Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Requests for deletion/English, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This page is for entries in English as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.
Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).
Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.
Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as ]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.
Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
Striking out the discussion header.
(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
Isn't the usage example already covered by determiner sense 3? I don't really get the difference, if there is any. I guess that "Most times when I go hiking" is an adverbial phrase, but the word "most" itself is not being used as an adverb. 98.170.164.8806:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, its syntactical function in the usage example is that of a determiner, the same as that of many in “many times when I’m lazy”, or most in “Some people succeed because they are destined to, but most people succeed because they are determined to.” The difference is that one (determiner) is correct while the other (adverb) is incorrect. --Lambiam10:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Would it change anything if the sentence were worded
Most times I go hiking, I wear boots.?
I was the one who added the usex, but i realize now that my sentence doesn't illustrate adverbial use. Still, I think this is possible to interpret as an adverb if we simply omit the word when, since it will then make times function like sometimes, which is an adverb. Since only an adverb can modify an adverb, I'd say that the questioned sense does exist. —Soap—16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Here the word most modifies times, which is the plural of the nountime, sense 3.4. Adverbs do not modify nouns. The grammatical function of most times in the adverbial clause most times when is not affected by the omission of the relative adverb when. --Lambiam --Lambiam19:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Query: Do our definitions cover usages like: "They were the ones who won (the) most." (ie, say, "most frequently") DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep, I think. Ostensibly the term means "material that is suitable for adults", but because it is really only used to refer to pornography (perhaps euphemistically) and not, say, movies and novels where the characters are adults, points to the fact that it is idiomatic. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You are looking at the wrong definition of "adult," this is the sense "intended for use only by adults" e.g. "adult content", "adult movie", "adult magazine", "adult website", "adult language" etc. - TheDaveRoss16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I would say keep. It's from sense 3 of the adjective, and sense 2 of the noun material. It may be "material suitable for adults" but it's also "material unsuitable for children". DonnanZ (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
We also have adult content, of which this is a perfect synonym. I think these should be kept because of their function as euphemisms; only one sense of adult is ever meant, even though all senses of the adjective could potentially apply. This, that and the other (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you on all but adult bookstore, which Ive just now created. I think it's good that we're taking these on a case-by-case basis. Another good example is adult beverage, because there's no other context where the word adult means "containing alcohol".
As for this discussion, I can see both sides .... I'd even say the nominator undercut his argument by stating that it's not just for porn .... that makes it less sum-of-parts and means we might just need to clarify the definition instead of deleting the page. Yet, I could apply the same logic to adult and say we should rework definition #3 to clarify that it doesn't just mean porn. For now I abstain. —Soap—13:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Side note: I found "adult drink", "adult root beer float", etc. prominently on Google. On this basis, I'm going to add another sense to the adjective at adult. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
If someone is said to be "noted for creating adult fingmippets" and we know that a "fingmippet" is a work in some creative medium, it will be obvious which sense of adult applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: OK, I’m convinced so I’m changing my vote. I agree it is sufficient if the relevant meaning of adult is in that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The reason I felt the need to create a page for adult bookstore is that it's not sum-of-parts ... knowing what adult and bookstore mean would not tell you what an adult bookstore is. An adult bookstore, so far as I know, sells primarily sex toys, with video and books being less profitable. I worded the definition conservatively out of caution. I don't think adult movie is sum-of-parts either because, while less common, there are movies with no sex but such graphic violence that they are also restricted to adult viewers in theaters, and adult movie as presently defined does not encompass that (and I believe the current definition is correct). As for adult star .... well, few native English speakers will misunderstand the meaning, but I always think of English language learners first .... for someone with an incomplete grasp of the language, it's very easy to misunderstand this as simply meaning someone who is both an adult and a star. I still don't have a strong opinion on what to do with adult material, and I promise I wont just vote keep just because Im in favor of keeping the other three .... I'd say all four of these phrases are different from each other, really, and should be treated as such. —Soap—22:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
We recently deleted adult diaper as a sum-of-parts, likely influenced by this ongoing RFD. At first that made sense to me, but while I don't doubt it's the sum of its parts, there are other reasons why we list two-word entries. In this case, deleting adult diaper could lead the reader to believe that the little-heard incontinence diaper is actually the most common term for what adults wear, when this to me sounds like not just a medical euphemism but one that might not be understood by a listener (what other kind of diaper could there be?)
Someone might recommend listing adult diaper as a collocation under adult or diaper or both, but this doesnt solve the problem .... a person on the adult page probably already knows what theyre looking for, and a person on the diaper page is still liable to think incontinence diaper is the term they want, as it's the only one we deem worthy of a separate entry. Moreover, there is still no policy regarding collocations and so anyone can delete them at any time; reducing an entry to a collocation seems to me little different than deletion. Lastly, there's a possibility of unexpected dialectal agreement here ... do people in Commonwealth countries who say nappy for the baby's garment always call adult diapers nappies as well? I wouldnt be surprised if people thought nappy sounded too cute to refer to what grownups wear, but perhaps Im wrong. In any case, I would like to restore the adult diaper page. One more thing I could add: it's possible I'm the one who created the adult diaper entry, as I was the one who added it to diaper; but if that's the case, I've forgotten about it. Best regards, —Soap—11:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for listing this and sorry for neglecting to do so. The transitive sense "to conclude" seems to me to be covered by the first sense "to end something". On second thoughts the intransitive sense "to issue or result" could potentially be distinguished from "to end, conclude, or cease; to come to an end" if it is intended to cover usages such as "the river terminates in a waterfall" or "the integer sequence terminates in three prime numbers". If so, some quotations would help to clarify the distinction. Voltaigne (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I would guess that "to conclude" is meant to cover "to occur at the end of something", but it should be rewritten in that case since "to conclude" is rather opaque. The dictionary.com definitions don't seem to support "to issue or result" as a separate sense, though I'm also confused by why dictionary.com have "to end" (intransitive) and "to come to an end" as separate senses. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Slightly confused by this comment—"to occur" is intransitive in that phrase, yes, but "to occur at the end of" (or rather "to occur at or form the conclusion of" in their wording) is substitutable for "to terminate", hence it being listed as a transitive sense at dictionary.com. (e.g.: "This scene terminates the play." = "This scene occurs at the end of the play.") —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
IMO, "the river comes to an end in a waterfall" or "the integer sequence ends in three prime numbers" are fine. --Lambiam21:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
DeleteAbstainKeep.(see below for new rationale) The numerology sense is mentioned on Wikipedia at w:786 (number) and I think it is best kept there, since to explain the significance of the number to a naive reader in a dictionary would require so much background information that it would become an encyclopedic entry. —Soap—16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Im sitting this out for the time being, as the recent improvements to the page and the comments below have convinced me that this is a valid entry in and of itself. But I'm still reluctant to vote keep because numerology could also provide us with definitions for numbers like 19 (also significant in Islam), 616 (a variant of 666), 777 (used in Christianity), and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. That we haven't added entries for these already makes me wonder whether we've just never gotten around to it in all this time, or whether it's best considered outside our project's scope. —Soap—12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
it's ridiculous i think there was a subject here or maybe on wikipedia about how many numbers -- as numbers and not years -- should have separate entries ... delete it immediately this is just absurd ... Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete as defined. It doesn't have a meaning: it doesn't explain what it would mean if you spoke or wrote this in a sentence. Equinox◑21:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
This book suggests it could be found in Indian Islamic books or letters as a shortening of the basmala, in which case we should definitely include it, but I don't know where to look for attestation. However, this book indicates that it is used in "truck art or other mediums vulnerable to the dirt and defilement of the outside world", in which case it may be difficult to find durably archived quotations. 70.172.194.2500:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers—I found an example in diplomatic correspondence (in translation) here: though worth noting that the original (scan given on previous page) uses Eastern Arabic numerals. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Al-Muqanna: I think this is another example, in English and using Western Arabic numerals: (it occurs in the front matter, definitely not a page number). This might be a similar example in Urdu: (I can't see the whole page, but it seems to be at the top of page 2, so it wouldn't be a page number, and I'm not sure what else it could mean). Accordingly, keep. 70.172.194.2500:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@EquinoxKeep (Change meaning to area code 786) because for example: 305, named after the 305 area code. So if you clicked on the Wikipedia link it would bring you to "Area codes 305, 786, and 645". So 786 would have a meaning. But change the "lucky number" definition because any number can be "lucky". Heyandwhoa (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I agree, it's redundant, but perhaps sense 1 should be reworded since I think "other people's property" is too restrictive (apart from software, someone who decides to tear down a historic building that they own might still be described as a vandal, for example). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
agree with your assessment and with al-muqanna have to agree also when we're namedropping different enwiktionary users Dan Polansky wrote on his talk page -- was it here or on cz.wiktionary that he found it << insolent >> for those with under 50 edits to comment, vote on discussions .. where he waited years ( ?) or in any case until he had thousands of edits .. someone made a remark about his edit totals -- essentially his wiktionary +talk edits were equal in percentage to his main-namespace edits to he was there to cause trouble -- or << rule >> , impose on other people there ideas of how the project should be run -- still unclear to me .. but i agree with you it seems completely extraneous can't this wonderfool find something better to do -- or people in general who add extra definitions and senses not only here but on WP -- i've been in that position actually, i know how it is, such foolishness, such a waste of time, if you want to make your mark on the world, why don't you go outside, why don't you develop yourself as an individual rather than anonymously editing an internet web site Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment: A person who damages software is not likely to go on a "spree". I think this sense is confusing the Wiktionary or wiki vandal (who can damage a lot of pages quickly, but those pages are text content, and not software/code) with the traditional virus writer or "hacker" (who might do a lot of damage to programs and systems, but doesn't go on a "spree": it involves writing careful code and releasing it in one place). I also can't remember any situation where I heard a virus writer or "hacker" called a "vandal", and I'm very old (I remember Chris Pile!). Equinox◑07:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
(But cf. cybervandal, which like all those cyber- words is probably a fleeting 1990s coinage relating to Web sites. We know there was software and systems long before.) Equinox◑07:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
To be fair when I mentioned people vandalising things that aren't other people's property above one of the thoughts I had was someone going rogue on Github or NPM or whatever, which could easily amount to a vandalism spree on software and doesn't even have to take much effort nowadays. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
SOP: “a vowel which resonates through the mouth (because the velum closes the passage of air through the nose)”. (Auxiliary request if the outcome of the motion to delete “nasal vowel” is successful.) Fay Freak (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Doesn’t the response “not entirely” mean “she only made it to part of the wedding” (e.g. she was late/left early)? Or I guess it could mean “only part of her turned up” haha. I don’t interpret it as meaning “not exactly”, but this could be a regional thing.
On a related point, the quotation on the entry doesn’t seem to support this definition: “His analysis is not entirely unsound” means “his analysis is not completely unsound” (i.e. it’s partly unsound, but not fully); it doesn’t mean “his analysis is not exactly unsound”, which has a very different connotation, implying that “the analysis is actually fully sound ”. There’s a much stronger argument for not exactly being idiomatic, to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
While few adults are likely to misunderstand the phrase, it is not strictly sum-of-parts, as the above example makes plain ... i can imagine a cartoonist using this to set up a joke. It seems odd, but I'd say that the fact that we're so used to this construction that we don't notice it's idiomatic is the very reason it must be idiomatic. I held off from this until now but I will still vote keep. —Soap—05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't necessarily understand SoP, but fuck up is very similar to fuck it up. it could be normal to express this on the pages, as on the page there is already a link to fuck up. i only made the page because it was requested entry, but at the same time i believe the definitions are unique (in a sense).
