn't support all that encyclopedic content.

We have a large number of obsolete and archaic senses, including offensive ones, for all sorts of words, and aspire to have more. Keep, reword, and use {{defdate}}. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You may have missed the point; we're questioning the adjective sense, none of the Webster's sense above are adjectives. Also we're calling it redundant rather than wrong. I support the deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring: thanks; those are probably attested (if no longer current) noun senses of Gypsy (or possibly gypsy). The language sense is already present in [[Gypsy]]. And I'll see about adding the last two senses, "dark-complexioned person" and "crafty person", added to the appropriate entry (lower- vs uppercase) with appropriate tags. - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to tell the legitimacy of an denominal adjective PoS when the noun is not fully defined. How do we even know that it is a true adjective? ?"They are very/too gypsy." ?"He is more gypsy than they are." In what senses do these work? DCDuring TALK 23:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

rfd-sense: Adjective: Being a parvenu; also, like or having the characteristics of a parvenu.

This seems to be the noun being used attributively. The two quotations provided in the entry do not suggest otherwise. I am not sure whether this belongs to RFD or RFV; in any case, quotations could probably show this being an adjective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Smells like SoP -- Liliana • 09:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would keep this. Lots of the usage doesn't refer to any 'end', such as "In the end he just walked out of the room". End here does refer to any final state, this is because 'in the end' functions as a single unit. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Lemmings agree with MG, even MWOnline. See in the end at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 12:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Dunno. But compare in the beginning, in the middle. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Its use as a discourse directive/marker is probably the only usage that is idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In the beginning and in the middle always refer to an actual beginning and an actual middle don't they? In the end can either refer to an actual end, or not, as I stated above. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish superlatives always have the form "en + adjective", e.g. "en küçük", "en büyük", "en güzel". I don't think those need a separate entry. -- Curious (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete as SoP (just like English two-word superlatives like most important). It seems that Category:Turkish adjective superlative forms should probably also be deleted, since it should never have any entries in it. (Turkish doesn't have any irregular superlatives, does it?) —Caesura ^(t) 23:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete both the entry and the category. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Any class serving as a wrapper" - obvious SoP. I will add that this is my own definition, because the original one (suggesting that only primitive data types can be wrapped; see boxing) was incorrect. Suppose I had a complex class that handled sending e-mail, and I wanted to change part of its behaviour, so I wrote a second class encapsulating the first and changing part of its public interface; this wrapper of mine would certainly be a wrapper, and would certainly be a class, and would also be a "wrapper class". Equinox ◑ 00:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with your change to the definition ("wrapper class" can refer to any class that is a wrapper, not just a boxed primitive), and I agree that this new, correct definition is SoP. —Caesura ^(t) 01:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete obvious SoP, and I can tell who added it without bothering to look. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Redirect or revise definition and keep. This is often used a set term and it is likely people will look it up as such. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

SoP. Top mate, top geezer, top guy. Equinox ◑ 14:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete, easily (and correctly) analyzable as top#Adjective + totty#Noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the sense tagged "literally" should be changed to {{&lit}}. And, I hate to say it, but I think its translations should be removed. —Ruakh_TALK 02:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Convert to {{&lit}} - OK, keep the translations. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mandarin. Glossed as it's your turn, which I note we don't have. It doesn't seem idiomatic; it's composed of 该 ("ought to") + 你 ("you") + 了 ("now"). I don't see the phrasebook value of this entry in any way. By the way, 該你了 is the traditional form, which should be deleted as well. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It doesn't have to link it's your turn, convert to simply "it's your turn". The Mandarin expression has a value in showing how this is said in Mandarin. Learners can't tell the meaning of the phrase, especially without context. A phrasebook candidate - Category:Mandarin phrasebook in traditional script. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, though — do you really think that this would reasonably come up enough to merit a phrasebook entry? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. User:Tooironic - the creator and me have edited this entry, so we obviously have already thought about it. The reverse is also true - it's useful for Chinese learners of English. It's a common request for translations. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Not intuitively translated from its parts to its actual meaning. bd2412 T 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After some checking I was surprised to see how many online Chinese-English dictionaries have this entry. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

All three of these are SOP for infraspecific + taxon/taxa/taxons (the last is an incorrect plural, too, but that's not a reason for deletion). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep this, as it appears (at first glance, at least) to be a specialized term within the field for which one can not substitute synonyms of either term to reach a technically correct equivalent. bd2412 T 04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sense: (proscribed} An alternative singular of die, for such meanings of die as have the plural dice.

I think all the senses are defined elsewhere at the PoS section. The usage notes attempt to explain the state of usage opinion, but could use some work. There are ample citations in the entry and on the citation page for "a dice" and the plural "dices". DCDuring TALK 03:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Monday, September 3, 2012

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