Rfd-sense-- @Acolyte of Ice, J3133, LlywelynII At Talk:Běijīng, LlywelynII is really opposed to this term being an English language word. I personally am ambivalent-- J3133 made this English language sense and added three good cites (see Citations:Běijīng). Acolyte of Ice was against keeping it. I'm just not sure what to think!! I don't know if this is English or not. I'd love to see the smart people take a look at this one. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) (Modified)
@Sgconlaw Thanks for your input! That makes 100% sense, and I really agree. I get it! But what about these three cites (Citations:Běijīng) that J3133 found?? Do they prove the Mandarin pinyin sense? Do they prove some Translingual sense? What is that linguistic phenonmenon in those cites, and how does Wiktionary deal with it? Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
You are bound to find some uses of pinyin diacriticals in English language text, but I don't think this should be taken as an indication that the use of such diacriticals are the norm in English texts. It could just be code-switching, or sometimes texts aimed at people learning Mandarin Chinese will include such diacriticals. I recall, for example, that the print version of the South China Morning Post used to do this—when referring to something with a Chinese name such as a person or a place, it would give the name in Chinese characters and add the pinyin transcription with diacriticals. But this is far from the usual case. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep (change from Neutral above): In this diff from March, I explored the three good cites that J3133 had used to make this sense. Today, I found three more cites which I added directly to Citations:Běijīng. I think that Sgconlaw has missed the point- these cites don't document the "common" version of Beijing- they document an alternative form that occurs in specialized literaure indpendent from the presence of any Chinese characters or parentheses. So I have changed my mind personally to believe that yes, this is a (as J3133 says) "rare" alternative form of Beijing. The fact that English does not use the diacritics for anything doesn't change that in my mind. Those six cites at Citations:Beijing show a linguistic phenomenon that I think is beyond 'Translingual' and beyond 'Mandarin'. So I agree with J3133's original creation of this sense in this diff. I would never have made that edit, but now that I have confirmed J3133's three cites and I have found three more myself, I think there's some "there" there. If you all decide against this, I totally understand! (I have no further comment to make on this issue; please vote as you will below.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I would just comment that this may mean creating an English entry for many, many pinyin transliterations with diacriticals. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Pronunciation-wise, the version with diacritics suggests to me that it should be pronounced as if it were pinyin (with tones and phonemes not found in English and what not), which is different from the usual pronunciation of the English word Beijing without the diacritics. Also agree with Sgconlaw that this would result in many, many English entries for pinyin transliterations – I know this is rather of a slippery slope argument and perhaps these entries may never be created and cited, but it is obvious that this will be done very soon if someone (e.g. Geographyinitiative) puts in their effort. Wpi31 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: in some print Bibles (and maybe still today online) you can see ample diacritics on transcribed Hebrew names, and I think possibly Greek names. These are an aid to pronunciation, and may also provide a one-to-one transliteration from the original language. Does anyone know what this is called? Its possible I havent seen it lately because it's mostly used with children's Bibles. In any case, I think we could all agree that there is no need to create an entry for, e.g. Nĕbücḥadnĕzzär even if it appears spelled that way in three different Bibles or other religious texts. On that rationale I'd be leaning towards deletion, however I'm not sure it's actually the same thing. Putting tone diacritics on the name Běijīng isnt likely to change anyone's pronunciation of it in English ... since they represent tones, it wouldnt be English anymore if someone did pronounce them. Also, Im not too worried about the prospect of more diacriticked entries like this. Creating properly cited pages is a lot of work, and it will only get harder if we move on toi less common placenames. —Soap—19:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: this should be considered a direct rendering of Mandarin. It might also be worth noting that at least two citations are explicit about the non-English nature of their use of diacriticked text (i.e. what they record is not the nativised English pronunciation such as /beɪˈ(d)ʒɪŋ/, but instead Mandarin proper), so they in particular might not be good cites after all:
People's Peking Man p.xvii: "Rendering Chinese: Where Romanization of Chinese is necessary, I use the pīnyīn system, complete with tone marks. Tones are essential to the Chinese language, and readers who hope to discuss this subject in Chinese will benefit from knowledge of the correct pronunciation."
Similarly, The Shortest History of China p.8: "Chinese is a tonal language—the contoured pitch at which words are spoken is integral to the meaning. When using Pinyin, I add diacritics to indicate the four tones of Putonghua in the first instance a word appears, as well as in the index, where you’ll also find the Chinese characters for individuals’ names." 蒼鳥fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 12:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Note that we voted (maybe it was just in RFD) to remove Sanskrit entries that were written in the Latin alphabet with diacritics, rather than include them as either English or Sanskrit entries. It was a while ago, and I'm too lazy to hunt it down, but I would think this should follow that precedent. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The cites mentioned are in English, without an explicit intent to help the reader understand Chinese. I have a feeling that there are very few citations like these in English for other Chinese place names. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@CitationsFreak You would be wrong. The sources are explicitly (outside the quote) using pinyin to help the user with Chinese, as pointed out at length in the posts above yours. The tone marks have no possible meaning in the English language, except as a transliteration system of Mandarin (not English) pronunciation and the sources acknowledge that. They're just supporting using Mandarin to speak Chinese names, instead of using English.
More importantly, it will be possible for editors to create thousands or tens of thousands of these on the basis of random apparances of pinyin in English running text. It doesn't seem particularly helpful to do so, especially when you realize similar code switching happens in dozens of other languages and we'll need #French #German #Italian etc. entries for tonal Beijing. It's a waste of everyone's time and a misguided sense of formatting.
Alternatively, all pinyin entries need to be moved from "Chinese" to "Translingual", which is both more accurate and solves the problem coming and going. This is exactly the situation with using plants' Latin names in running text. — LlywelynII07:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
All pinyin entries are (or should be) under the Mandarin L2 label, which is honestly the most accurate. If we move them to translingual then anything that could be "codeswitching" could be under it, which wouldn't really make as much sense. AG202 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Nope, if we're counting this as 'English', then it is translingual. Otherwise, you end up spamming every major Chinese city and every language with sinologists with pinyin "citations" in the running text of some speakers. — LlywelynII11:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note that I personally did not count this as English and specifically said that it should be under the Mandarin header. AG202 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
No. I will not be happy if pinyin from Mandarin as spoken in mainland China were to be promoted against other varieties of Chinese. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Binarystep Fair enough for GeoIni but CF's points were demonstrably wrong, as detailed by others within this thread. These mostly are sources that are going out of their way to use Mandarin pronunciation (/code switching) within English. They don't repeat that at every usage, but it is mentioned and is their rationale. There's no other possible meaning of the tones, other than marking the Mandarin pronunciation; it's like treating macroned Latin as optional English because English also has some Latin phrases. Beijing is English. The form listed here is just Chinese in English running text. Et al. is a kind of English. Et ālia isn't. — LlywelynII11:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether this really is English, I would remind you that the mere fact that there's no good reason to do something in English doesn't mean that English speakers don't do it anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete This is the same as writing an English sentence that includes a italicized Latin word. Furthermore the pinyin is already under the Chinese heading below. Readers will recognize the tone marks as being from Mandarin and will know that it's a some kind of romanization of a Mandarin word which causes them to look at the corresponding Mandarin entry. Since having a separate English entry does not further improve readers' understanding, this entry should be deleted. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Smaller settlements might be attested only with diacritics, even languages if mostly known by specialists, or should have diacritic forms as lemma forms. Fay Freak (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
A closing admin could certainly disregard a !vote with no rationale. I would grant that the discussion following the !vote here constitutes the requisite rationale. bd2412T18:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@BD2412: This isn't Wikipedia though, the established understanding here is that RFD votes are partly quantitative and it's not just about the closer weighing arguments. As was voted into Wiktionary:Voting policy last year: "Tallying does play a role." —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, put it this way. A ground attack in aviation is specifically an attack on the ground, from the air. A ground offensive is by contrast an attack over the ground, using ground forces. There is no logical reason why these two terms should not be switched around; but they aren't. They mean specific things. Ƿidsiþ15:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's interesting, since half their examples don't support what their definition says! In any case, I still feel strongly that "ground offensive" is a set term in English, and should be included. Ƿidsiþ05:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, is there something idiomatic in its use exclusively to describe extremes? It seems to mean "there are no words strong enough to describe", rather than "there are no words with precisely the right nuance to fully describe". On the other hand, words cannot express gets moreGoogle Ngram hits, and I imagine there are a few other similar phrasings. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)05:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good. The second cite is from a podcast, so it might just be a transcription error there, but I've seen this form mentioned on reddit as well. Jberkel09:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
This articles takes some time to define both phrases, it's not that transparent (referring to someone's messages, not the person). – Jberkel15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment. If I were using this de novo, I'd mean leaving the author's works unread, e.g.: "I've looked at the UK's 'Inklings' group, loved Tolkien, had mixed feelings about Lewis, and couldn't get into Williams at all, so I left him unread." Likewise for email or social media posts. – .Raven (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete. If one leaves ”someone” unread it means the ”works he has written”. The ivory tower would recommend me Hegel but I left him unread. Dating experts recommended me to watch Star Wars but I left it unwatched. Hypebeasts recommended me shitty NIKE shoes, but I have left this meme brand unworn / it is yet unworn by me. And so on. Not all combinations are equally likely, but this does not make some idiomatic in the sense that a dictionary entry is required. Fay Freak (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep. This is somewhat similar to -phobia, -genesis or -lysis, most of which are treated as suffixes despite the existence of a corresponding common noun with the same meaning. The noun poiesis is rarely used independently, and according to OED2, its first attestation is from 1934, compared to 1900 for hemopoiesis and 1918 for lymphopoiesis, which suggests that a derivation from poiesis in these terms is unlikely. Also, Collins, M-W, Dictionary.com and OED2 all contain -poiesis as a combining form. Einstein2 (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I almost agree with that but we should rewrite the definition of smacker along the lines of the one already in Collins dictionary, namely 'a pound or a dollar' (or 'a dollar or a pound' if you like) as it can certainly refer to pounds. I remember a parody song on the radio about the divorce between Liam Gallagher and Patsy Kensit where the lyrics parodied the Oasis song 'Don't Look Back in Anger' - it went:- "Oh Patsy can wait, she wants it all on a plate and there's just no way (can't remember the next line). She wants 5 million smackers, I heard her say". Of course she did then go on to win 5 mil in the divorce settlement, I can't find that online but I'm sure I could dig up some cites with this meaning. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep. It's used for dollars too, not just pounds, and probably could be used for any other unit of currency being casually discussed in English—if we're not accustomed to hearing about lira or rubles being called "smackers", it's probably because most English-language sources will be from countries that use dollars or pounds, or go out of their way to use the actual name of the currency instead, as a means of exoticizing the locale. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't be used. Alternatively, split the definition of smacker that attempts to cover both lips and money, and then you could delete the plural, since it links back to the singular. Really that definition should be split anyway. Just because both uses are slang doesn't mean that they're the same definition! P Aculeius (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not sure that I can articulate why, but this doesn't "feel" to me like it's simply "pocket" + "swole". I also tend to be more lenient when it comes to combining multiple figurative senses together. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Both "pocket" and "swole" are being used in a figurative sense. "Swole/swollen" refers to physical enlargement, and only by extension (i.e., figuratively) to the enlargement of financial resources, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep. We have other set phrases where 'pocket' is used to mean 'financial resources' like out of pocket and it's not really clear what the purpose or meaning of on is in this phrase either (though we do have an entry for on swole as a set phrase). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This sense was removed by Mechanical Keyboarder on 28 April, with the edit summary “redundant”. We still have the translation table. J3133 (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah this is difficult. I strongly support keeping the deleted sense ... it's definitely not redundant ... but Im having a hard time explaining why. Maybe it would've been more clear if we hadnt used the word older in the deleted sense with its literal meaning and in sense 1 with its idiomatic meaning of someone who is advanced in age ("elderly"). Further complicating things is that I think elder can also be used both ways, e.g. an elder child can be six years old, but the elders of the community cannot. —Soap—09:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
(one's elders) people who are older than one: schoolchildren were no less fascinated than their elders.
(one's elder) a person who is older than one by a specified length of time: she was two years his elder.
Turning to Collins, my copy says, "an older person, one's senior", before covering tribal and religious elders. Online. Collins says: "A person's elder is someone who is older than them, especially someone quite a lot older: The young have no respect for their elders.
Merge senses? The definition of the first sense, “An older person”, is problematic. We give two senses for older: 1. “comparative form of old: more old, elder, senior” and 2. “elderly”. A user who is not proficient in English cannot know that in “An older person” the comparative is meant; used as a noun, elder – whether “an elder” or ”someone’s elder”, does not mean “an elderly person”. (The person referred to may of course happen to be elderly, but this is not conveyed by the term.) That said, like the deleting editor, I suspect that the intention of this definition is the same as that of the deleted sense, so instead of simply reinstating it, I think they should be merged into something unambiguous, such as “Someone who is older(than another person).” --Lambiam14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
+1 to merging with the first sense. I can't imagine saying, of an older person, "see that elder across the way?" it has to be relative . +sj+20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This is really an RFV question, isn't it? I think of the YouTube series "Elders React", where the participants were referred to as elders in a non-relative sense, in the same way as the word seniors is used. Here and here are some uses of elders in a non-relative sense. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. My first reaction was that these could be merged with sense 1 as ~"An older person (especially relative to someone else)". But could they, really? Maybe the difference in what "older" means in one vs the other, as Lambiam points out, suggests it's better to keep the senses separate like this (though I would move them next to each other for clarity and redefine this one more like "(in particular) A person who is older than someone else, in relation to that person"). - -sche(discuss)02:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I decided to not add a street entry I discovered today to the category in question, due to the category's toxicity. DonnanZ (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit other people's input about this, and the previous discussion at Talk:Avus: if a user is trying to add/hide edits they know are policy-noncompliant, are we in the position of needing to remove the user from the Autopatroller user group so their edits show up in the patrol log again...? (The street in question above may've been Broadmead or Dundas.) - -sche(discuss)18:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, @Donnanz, I don't know what you are trying to achieve by deliberately flouting policy. Either accept the current policy, or propose a change in policy through the proper channels and abide by the result, whichever way it goes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@-sche, Sgconlaw: If Broadmead, which I didn't create, never had the category in the first place (you can check the entry's history), I can't be accused of deleting it and flouting policy. DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete, transparent (although it is unusual to refer to a subroutine as "program"). I doubt this would survive RFV; I see a use of the term mathematical function program library, but this is a program library of mathematical functions, where a program library is a collection of subroutines. --Lambiam13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep If these really include pets, it's definitely not SOP. No one would get that just from knowing the definitions of the two words. And I do see advertisements showing the full matching set including dogs. —Soap—23:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move the content to the (currently red-linked) given synonym famjams, and reduce this to a synonym. Then we lose less if it's deleted. Equinox◑13:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The word instance has other meanings in video gaming, though admittedly Im thinking more about game design than game playing. (If I search Google for instance of an enemy I see people using six different game engines asking similar questions.) It does seem at least that not every instance is a dungeon in games such as STALCRAFT, so it's possible that some games prefer the longer form instance dungeon to make it clear what they mean. This is just a comment, though. —Soap—09:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a video-game sense of instance (which we have), but I don't think "instance of an enemy" is using that sense. In programming if you have a type of object (e.g. defined by an OOP class) then any object of that type is an "instance". Equinox◑13:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay thanks. It sounds I picked up a programming term and thought it was related to video games specifically. As for the existing senses we have at instance, yes, I saw those, and at first I thought they were too specific, but I suppose "dungeon or other area" is broad enough to cover the uses in non-RPG games like STALCRAFT. —Soap—15:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete, gaming is dumb and we have been decadent enough to give space to a pertinent videogaming meaning at instance even. Programming creativity always gives wiggle-room to variation. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn’t this be spelled backpedal brake? The latter is a red link under the derived terms of backpedal and at the definition of Dutch terugtraprem. I doubt think someone unfamiliar with the concept would guess the meaning of the compound from those of its components. --Lambiam20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep, I am not into the technical details but people should bike more and I feel like some dyel nincompoop would move to delete terms for exercise equipment I added because he does not see the point when I did see the idiomaticity. Fay Freak (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete as a meaningless corporate buzzword. Corporate PR media is frequently laced with facile, promotional, or vapid jargon in this vein. AP295 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. If it's in use in the language in question, isn't just a transparent combination of other terms, and isn't a term for a specific thing like the name of an individual, we have an entry for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
One can just as easily say it should be deleted as SoP. Descriptivism is all well and fine but if it means wiktionary must include meaningless corporate jargon (if it's not SoP in the first place) then I have to question the value of descriptivism as such a strict, dogmatic approach. AP295 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Naturally I shall follow the rules. I only mean to say that it does not seem ideal to apply absolute prescriptivism or absolute descriptivism. Descriptivism might be easier to justify, but if it's followed strictly and to the point that the language is debased as a result of integrating any sort of nonsense just because people use it, then clearly that's not a responsible approach. In other words I feel it's a bit of a cop out if it's taken to the extreme, because it requires one to enshrine every popular buzzword or stock phrase as long as it's arguably not SoP, regardless of whether such words and phrases are subversive, or politically expedient, or generally a bastardization/distortion of the language at large. It seems like common sense that neither are ideal when they're set in stone. AP295 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep as a term of art. We don't delete things because some people can't be bothered to learn what they mean or because they don't like them. We're not a propaganda outlet. Theknightwho (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree this in principle could be SoP, but the relevant sense of toll is worded poorly (loss or damage incurred through a disaster), whereas the definition here does not reference a disaster per se. * Pppery *it has begun...05:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Rfd-sense "(computing) An individual container of the Kubernetes orchestration system." Jargon specific to a particular system, not particularly relevant for a general dictionary. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /18:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Originally this entry claimed it was a synonym of apophony / ablaut, meaning an internal vowel change like get vs. got. That's trivially false: of the first 5 relevant results I found on Google Books, 3 of them were talking about consonant changes (e.g. "nominal morphology of conservative Adamawa Fula is characterised by ... nominal stem mutation based on a system of initial consonant alternation" ). That leaves it just defined as a change in the stem, which looks SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Since nobody's bitten on this so far, I'd also point out that "stem mutation" is attested in other contexts like biology for genetic mutations in a plant stem or in stem cells , so it doesn't seem to restrict the meaning of "stem". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I created this apparently, but it now appears SOP to me. Why single this particular crime out? Compare justifiable crime, justifiable theft, etc. If we must, let's simply add a legal sense at justifiable. PUC – 08:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There is the proper legal defense of w:justifiable homicide, but there isn't anything similar for "justified robbery," "justified arson," etc. In addition, justifiable homicide generally refers to homicide committed in the attempt to protect one's life; not homicide that is otherwise "justifiable" on other philosophical grounds, for example. Black's Law Dictionary distinguishes, moreover, between "excusable homicide," "innocent homicide," and "justifiable homicide" as three separate entries with distinct legal criteria for each one. Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
But there is "justifiable force"/"justifiable use of force", "justifiable discipline" (corporal punishment), and even "justifiable battery" (see this case). The SOP argument isn't about being "justifiable" in a general philosophical sense, it's that "justifiable" is a legal term with specific application that extends beyond homicide (as is "excusable"): cf. the wp article on justification and excuse. "Innocent homicide" is simply homicide without criminal guilt, which can be either excused or justifiable. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep per Imetsia, and as a lemming of Black's Law Dictionary. To be clear, a "homicide" that is "justifiable" is not necessary a "justifiable homicide". If you come out of your house and see a hooligan smashing your car windows with a crowbar, and you shoot him dead, you can articulate a justification for the shooting and call it "justifiable", but that does not meet the legal definition of the phrase. bd2412T17:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: I have corrected the definition to specify homicide committed "because it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm". bd2412T17:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, but would the court say "the defendant's homicide of the hooligan was justifiable"? I don't think so; AFAICT, for a given context (e.g. laws about deaths), the definition of "justifiable" resides in "justifiable", i.e. I would expect that the range of things that can be called "justifiable homicide" and that which can be called "homicide which was/is justifiable" is the same. Is there evidence to the contrary? It also seems like the range of homicides which could be called "justifiable" (or "justifiable homicides") is likely to vary by jurisdiction (it wouldn't surprise me if some jurisdictions have considered "honor killings" justifiable homicides / a justifiable type of homicide, for example). I am leaning towards delete per Al-Muqanna. - -sche(discuss)18:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@-sche: Good point. I have restored the previous sense and converted this discussion into an RfD-sense for the original (now first) sense. If there is a question as to whether the second sense exists beyond the existing citation to Black's Law Dictionary Sixth (which defines "Justifiable homicide" as "Killing of another in self-defense when danger of death or serious bodily harm exists"), this would be an RfV issue. bd2412T21:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@-sche, bd2412: I don't think those senses should have been introduced. The core definition of "justifiable homicide" is simply homicide that is justified according to the law. What sorts of homicide are justified have varied according to time and place, and the specific content of the laws pertaining to it shouldn't be considered definitional. Antebellum sources comment, for example, on the killing of a master by a slave in self-defence being "justifiable homicide" in England but murder in Georgia. Recent histories of law describe the evolution of "justifiable homicide" in England; for example, the killing of felons engaged in arson was apparently rendered "justifiable homicide" in the 14th century. Here are three other sources on contemporary context beyond the two sentences in Black's Law Dictionary:
Gardner and Anderson, Criminal Law 13th ed. (2018): "Justifiable homicide is defined in the common law as an intentional homicide committed under circumstances of necessity or duty without any evil intent and without any fault or blame on the person who commits the homicide. Justifiable homicide includes state executions, homicides by police officers in the performance of their legal duty, and self-defense "
Partial Defences to Murder (2004 report by the Law Commission of England and Wales): "Historically English law distinguished justifiable homicide from excusable homicide In modern scholarship a good deal has been written about the concepts of justificatory and excusatory defences. Essentially, justificatory defences are those which recognise that the conduct was legitimate in the circumstances e.g. self-defence."
Oxford Dictionary of Law 8th ed. (2015): Lawful homicide (sometimes termed justifiable homicide) occurs when somebody uses reasonable force in preventing a crime or arresting an offender, in self-defence or defence of others, or (possibly) in defence of his property." —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, adding two separate senses for two of the types of homicides that are considered justifiable only highlights that the only meaning of the term is "homicide that's considered justifiable by the relevant jurisdiction"; rather than adding a few dozen more senses for everything every era and region has considered justifiable (honor killing, killing someone who sexually harassed you in ancient Iceland, 'standing your ground' and going over to attack and then shoot someone who's Black in Florida, etc), I think it makes more sense to recognize that it's SOP and delete the entry. (This reminds me of the discussion over having 'legal standard' definitions of things like 'mayonnaise', 'margarine' and 'murder', where I raised the same issue, that we'd have dozens of senses that just amounted to "mayonnaise, but when it conforms to US law 3702561", "mayonnaise, but when it confirms to Irish law 9234567"... compare this revision of murder—readable version here— with various jurisdictions' different criteria spelled out...) - -sche(discuss)01:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I still don't think that gets you around the issue of homicides that would be considered justifiable by some person (e.g., shooting a con man who is on the phone with your grandmother and about to get her to transmit her life savings), but which would clearly not fall within any legal definition of the term. Honor killings, for example, are not deemed "justifiable homicide" in any jurisdiction, nor is homicide committed pursuant to "stand your ground" laws within the definition of "justifiable homicide", even though it is legally excused. In short, your rationale is misinformation. bd2412T03:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Some person who considers a homicide "justifiable" also considers it a "justifiable homicide"; some court which considers something to not be a "justifiable homicide" also considers it to not be "justifiable"; AFAICT, for any given context/speaker, the use of the collocation "justifiable homicide" and the use of the word "justifiable" is consistent, because each one's use of "justifiable homicide" just means a homicide which they consider justifiable. The restrictions on what is or isn't "justifibable homicide" reside in "justifiable", in what the person considers is or isn't justifiable (and conceivably to some extent also in what the speaker considers is or isn't "homicide"). I initially reconverted the conversion of the RFD to an RFD-sense back to an RFD, but I wonder if we should have a separate RFD (since this one is getting input from only a few people) about merging the two just-added senses... there are many things which some person would (or conversely would not) consider murder (or theft, or justifiable homicide, or justifiable use of force, etc) which a court in Vermont would not (or conversely would) consider murder (etc), and then there are different things which a court in El Salvador would or would not consider murder, but obviously listing each one on a separate sense-line like we did for a while was not the right approach, and likewise taking "some jurisdictions consider murder by police or in self-defense justifiable" and turning it into three senses does not strike me as the right approach. - -sche(discuss)16:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with the contention that a person who considers a homicide "justifiable" also considers it a "justifiable homicide"; firstly, this is a convention about how a specific phrase is used (and note, a set phrase, as "justified homicide" or "justifiable murder" would both be incorrect). Can you provide citations showing use of the phrase "justifiable homicide" to generically mean any homicide that is considered "justified" by a given person? Secondly, compare grand theft auto. It could theoretically generically mean any theft that was "grand" in the general sense of something being grand and "auto" in the sense of being automatic, but if someone steals your automatic typewriter and you as they run away you yell, "stop! That's a grand theft auto", does your use of the phrase indicate that the theft meets the definition of "grand theft auto"? bd2412T01:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The first of the three senses can be deleted, as it is not attested. The other two reflect distinct legal meanings of the phrase, as a set phrase, over distinct periods in time. bd2412T20:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
(not being RFD'd): The act or practice of abstaining, refraining from indulging a desire or appetite. (with a bunch of subsenses)
? The practice of self-denial; self-restraint; forebearance from anything.
? (obsolete) Self-denial; abstaining; or forebearance of anything.
These are cited to the Shorter OED, which I don't have, but don't seem to correspond to anything in the full OED, which just distinguishes self-restraint (+ subsenses) and the practice of abstaining from a specific thing. I don't see what the distinction between our senses is meant to be, nor how the third one could be obsolete. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@Al-Muqanna: I agree that senses 2 and 3 seem redundant to sense 1. Perhaps the terms “forbearance”, “self-denial”, etc., can be worked into sense 1. As for the difference between senses 2 and 3, perhaps the editor was trying to distinguish between uncountable and countable senses. The better way to do this is as follows: “(uncountable) Abstaining, forbearance, or self-denial; (countable) an instance of this.” But if the senses are merged into sense 1 this is unnecessary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is useful, because I originally couldn't make out what it meant when I was reading a book that had that phrase in it. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm against including phrases like this, as I've intimated elsewhere, since in the vast majority of cases, these phrases are just eye dialect spellings of existing phrases, with no independent meaning. pasghetti is one of the few exceptions, a phrase that is used by adults to sound cute, and therefore can't be reduced to merely being a child's word for spaghetti. So I ask ... is py chiminey used by people without an accent in order to make fun of German immigrants? Perhaps it once was.
We could flood the site with hundreds more words and phrases like this so long as we can turn up three cites across the whole corpus of English literature for each one. But I'm reluctant to vote delete based on what might happen, so I want time to think some more about this. Whichever way this vote goes, it will help me firm up my opinions on the wider category of eye dialect spellings.
One more comment ... archive.org is impressing me with how powerful its search is in comparison to that of Google Books. py chiminey isnt cited now, and searching Google Books turns up mostly results about chimneys (forget about using plus signs and quote marks, as they dont seem to do much), but the new archive.org text search turns up plenty of hits for this exact phrase, so this would easily pass CFI if kept at RFD. Thanks, —Soap—11:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Soap, this is useful to know. What specific search function are you using on archive.org? Searching books in general just returns an error for me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
this link goes directly to the search results i was looking at. from the front page, use the main search tool (not the Wayback Machine) with "search text contents" selected and with the phrase in quotes. If that's what you've been doing and it returns an error, I can't help, but I notice the site is slow for me especially with large PDF's, so maybe their server resources arent as powerful as Google's and they sometimes fail to complete a search. —Soap—18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
A problem with Internet Archive is that older books are often badly OCR'd and the search function won't work there because the scanned text is garbled. That might be the problem Andrew's having. In those cases you often need to view the full scanned text, ctrl+F for plausible strings in the mess, and then plug in what you find to the search function in the main view to get the actual location. I imagine they also won't turn up in full-site searches. Google's OCR is generally better, errors are usually limited to the normal stuff like reading long s as "f" etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
English stereotypes of how a German accent shifts English sounds often seem perplexingly backwards to me; a similar case is the English use of mid to signal a German pronunciation of the (German!) word mit. It's like a cross between eye dialect and Mockney: changing words to signal "this speaker has an accent" even if that means changing the words in diametrically the opposite way to what the speaker's accent does.- -sche(discuss)09:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
and one of those cites has pisness for "business", so the /b/ > /p/ thing seems like part of a pattern. There are some dialects in the Alps where all stops are devoiced, which could have theoretically provided a sound basis for the stereotype, but I think in some cases writers need to "make it wrong on purpose" because subtleties of speech don't carry over as well in writing. The fact that pisness and mid appear in the same cite suggests accuracy isnt always a priority with writing. Makes me think also of a stereotypical pan-Asian accent where L and R are always switched, meaning the speaker somehow gets them both wrong instead of merging them both into one sound. —Soap—10:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm leaning keep if it's attested (RFV), on the grounds that we keep all kinds of dialectally- / pronunciation- motivated respellings, and these are not predictable (indeed, as Jberkel's and my comments above indicate, it's unexpected). This is on a spectrum, IMO: on one end of the spectrum are things like Winterpeg (changing the spelling to highlight Winnipeg's coldness) that are clearly includable, on the other end is baaaaaaad (changing spelling to mark intensity / drawn-out pronunciation), which we explicitly decided to make redirects. I think this and e.g. dwagon are pretty low-importance, but still includable (and I think py... is slightly more includable than dwagon since dwagon is theowetically a systematic change, weplace all rs with w, wheweas py... doesn't seem to follow a consistent pattern). - -sche(discuss)09:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Just pointing out that baaad exists as an independent page, among many others in Category:English elongated forms. I didn't look into the history behind the category, but I figured they'd be treated as ordinary words, meaning anything with three cites passes, and that because the spelling is flexible it's not required that they all have the exact same number of extra letters. —Soap—10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I read the prior discussion just now for more context ... to be honest, that could have been deleted, but I won't poke the dragon ... and I won't worry about the elongated forms getting deleted since it seems we decided that they belong so long as they're cited, just like I'd assumed. I just misinterpreted the comment above to mean that they were supposed to be redirects to the standard spelling. This also gives me more material to add to an essay ... as I implied at the beginning of the discussion, I'm actually against including py chiminey and similar phrases, but I didnt place a vote because my objection is to the policy rather than to this individual entry, and we presumably won't be changing the policy without a long drawn-out vote in which at least two thirds of the community vote for a stricter policy. —Soap—11:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it actually is systematic: voicing is switched, so that b>p and f>v, etc. It's just that it's only sprinkled in for effect so it won't obscure the meaning too much, and it's in addition to the changes that the average reader of the period who didn't know German would already be aware of. This convention is used even by writers such as Mark Twain, who had studied German and knew better. In this case, by jiminy is a phrase that has never been used much in real life but was often substituted in written reported speech for tabooed oaths. It's unintelligible to modern readers because it's the intersection of two artificial conventions that are no longer used. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
While searching for evidence to support the now-failed triste, I came across this strange passage by Walter Scott that supposedly represents the speech of a Highlander: “Put what would his honour pe axing for the peasts pe the head, if she was to tak the park for twa or three days?”Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it is rubbish, but keep per above. It can probably be attested. But I am not convinced that this bizarre ethnic stereotype can be sensibly called a pronunciation spelling. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Rfd-sense: "An intensifier" (currently sense 54, marked "intransitive, dialectal, proscribed"). The example is "I took and beat the devil out of him", and a prescriptive citation is also given, saying "In the sentence, 'He took and beat the horse unmercifully,' took and should be omitted entirely."
I think this is simply sense 1 "To get into one's hands", used transitively, and the extra sense is just an excuse for stylistic grouching about it being redundant in those sentences. If it were actually an intransitive intensifier you would expect cases like "she took and turned bright red", "he took and sat down forcefully", etc., which does not seem to be what's actually being described. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm leaning keep; I've added a few more cites (spanning more than a century) where nothing is being gotten in hand, picked up or received, like "Then I took and went back to the hotel." where it serves a similar role to went itself in go sense 6.2, "(intransitive, colloquial, with another verb, sometimes linked by and) To proceed (especially to do something foolish). He just went and punched the guy." Merriam-Webster has this too BTW. - -sche(discuss)09:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
(Indeed, with the right search terms I can find them both used, a redundant redundancy: "Next night his gran'ry 's burnt. What do he tak' and go and do? He takes and goes and hangs unsel'.") - -sche(discuss)09:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@-sche: Thanks, I think the "took and turned on me" one you added is convincing. Now I'm just not sure whether those should be considered the same thing as the original examples, which still appear transitive or at least ambiguously transitive to me. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It does not match the current definition at renewable: "sustainable; able to be regrown or renewed; having an ongoing or continuous source of supply" versus "replenished by natural processes at a rate comparable to its rate of consumption by humans or other users". The latter is much better albeit too verbose. Fossil fuels could even be "renewable" per the middle part of the definition at renewable, while solar energy and its derivative wind energy could arguably fall that part. It can be deleted once the definition there is acceptable. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if we are prepared to have a plethora of lemmas of “non-X language”. We definitely haven’t finished creating entries of every language and lect names yet, and I can’t imagine the vast number of attested SoP entries that we will potentially bring forth by affixing non- to them all, a number that might be at the least as high as half of the aforesaid language/lect names; and I would strongly suggest including such terms in quotations/usexes in the relevant entry instead, as a decent way of representing such terms rather than have them as lemmas. I personally vote delete, but thoughts? We currently seem to be tolerant towards similar ethnic and national lemma like non-Arab, non-Canadian etc., but the language ones feel more weird and unnecessary. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ18:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Most of these non + proper adjective entries (though not "non-Arabic", a recent creation) seem to be Polanskyisms reflecting his personal interest in matters of hyphenation and capitalisation, and I agree they probably don't contribute much. There is an argument, though, that non- can be affixed productively to basically any adjective, and it's not clear that the orthographic convention that it always takes a hyphen before a capitalised one should determine whether the product counts as an eligible word. There are other things that can generate arbitrary and less controversial words (like verb + -er). So I don't have strong feelings about it at first glance.
I'm not sure the "etc." in the proposal is helpful: we should define the scope of the RFD clearly and of the four you list only "non-Arabic" is specifically glossed in terms of language. Are you proposing to delete all non- + nationality entries? Does for example non-Asian count? What about other proper adjectives like non-Bayesian? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I nominated only the language entries / senses here. "Etc." indicates an exhaustive list of all “non-X language” constructions. And well, in my opinion productivity alone shouldn’t necessarily determine whether a term is suitable to have its own entry, and probably other criteria such as dating of a term may be considered as well: ”non-X language” terms are probably a rather recent coinage, whereas terms affixed with un- or dis- tend to date back to the formative period of the language itself, making the latter more legitimate as lemmas. (un- and dis- are still productive in contemporary English of course but newer coinages with un- and dis- for specific domains could always be challenged in RFD.) ·~dictátor·mundꟾ22:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, these are the correct spelling forms, and should be kept for that reason. IMO, nothing else will do. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Inqilābī: To be clear, non-Portuguese, non-Italian, and non-Spanish are currently defined in terms of the adjectives "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", not in terms of languages like non-Arabic is. Google Books shows they're not used primarily in reference to languages either (e.g., "non-Italian immigrants", "non-Portuguese European merchants"). If definition in terms of language is the reason for nominating them then it seems to be spurious in those cases. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up. Since the definitions aren’t precise, I assumed they were defined in the sense of the language. Now I am confused myself, and will leave other people to interpret the definitions while still sticking to my nomination for deleting ”non-X language” terms LOL. So per your analysis, only the nomination of non-Arabic is valid now. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ17:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Well my personal take is that the number of citations doesn’t necessarily reinforce the legitimacy of a term that feels very SoP. Phrases as non-Arabic speakers and the like could be easily added as citations to Arabic or even non- without any loss of valuable lexicographical information from Wiktionary. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Confusing things further, at non-English it seems the discussion and decision were about deleting the general sense and the specific language sense was left alone, whereas this discussion seems to be taking the opposite angle. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Right… This time, I wanted to nominate the specific language sense instead of focusing on random senses, because the language senses feel more SoP than ethnic/national senses. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Deletenon-Arabic (the others have been struck so I suppose they are no longer being considered right now). But I would prefer something like a BP discussion about whether to have such things in general, rather than piecemeal RfDs that go different ways for different non-glossonyms. - -sche(discuss)04:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete as it stands, although there may be a possibility for a better entry about what future generations will see in "the history books" etc.: often it's just a metaphor for history. Equinox◑18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I added a quote only yesterday, so there's something about "history books" that's idiomatic. You can't say it's plural only though. And @Equinox: I think you have butchered the def - it was better before. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete, SOP, man should know from his linguistics books. Actually one should know from primary school 😱 – does this mean “primary school” has an “idiomatic” sense of “primary education“? No. This is what Equinox means with “metaphor”. There are figurative senses we must not include. Somewhere the relations are too close and the margins are fuzzy, vagueness. Separate senses must be contoured. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the definition provided is wrong based on the citations provided. There are history textbooks for school (which the definition suggests) and then there are general-readership books on history. I don't think that when someone refers to a sports performance as entering the history books, they mean that it will be included in school textbooks. bd2412T19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I can also find the singular, google books:"entered the history book", albeit mostly in low-quality self-published books and/or books by non-native speakers. I would delete the entry as it stands ("history book" just defined as a book about history), but "history books" defined as "a notional place..." as discussed above, with "history book" as the {{singular of}} that, seems more inclusible. - -sche(discuss)04:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe—but definitely not unless any revision made to the plural-form entry is carefully coordinated with revisions to the singular-form entry, where several senses are arguably plural-only and have sample sentences where the entryword is used in the plural. — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Definitely keep. It seems to be the Commonwealth synonym of veteran, with most usages currently in Indian English apparently. The term is also cited by other dictionaries . ·~dictátor·mundꟾ22:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
When I see this vote, in my perspective, this vote illustrates a major flaw in the rigid and absurd SOP dogma on Wiktionary which is: that any English language word with a prefix and hyphenation is suspect, while an equally SOP word without a hyphen is not suspect. Would you bring exserviceman? And there are unhyphenated mash-ups of words that are legitimately hyphenated like pro-democracy that Wiktionary treated the unhyphenated form of as more correct. Pitiful. As I see it, this has lead to years of lack of coverage of hyphenated words in English on this website; disgrace and infamy. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's absurd, infamous, disgraceful, or some other moral enormity: the justification of WT:COALMINE, in as much as it's withstood attempts to abolish it, is that it's a somewhat useful index of lexicalisation and despite occasional silly results nobody has yet come up with a better one. The policy does not at all, of course, dictate that prodemocracy should be the main lemma. COALMINE entries are often not lemmatised at the single-word form (see stubble field, treated just above). There are other, more humdrum reasons why hyphenated (and for that matter multiword) terms are poorly covered on Wiktionary: mainly that they tend not to be covered by the other dictionaries and corpora many of our English entries are based on in the first instance, so their coverage depends on one of our limited number of individual editors deciding to add them when they happen to remember them or when it takes their fancy. But this is, at the end of the day a project involving real people who are all freely volunteering their time, and shouldn't be insulted just because they happen to have different views about entry inclusion or are more interested in some things than others. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Leaning keep per Dictator and This, that and the other, there seem to be contextual aspects of usage that make this worth retaining. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The fact that printed dictionaries see fit to include these (I checked my own copies of Collins and Oxford) make them an exception. DonnanZ (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
WT:JIFFY? The earliest attestation for "lavalier microphone" I can find is 1946 (in Sales Management vol. 56), "lavalier" by itself seems to be a later development (OED has 1972, I can see some in the 60s). In early sources "lavalier-type microphone" seems to be common. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Meh, don't think it's a particularly useful entry but there are cases of it being used in a way that's solidly adjectival and not just an attributive noun (which is what I guess you mean), see the cites I added. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I thought WT:CFI did not permit names of individual persons. This certainly seems like a "name of a specific entity". But the wording seems to allow inclusion of a person with a one-part name. At the very least, the definition is encyclopedic, not a dictionary definition. Probably a definition like "A female given name of Greek origin". Maybe also it is a surname. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
CFI only says "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic Walter Elias Disney". In practice, we so far seem to also exclude modern mononymic people, like the millions of truly mononymic Indonesians (Suharto, Sukarno, etc, who literally do not have any other parts to their names) and people who have but don't use last names like Madonna. However, we include a lot of old mononymic people (including the ancient equivalents of Madonna, people who did have full names but are just best known by mononyms), like Cicero and Virgil and Confucius... - -sche(discuss)16:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
So, in the absence of any further input from anyone else, I say weak keep unless we're going to start getting rid of ancient mononymic people like that (see also: non-mononymic people, like Gengis Khan) more systematically. - -sche(discuss)04:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Isn’t it a predictable construction when an uncountable noun is involved? I’m thinking of examples like in amazement, in horror and in joy. The main thing to make clear would be that conclave can be used in this uncountable sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think this construction needs an explanation, any more than "in school" or "in church" (although I note we do have "in hospital"). Still, it's just in + conclave, and it should be understandable by anyone who knows (or looks up) the meaning of "conclave" P Aculeius (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment. For this to be seen as a sum of parts, life needs to have some meaning such as “society” (leading social circles). We do not list such a sense, and neither do leading dictionaries. --Lambiam11:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
We have “social life” at “life”. Maybe it is not informal after all. Allists underestimate in how much humans sustain themselves by social interaction. Accordingly, we can delete, though I find the present entry flattering as an elevated synonym. Fay Freak (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards keep. Most of its usage relates to a period that finished around a century ago. A well-gowned woman was usually well-to-do, and could afford fine gowns. DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
But the definition says nothing about being well-to-do, it just says "wearing a fine gown". You're considering a definition in your own head that isn't in our entry at all. That's not how to handle an RFV. Equinox◑14:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
There are a few hits for things like "square root of nada/nothing/zilch", etc. Not enough to easily justify entries for them individually, but enough to show some productivity. Then there's "nothing squared" and "twice nothing"... Chuck Entz (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see any need for what is a long-winded sum of parts, one of which is potentially offensive. DonnanZ (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) sum
Er, it's not a sum of parts because there is no sense at square root that applies here. Neither is offensiveness a reason for us to exclude things. You're just making stuff up. Equinox◑14:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense. I didn't add "vulgar" to fuck all, which means "absolutely nothing" anyway. You will probably get away with this with the quotes you have dredged up. DonnanZ (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Move to something, but I'm not sure whether "square root" or "square root of" is a better location to host the definition. The problem is that grammatically "square root" is a noun, but it is used solely as an adverbial/adjectival intensifier for a noun meaning "nothing" (i.e. square root of fuck all is a set phrase except that one of the components is flexible). So I don't know how to define "square root" as a noun. We could define "square root of" as "basically; essentially" but that would mess with the parse tree. Perhaps we could move to square root of nothing and be clear that nothing is being used as a pronoun rather than an idiomatic component of the set phrase (similar to our use of one and someone in proverbs), and explain the situation in the usage notes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you say "square root of absolutely nothing"? "square root of jack squat"? "square root of fucking nothing"? Google says yes to all three. I say delete, add something to "square root". MedK1 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps exactly what's at square root of fuck all but preceded by "{{lb|with a term meaning nothing|"? I actually think it might be best for it to be added at the usage notes section instead, something along the lines of "May be used with a term meaning 'nothing' for an emphatic synonym of nothing." MedK1 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Reluctant keep because the Japanese translation doesn't appear SOP. 養 doesn't show up by itself as a word in the dictionaries I have with me. MedK1 (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Hamas is the dirty word here. IMO, where there is no practical alternative, Lambiam's assertion is flawed. I can sympathise with WF in this particular case.DonnanZ (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you point to 3+ non-compound translations for each? I only see maybe one (Chinese) for pro-Russian though I'm not sure about the Hungarian breakdown for both. AG202 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep ---- See this diff. In that diff, I show that the word 'anti-American' is a word according to five dictionaries. I am a deep skeptic of the way Wiktionary's Sum of Parts doctrine is enforced at present and over the past several years. I believe that the enforcement of SOP is biased against hyphenated words, and that the coverage of hyphenated words on Wiktionary is stilted and not conforming to actual usage because of a systemic preference for non-hyphenated words caused by hyper-enforcement of the SOP doctrine. I believe that the current iteration of the enforcement of the SOP doctrine is not academically sound, otherwise, the other dictionaries would exclude this word. I believe that the five dictionaries I cite are normative in including 'anti-American', and that Wiktionary is non-normative, i.e., fringe, if it excludes the word 'anti-American'. If 'anti-American' is removed as an entry as a result of these proceedings, I will attempt to bring a vote on SOP doctrine that adds another limit to the policy: that if mainstream, authoritative dictionaries include a term, that the SOP policy cannot be used to remove an entry from Wiktionary. Fight me, come at me, lol lmao even, I know kung fu, &c. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)(Modified)
The hypertext markup language is definitely not the English language or any other natural language. It is not a conlan either; HTML has no parts of speech such as nouns, verbs and adjectives, and HTML tags do not carry meaning in the sense that words in natural languages do. HTML tags are case-insensitive; one could write <mEtA property="og:title" content="META - Wiktionary, the free dictionary"> using camel case. --Lambiam17:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but should the "lemma" be capitalised, given that people stopped capitalising HTML tag names about 20 years ago? Thankfully, by your argument that's a moot point. This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Move to Translingual, preferably as lowercase. The English section was added to an existing Finnish acronym entry in 2018 for no discernible reason. @Nicole Sharp seems knowledgeable enough on technical subject matter, but not on organizing it for an online dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Not natural language. There are literally millions of programming keywords, tags, and API class/method names. Equinox◑23:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Just for the "keep everything" people (who begin with D): let's just look at "what's obsolete" (a very very short list of things that have been removed from the framework recently): DefineDynamicAssembly, ExecuteAssembly, ExecuteAssemblyByName, AssemblyHash, you may enjoy hundreds more on the page . And this is just what's obsolete, in one specific software framework, at one point in time. And they don't have definitions. You may also want to investigate food colorants. Equinox◑06:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
If not appropriate as a mainspace entry, then you need to move all HTML elements to a Wiktionary Appendix and create Wiktionary Appendices for other computer programming and markup languages as well. These are important terms that should be defined somewhere on Wiktionary if not in mainspace. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Rfd-sense: "bearing a first offspring; having borne only one previous offspring", same as the senses "pregnant for the first time" and "having given birth to only one child" above. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the first sense also needs to be deleted or at least verified: a woman who just became pregnant for the first time is not a woman who has given birth to only one child. IMO only the second sense is correct, although I think it is better to define this sense as “Having given birth for the first time”. The definition of the third sense is off. Queen Hatshepsut gave birth to only one child, buy it would be ludicrous to write something like “Queen Hatshepsut was a primiparous Pharaoh”. And when María Josefa Pimentel gave birth to the second of her many children, she had borne only one previous offspring but was not primiparous. So I definitely support deletion of the third sense. --Lambiam16:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I thought of that, but when I read “At 10–11 months postpartum, primiparous mothers continued to be more attentive”, or “3 months postpartum, when primiparous mothers have become familiar with their infants”, the present participle is too present. In fact, all GBS hits I see for primiparous mother are about postpartum behaviour or offspring survival statistics. --Lambiam16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster considers it an adjective, unlike other dictionaries I checked. In any case, I've added a noun alt form section since school-age is attestable outside of attributive uses. If the adjective sense is deleted, the translation table should probably be moved to school-aged. I also created schoolage (with a noun header), which seems to occur only attributively. Einstein2 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't a fat lot be moved to fat lot? As the RFD'd entry shows, it can be used without the article. Yes, it's probably omitted through a process of elision, but it still seems unnecessary to include in the headword. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe redirect to "(a) fat lot". This collocation is extremely common but "fat lot" ought to explain the meaning. Equinox◑11:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I've heard "a lot of good that'll do" with only the context and tone of voice to convey the sarcasm, as well as substitution of things like "help" for "good". Chuck Entz (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
A more common collocation is fat lot of use, while fat lot of help is also common, so this is IMO SOP. I think a fat lot should actually be moved to a fat lot of, to be classified as a determiner (compare a lick of), to which fat lot and a fat lot can redirect. --Lambiam19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Rfd-sense:"Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum generated by an electronic device." Is this (sense 4) actually different from the &lit sense 5? I'm not sure. Ƿidsiþ06:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is another sense: “Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum produced by the light of an incandescentlight source passing through a blue colour filter”. Also, “Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum emitted by the daytime sky, caused by Rayleigh scattering”. As sense 4 is merely “Visible light having the colour of the clear sky or the deep sea, between green and purple in the visible spectrum”, without specifying the light source, I imagine we can expect many more precisely specified senses. In other words, Delete. --Lambiam18:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep. According to the Wikipedia article, "Applying makeup, nail polish, dying one's hair, applying henna to the skin, and tooth whitening are not examples of acquired traits" (which is a synonym according to the same article). However, if a celebrity does their hair and makeup in a particular way, that can be said to be acquired + a characteristic, but not an acquired characteristic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Feels SOP-y to me, being from the river to the sea plus the rest of the words. It's not a set phrase, either, because there are some uses with "Palestine will be free" at the front. An example of this is in the 2014 essay collection Conversations in Postcolonial Thought, in an essay by Ronit Lentin, in which she writes "This forgetting ... is precisely what pro-Palestine demonstrators say: Palestine will be free from the river to the sea." However, I will admit that this element seems like it makes up a large chunk of the uses of "from the river to the sea". CitationsFreak (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
And while we're at it, I think we need to improve the definition of from the river to the sea. The current Al-Jazeera citation does not support the use of the phrase as a slogan, but rather as a literal prepositional phrase (of course, with fried-egg restrictions on which river and sea are being referred to). In fact, can we find any examples of from the river to the sea being used in isolation (without any complement) as a slogan? If so, then we should have two definitions here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠21:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Encyclopedic. The article was nominated 15 years ago with no consensus. The only arguments seem to be for notability, which disagrees with our policy. brittletheories (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that these cites are in reference to Al Jazeera being seen as a Muslim news source, and therefore must have beheading tapes on their newsfeed. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Delete per Brittletheories, any figurative sense ought to be stated explicitly to support inclusion and I don't see an obvious one here. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)
This was just added, with a request for definition. But it is so very NISOP that it is hard to define. I notice that the translations added look pretty much like straightforward calques, so I don't think even the translation hub justification holds here. Kiwima (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Compare by what criterion,by what entrance,by what feat of logic,by what means,by what mistaken magic &c. &c. --Lambiam16:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there is definitely use of both phrases as a sincere term of congratulations for a small child or for a pet, upon which the idiomatic use for adults is based. I think these pages should be expanded, but also support keeping the idiomatic usage, so my support is for adding your sense, not replacing the existing sense. —Soap—12:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, the definition reads as "An obedient female child, or someone who behaves like one"; I presume that's the part that applies in this usex. The definition should be split imo, because I was also confused at first. PUC – 20:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep, as I think these are plainly idiomatic. Is it not obvious that the use-example I chose describes a woman who obeys her male partner without question? And that most of us would consider such a woman to be excessively obedient? This goes far beyond the literal meaning good girl you would use to describe a five-year-old who shares their candy with neighborhood kids even when their parents didn't tell them to. Likewise, the use-example on good boy describes an adult man who avoids taking on a difficult adult responsibility, something we would never expect a literal child to handle.
I created these pages just two days ago, and I intend to add to them a lot more, but I prefer to work at a slow pace, hopping around from page to page, rather than focusing on getting a new entry to completion right out of the gate. I wasn't expecting an RFD so soon after creation. Nonetheless, the core of the content is there, and I see no reason to consider this a sum-of-parts definition. The fact that it needs so much explanation is a demonstration on its own that it's idiomatic. Best regards, —Soap—12:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the wording of the pages is good as it is, but if I were to break the combined definitions apart so that the idiomatic sense was defined as something such as an excessively obedient (wo)man, would we still consider this to be sum-of-parts? If so, how could a naive reader coming across the phrase good girl in a context like the above use our definitions of good (7 senses just for people) and girl (10 senses) to put together that it means an excessively obedient woman? If this is going to be another one of those "they'll figure it out from context" RFD's, I'll just say as I've said before that the people who look things up in a dictionary are precisely NOT the people who can piece out an unpredictable definition from the context it's in. We don't write for people like us. —Soap—12:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't. In fact, I don't think I could be condescending if I tried. But that's irrelevant ... what matters to me is .... can anyone answer my question? —Soap—13:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you show me idiomatic uses of those phrases? Particularly ones that are as far from a literal meaning as well-behaved child is from excessively obedient adult? —Soap—13:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The meaning of words are not idiomatic, as i said of the usage examples you have: they have been used (shallowly) in the context to taunt, to suggest excessiveness. Words like good father etc. can be used similarly. Yes, a kid might not understand the use case, but many a satirical use cases are not always apparent. And lastly i think red-green alliance should have been kept. कालमैत्री (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep, but I think the example for "good boy" is really weird and should be changed. Honestly the context for the current example is unclear to me. I think a better example for idiomatic usage (use for an adult) would be something like
"I know how to cook dinner, Dave. Now be a good boy and go wait quietly with the kids." Or
"Be a good boy and give your mother a call. She's been calling every day for a week!"
Keep. I don't think these are used only in cases where it would be natural to use "boy" or "girl." Also, I think a good test for idiomaticity is if a term can be translated literally. Is that the case here? Can you say "bon garçon" to a dog or a child in French? I'm not a native speaker, but I think something like "bravo" would be more likely. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
But the senses don't include the use as interjection, while that should be the case only then. Have you read the entries? Your French argument is not correct, a particular phrase can be used in one language, but might sound awkward in other even with literal senses. कालमैत्री (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
To clarify my vote: Delete noun but keep as an interjection. My translation-based argument doesn't prove anything, it's true, but it is still evidence, or at least an argument for making it a translation hub. But you're right, I neglected to read the entry and based on some of the above comments, thought we were talking about an interjection sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted in 2014 with the rationale “This is a mistake not an alternative form. Hardly worth creating {{misspelling of}} entries for wrong capitalization.” Since then, there have been two sections on the talk page:
Not a mistaken form
Pace the editors above, lower-case ancient is more (not less) common when dealing with the people and adjective, with an established meaning very much more restrictive than simply the SOP of "anything very old related to Greece". Ancient Greek may be written either way, albeit it's increasingly common (as we learn ancient Greek less often) to give the name "Greek" to the modern form and instead describe ancient Greek as an all-capped thing-unto-itself.
Further, Ancient Greek is properly restricted to the Greek of antiquity. The phrase however is sometimes used (as in ISO 639) as inclusive of all Greek up to 1453, a sense where it should be lower-case (but still not SOP). — LlywelynII 22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried looking up some other placenames that only occur as the names of lakes and rivers, and have to admit it was more difficult than I expected. It seems that we typically just don't list these either in their bare form or with "lake" and "river" attached. The ones I did find were all used in more than one placename, e.g. Sligo, Cam, Magog, Champlain. If we move this to RFV I suppose the question would be about whether people can say Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg to mean the lake, since that is the only placename there is. I would expect that they do, though it seems at least some of the Google search results for the long name without the word "lake" are simply pages in other languages. —Soap—11:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
My intent was not to search for three cites but to delete the entry without a search for three cites on policy grounds. If I brought this at RFV and wrote what I wrote above, I guarantee it would be said "take it to RFD, you bitch ass punk". I have now opened an RFV too, copy-pasting the above grounds but as a different petition. I want to run an RFD and an RFV on this term simultaneously. I would suggest closing this one and recommending RFV and closing that one and recommending RFD. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense. You are saying that "Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg" alone (minus "Lake") does not exist. The way to disprove this is to find 3 cites for it. Thus RFV is the correct venue per policy. Equinox◑11:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I see the error of my petitions, but I am just totally unexperienced with the process. I wash my hands of both petitions and retract them insofar as I can. Please do not contact me about this. I have no ill will toward you Equinox. And what I realize is that I have never had a successful RFD before- though I have had about 5 to 10 successful RFVs. That's the page where I can have a more interesting and useful role; I really have no opinions about policy-related questions that will come up in an RFD. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)(Modified)
@Geographyinitiative: I never saw your response at the time. However: these RFVs and RFDs are not tribunals where we seek to punish people: they are (hopefully) a way to improve the dictionary by removing low-quality material, or merging, or whatever. We have probably fought a lot, Mr Geography, but only because of disagreements on inclusion, nothing strictly personal. I hope we will continue to fight on those grounds :) Equinox◑06:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Rfd-sense "part of a branch". How is this different from sense 1 ("branch that is itself an offshoot of a branch of something")? PUC – 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
If a part of a branch isn't an entire branch in its own right, it wouldn't meet the definition of sense 1. I suppose there might be a way to combine the two, but it would have to be worded differently than the current sense 1. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure whether such “non-branches” would be called subbranches, and even if they would, is there a way to differentiate them from actual smaller branches? In any case, I think one definition line is sufficient (maybe after a bit of rewording). Einstein2 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Rfd-sense. We shouldn't list given names as being from Chinese, they would either be anglicised (in which case indistinguishable from the other one listed above on the page) or transliterations (which we don't include for Chinese given names). – wpi (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Unlike the situation in European languages, I've been told that you can use more or less any combination of characters to form a Chinese given name. Therefore just about any combination of two Pinyin syllables would be attestable as a given name. That's a theoretical 400 + 400*400 = 160,400 Chinese given name entries. Plus some people have three-syllable names. I don't think this is worth our time. However, I'm not sure how I feel about excluding one particular language's (⇒ ethnicity's?) names from inclusion. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Nominated by @MedK1 with the comment “SOP. We don't have pages for W skills or W speech either. Why should "W rizz" and any of the pages linked in the Antonyms section get one?”. lattermint (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Delete both as original nominator. It's a bit maddening that L rizz was even created considering its mention in the RFD reason for W rizz. MedK1 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I brought this up in the Discord and in User talk:DTLHS#Hurry-furry merger but it didn't get too far. @theknightwho seemed to agree with me though! I was able to find it in a few spots and I've both seen it used and actually used it in conversations (see the talk page message for more). So yeah, I think the deletion was clearly unfair. There's no reason to think it was coined by Wikipedia or whatever. MedK1 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Undelete - the reasons given for DTLHS's out-of-process deletion were "I bet it came from some dumb Wikipedia list" and "sounds like bullshit". Theknightwho (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Recreate and send to RFV? I see plenty on the Web, not much in GBooks (though their search sucks these days). Equinox◑09:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The deleting administrator seemed to be in a bad mood on the day they were questioned about it and is no longer active, so I dont expect them to share an opinion here, but I agree with those above there's no reason this page should be omitted when cot-caught merger and similar pages are listed. —Soap—12:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep. It's an alt form of "meantime" ("The time spent waiting for another event; time in between") which uses no sense of mean that is obvious to a modern speaker. Equinox◑15:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep: It is a recognised adjective in Oxford and Collins, and probably others. The verb is apparently archaic, but it is also a variant of forgo. DonnanZ (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Currently the structure is unclear.
Et1 of foregoing is empty, but based on the definition, seems to correspond to Et1 of forego.
Et2 of foregoing points vaguely to forego which contains two et's.
Presumably User:Chuck_Entz reads Et2 of foregoing as a reference to Et1 of forego, otherwise why suggest the deletion of Et1 of foregoing? So then we would have two et's under foregoing that are both based on et1 of forego ...and nothing for et2 of forego.
I am strongly in favour of making the etymologies explicit in the foregoing entry, rather than missing or implicit.
I am neutral on the grammatical recognition of the adjectival form.
However, I thought a noun form should be added, per Talk:foregoing#noun (sorry if that's off-topic). Or is that already covered by the gerund label?
SOP: "love that is unrequited". I don't believe "even though reciprocation is desired" should be part of the definition. PUC – 09:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I did find a couple of counterexamples (unrequited love of a mother for their child: ) but they were picked out from a sea of examples that related to romantic love. I don't know what to make of it from a SOP point of view though. I'd lean keep but not strongly. In the event the term is deleted, translations should be moved to unrequited. This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe the adult diaper page should be restored, per the argument I made in August here. More succinctly, if our deletion policy is leading us to delete well-established terms as sum of parts, while continuing to list scarcely-used synonyms for those terms simply because they're not sum of parts, I think the policy needs to be reformed. —Soap—17:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
You created this: entire definition was "Any diaper sized to be worn by adults". I deleted it as "Non-idiomatic sum-of-parts term: please see WT:SOP: adult Adjective: Intended for or restricted to adults rather than children due to size". I think that deletion was sound. Equinox◑09:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@BD2412 This is a good argument for adult diaper's SOPness. Incontinence diapers and role play diapers are both "diapers for adults". The term adult diaper doesn't convey anything about the reason the diapers are worn. It is sense 2 (2.0, if you will) of adult that is used in both cases. You've convinced me that adult diaper and incontinence diaper should both be deleted, honestly. This, that and the other (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Even though it may be a synonym of incontinence diaper, that doesn’t justify it being an entry in its own right. The words adult and diaper can be linked separately. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Just for background: this was a route in California during the Spanish period connecting the missions in the region. It no longer exists in its old form, but it's symbolic of that period, and roads/highways that cover parts of the same route are often officially designated as part of it to empasize their connection to history. I think it's significant that "El" is capitalized, since it just means "the" in Spanish and it shows that the term isn't understood as the sum of its parts (I wonder if it makes any sense to have a Spanish entry at that capitalization). In fact, the term was probably not used for the modern concept during the mission period (any official route was so designated), but civic boosters in the past century or so resurrected it as a way to promote tourism by connecting their communities to what they portrayed as a romantic bygone era. I suppose it might be analogous to the Silk Road or the Royal Road, which we do have entries for, or the Appian Way, which we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should compare Spanishcamino real (camino construido a expensas del Estado) with King's highway. Oxford, for Queen's highway (published before QEII died), a mass noun by the way, says "the public road network, regarded as being under royal protection". Thus not roads owned by the monarch, although they can use them. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Let's keep it brief because this thread is about quarter-, but: recognised by whom, as what? Hope it ain't the "it's not in the dictionary!" argument. An interesting counter-argument for cross- might be: if it's morphological, why must I say cross-state and not crosstate? They are separate words. Equinox◑22:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@A_westman: You can't trust the category though. Casual editors will add and remove things to/from categories based on feelings, not necessarily on grammar. You need to use strong arguments to defend or refute the membership. Equinox◑00:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep because "do not want" has an acronym tied to it. I'd absolutely say "delete" otherwise. We don't keep a special sense at am for cutesy slang like "am smol child" (where the subject is ungrammatically omitted), so I don't think @Equinox's reasoning to keep these is good reasoning. MedK1 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep, since it refers to reasons that are "tangential, dubious or unknown", so it's not SOP. Perhaps "for reasons" is also used (I've never heard it), but I don't think other collocations are possible. Theknightwho (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Well: "for reasons" and "due to reasons" and "owing to reasons" obey traditional grammar. "Because reasons" doesn't. Anyway, your point about the "tangentiality" is something separate. Equinox◑02:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think this is simply a special use of because. In my experience, it's usually said with a pause between "because" and "reasons", with the "reasons" meant to be a humorous replacement for actual reasons that one does not want to elaborate on (or that don't actually exist). So instead of telling my friend I didn't go to the party "Because I didn't feel like it", I might say "Because, reasons...", which is perhaps a way of verbalizing "Because ". Which is not an SOP phrase and not dependent on the grammar of either word involved. I'm just speculating here, but this may also be the original phrase which gave rise to the Internet slang sense of because. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I’ve heard “because, NP” (e.g., “because, politicans”) used in conversations. I’m not certain what constitutes Internet slang (Facebook, TAFKAT, neither of which I use?). --Lambiam12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete, pragmatics with many analogues. In stream-of-conscious-like colloquial language some conventions of grammar are more frequently broken. Fay Freak (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete: I don’t think the elision of words (“because reasons”) makes the phrase lexical. Another instance is “I cannot ”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: I created it. It is listed as an alternative form of I can’t even at Dictionary.com. See, e.g., “What's the meaning of "I can't (emotes)"” (Reddit: “It means something is extremely funny.”), “What does I can’t. mean? I saw ppl saying that below a meme, is it means laughing out of control?” (HiNative: “In the context of laughing because of a funny meme (I can’t 😭) I can’t means “I can’t with this meme/post” or “this meme/post is way too funny””), “What does I can't with you mean?” (HiNative: ““I can’t with you” in slang terms can mean that dealing with you right now is too much! This may be meant seriously or used sarcastically in a funny way depending on context.”), “What’s with “I can’t with”?” (Reddit: “Yeah, it's a slang phrase. It is a shortening of "I can't deal with ... " but it's taken over as a phrase. It is not technically correct usage but it has become very common.”; Grammarphobia: “You won’t find this sense of “I can’t with” in standard references, but it’s definitely out there. And if enough people use it, we may be seeing it in dictionaries someday.”). I believe it is worthy of an entry. J3133 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I think WF has chosen the weakest link in the chain. There are entries for every hundred between two hundred and twenty-three hundred, including twenty hundred (for 24-hour clock), but no ten hundred for the 24-hour clock. It's pointless deleting this one without removing the others. DonnanZ (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete all the number senses. WT:CFI (established by this formal vote) is clear on this: "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI." The numerical use of eleven hundred, twelve hundred, and so on is already explained in "Appendix:English numerals". However, I think the 24-hour clock sense can stay. I am undecided on the year sense (leaning towards delete) as this is an infinite series—we should discuss this further. It may be better to explain this in a new appendix under "Appendix:Time". — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: If there is no consensus for deletion of the entry itself, I assume you would not oppose adding this sense instead of having the entry incomplete. J3133 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep as part of a set. The explanation is good enough; from personal experience a December solstice is more preferable in NZ than in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Author purposefully misunderstands CFI. As on PUC’s talk page, I’ve investigated and found that there are no legal peculiarities to the term. Fay Freak (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep - specialised term in economics. It refers to cartel-like behaviour where prices are fixed through implicit agreement, as opposed to a formal (hidden) agreement. Theknightwho (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I have given this way too much thought, and I think we should keep this as the economic equivalent of seafloor spreading, listed as precedent under WT:PRIOR. I was actually going to vote delete: This is clearly a set term of art in economics, but there is no real additional meaning imbued by the phrase beyond the literal meaning of the two terms (other than that it needs to be for the purposes of maximising profit - but to what other ends do businesses collude?). I searched for a plausible synonym, "unspoken collusion", and most of what I found was articles written for the lay reader, written by authors who clearly understand tacit collusion to be the "real" term. But seeing seafloor spreading convinced me we should keep this too. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
One cannot gather the meaning of seafloor spreading from either seafloor or spreading, so clearly it is not SoP. But tacit collusion is defined as "A form of collusion in which colluding parties do not explicitly share information with one another, achieving a collusive arrangement by an unspoken understanding". In other words, it is a form of collusion that is tacit. The way I see it, defining the term with many words does not in itself make it less SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I mean it makes senses to write articles about it. But everything interesting on it is encyclopedic information. This, that and the other’s simile goes beyond what my creativity tolerates. Of course there are specialised terms that are SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Can't one? I can't imagine what else seafloor spreading could refer to other than the expansion (spread verb sense 6) of the seafloor. (Admittedly it could refer to spreading the seafloor with some substance as one spreads bread with peanut butter, but that is rather far-fetched from a practical standpoint.) And yet, it is a term of art in geology, so it seems we are keeping it solely on that basis - to allow our readers to benefit from the additional info and context provided in the definition line. This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: oh, I misunderstood you—I thought you meant seafloor spreading was some sort of economic term. If not it may warrant further examination. But it doesn’t change the point that I think tacit collusion is SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Unidiomatic higher-than-100 number pages like one hundred one
Delete in compliance with WT:CFI, unless there is an figurative sense (variant of one hundred and one, though I've not heard it used this way?), in which case the numeral sense should be replaced by the figurative sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete as per CFI, add usage note to and to explain British vs. American usage in these cases. (For the record, I've heard from an elementary school teacher that you shouldn't say "one hundred and one", as "and" is used for separating whole numbers from the decimal point only.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirect hundred and one to one hundred and one which has a figurative sense or, perhaps even better, make hundred and one the lemma since people often say a hundred and one as Donnanz points out. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about this one, but I just want to point out that there was a previous RFD discussion and I think this one should take the arguments made then into account. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem is it is being used as a translation hub. It maybe should be kept for that reason, though most of the translations are red links. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The naming of nuclides is very systematic (element name + mass number, hyphenated), and there is nothing here but borderline WT:SOP mixed with encyclopedic content. The table of nuclides has over 3000 known entries; for example, the known isotopes of uranium range in mass number from 214 to 242 (cf. w:Isotopes of uranium). An entry consisting of chemical symbol + mass number is also included.
If it is supposed to be a figurative sense, then it needs a figurative usex, and with a figurative definition not conflated with a literal one. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
What is probably needed is a cleanup of the entire English verb section with attention to things like the correspondence of trans/intrans labels to usage examples, placement of parentheses around objects in intransitive definitions as well as redundancy. DCDuring (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Leaning keep on the grounds that a typical leafy green salad with slices of tuna added in would not meet the definition of a "tuna salad". bd2412T19:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep. It is unfortunate that it is called by tuna, giving the impression of possible SOPness, and not something else, which garden salad doesn’t since it is difficult to argue it being but a salad made from the garden. If walk into to a supermarket then it may be that there are only two kinds of generic off-brand salads: garden salad and tuna salads. There is also something peculiar about mayonnaise always being comprehended under the label. Fay Freak (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay guys. True story, no lie: I made a great salad last night, a delicious one, truly: I put in celery, cucumber, tomatoes, rocket, tuna, sunflower oil, cider vinegar, and various herbs with which I will not bore you. I really made (and ate) that salad. Was it a "tuna salad"? According to the current tuna salad entry, no: and if that entry is correct, then a "salad that has tuna in it" is not a "tuna salad" and thus the entry should be kept as idiomatic and confusing. On the other hand, if my salad I made last night was a tuna salad, then the entry is wrong, and we should correct it, and if the corrected entry then says "any salad with tuna in it" then it fails RFD. I am doing the praxis. Equinox◑08:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed that the term may have two meanings, a particular salad, directly competing with garden salad as described, and a “very specific” paste of tuna with mayonnaise and stuff, in tins, that’s why image results weird me out: Pasta Thunfisch-Salat it is written. Fay Freak (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the first couple pages of Google News, it seems that tuna salad is what Wonderfool has it as, and not Equinox's salad, yummy as it may be. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Etymologically, that may have been the case, but is it still? The fact that it is pronounced differently (at least in North America) than "have" + suggests to me that it is no longer analyzed that way by most speakers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Good example of why I'm opposed to making WT:Lemmings a hard-and-fast rule and to giving an automatic pass to entries that meet the criterion. We can redirect the most common collocations to biological if necessary (or all of them, I don't care). PUC – 21:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I recall hearing "biological parent" used as a put-down by offspring who considered a parent to be distant or uncaring, even if it is the only parent (i.e. the birth parent is also the parenting parent, and there are no adoptive or step-parents involved). bd2412T14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
And that’s more the tone or particular stress and possibly context that puts down, with the same denotation, not like fillemeaning three different things “depending on whether you sneer in a certain way when you use it.” Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I suspect this has lexicalised beyond the brand, as I can see websites with recipes (including the BBC): e.g. , , . Theknightwho (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: That I specifically considered, it as with any kind of brand on recipe sites. Your BBC example is naught as people when learning or having learnt and exerting themselves to cook or bake attempt to imitate industrial products. Say how to make Bounty or Knoppers at home. I admit I haven’t followed the brand criteria exactly to explain why we should or should not have Twix, which we have. But in the present form, with bread added and SOP definition and no suggestives cites I do not respect the entry.
I see another problem here, we would create entries for popular fashion items that have trended strongly enough to beget reps, like Off-White belt, Gucci loafers, big red boot, shark hoodie, which naturally in most real-world examples, counting those in Asia too at least, are fake—genericized? Be it that at the same time many of these items deserve encyclopedia entries, even if I think more specific wikis are better suited to catch the heat. Fay Freak (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep, I think. It may be a brand, but different bakeries also have their own name on the wrapper. Expatriates from Northern Ireland can buy it online. I'm obviously missing something here in Middlesex. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
It should meet WT:BRAND in Northern Ireland at least, so it could be localised, not universal. Some quotes are needed, something for someone who specialises in digging on the Internet to do. I did find references to "some Veda bread" and "a loaf of Veda bread". DonnanZ (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This page has many occurrences of veda with a lower-case v (“I remember growing up on veda, toasted with cheese”; “have to wait till I go back home to get my veda”; “Someone sent me a recipe for a wee malt loaf but nowhere near like veda.”) --Lambiam12:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I have added a sense to morel#Etymology 2 to include plants of general Solanum, Atropa, and Aralia. It is probably "archaic", if not obsolete, still occurring in dictionaries, usually in compounds (great morel and petit morel).
I don't think there are genera of mushrooms called morels other than the true morels of genus Morchella. I have yet to find recent instances of the sometimes toxic false morels of genus Gyromitra being called morels, except in the collocation "collected as morels", probably an example of the role of evolution in language. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Sum of parts. It was added to the WT:REE request list, and uhh let's say that a recent user has been loudly begging for creations lately; thus it got created. But it is really nothing more than number + homophone. Equinox◑06:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
SoP. The fact that it's one specific mate is not part of the definition - if a chess variant had a different mating position reachable in two moves you would call it a "two-move checkmate" as well. * Pppery *it has begun...01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between any old two-move checkmate (indefinite article) and the two-move checkmate. PUC – 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Rfd-sense "(LGBT, chiefly in the plural) Any of the pronouns by which a person prefers to be described, typically reflecting gender identity", with the usex "My pronouns are she/her" and cites like "students I interviewed used nonbinary pronouns for themselves". This seems to just be sense 1; you can construct analogous sentences using "name": "My name is River", "some non-binary people use gendered names", etc, but it doesn't mean "name" has a new sense "The name by which a person prefers to be described, typically reflecting gender identity". On the talk page, Equinox notes that '"My pronouns" means "the ones I want others to use about me" and not (say) "ones I have coined" or "ones that I use to describe other people"', but the same can be said of name: "My name" usually means "the one I want others to use for me" and not "the one I invented" or "the one I use to describe someone else", except in the same specific contexts in which pronoun could also mean those things. - -sche(discuss)21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Somebody might say "I don't have pronouns" or "I don't need pronouns", meaning the LGBT thing, and not the traditional kind. Equinox◑00:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This is true, but IMO if we want a sense to cover things like "I don't use pronouns!", it needs different cites, because IMO the current cites ("my pronouns are she/her" etc) are sense 1. I'm also unsure about considering "I don't use pronouns!"-type use to make a different sense, because such people also say things like "I don't have a gender, I'm a woman", and (especially a decade or two ago) "I don't have an orientation, I'm straight/normal", or think of other people but not themselves as having race, or think they don't have an accent, which seems to me like a grey area between lexical and extralexical. OTOH I concede that we do seem to cover such use of accent as a separate sense, and there may indeed be enough otherwise-perplexing uses to support a "transgender gender(s)" sense at gender (e.g. the surprisingly common phrase "women and the gender community", which otherwise makes piss-all sense), and to support a "nonwhite race(s)" sense at race and racial (as in race music, racial spoils), so meh. I'm not strongly opposed to having a sense like this... I just think it sure seems an awful lot like just sense 1. - -sche(discuss)22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about entirely deleting the sense, but I don't like the label of "LGBT" on it. It makes it sound like it's solely LGBT folks that use them, when it's far from not. I'm not sure how to rephrase the labeling though. MW currently has "the third person personal pronouns (such as he/him, she/her, and they/them) that a person goes by", which we might want to emulate in our own definition. AG202 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I've heard this terms before in uses like "The Bible doesn't use pronouns, liberal snowflakes!", so it feels weird calling it an LGBTQIA2S+ thing. Maybe it's a different usage, who knows? CitationsFreak (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't really feel like any label is needed? Maybe "originally LGBT", but even that is pushing it, and I can't verify it. And again, it's not an LGBT-only thing, I've seen many many many folks outside of the community use it. We can just follow MW. AG202 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
As Chuck Entz pointed out at Talk:in a perfect world, the whole world wouldn't have to be ideal: only the single thing under discussion. We also don't use phrases like "in a good world"; this is idiomatic. Equinox◑06:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
No, as they would have been seen as "freaks" (as in oddballs) in 1969. (The OED lists this term as being coined in 1890, and these two groups were seen as the counterculture in the late '60s.)
However, the same source does list the hippie sense as its own thing. So, mayyybe it fits in? Feels a bit iffy to say that, since it is based on the same usage as "freak" as our sense 4, and any reclamation would be the same as reclamation of any insult. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Citeable, but before I create the entry I want to check: is it SOP? Sugar-tongs or sugar tongs are tongs you use to pick up sugar cubes. - -sche(discuss)21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Create, there is no danger of proliferation, this is listed in inventories and people want to know about it and its translations. German Zuckerzange will have to be created in either case. Fay Freak (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep, I believe. If homeplanet meets inclusion then home planet does too per WT:SoP ("Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words are included if they are significantly more common than single-word spellings that meet criteria for inclusion"), since home planet is much more common (Google Ngrams (also throwing in homeworld/home world out of curiosity)). As to homeplanet, WT:ATTEST calls for three permanent sources. Here are , (books via Google Books), (article found via Google Scholar). So that seems to meet WT:CFI. (It took a bit of sifting through search results to get 3 viewable without paywall. If there are issues with those 3 (ping me), then some more could probably be found.) SilverLocust💬09:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Sense 2, defined as "Punning on bum (as a synonym of hobo).". That is not a real definition. The three citations do not appear to have the same meaning. Equinox◑12:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
As far as I have encountered this word, it means a person only engaging in relations with a sexual element in order to avoid homelessness. Which for the first quote “a man who can only get excited by women who are real tramps” could mean that you yourself have to be kind of a tramp to accept such a boyfriend, otherwise too unorderly (sense 3) to care for himself; as with most sexualities the term is then used for the other party too, as by its formation the term implies to contain what one is attracted to. The definitions are unchanged since 2011’s creation by Doremítzwr, about whose reliability I have no information. Fay Freak (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding sense 1: that also seems to be a pun (on "tramp" meaning a slutty woman) and does not refer to "tramp" in the hobo sense. Equinox◑12:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Also. Where we see again that one can employ a word in multiple of its assumed meanings simultaneously. But only by the peripheral understanding of it that serial monogamy is promiscuity, assuming our definition of tramp correct.
The psychological reality can of course be personality traits of a woman to make her inclined to any described livelihoods but various internalized expectations prevent her. For example if someone is borderliner (almost 2 % of the general population) they seek attachment to other people fast while simultaneously disengaging up to the point of homelessness due to self-devaluation. Or if someone has dependent personality disorder (almost 1 %, especially in women) after a breakup they will enter the next nightclub and anyone hooking up will be the boyfriend henceforth—which should sound ridiculous to sound people; people generally have a vague idea of the prevalent determination of life by irrational behaviours. But punning is of course no clear concept yet and thus the creator likely implemented more ideas in his definitions than users of the word could know or imply about psychological or behavorial reality. Fay Freak (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
The current definition is An area or environment which is smoke-free., which is obvious SOP. Delete now, and if it can be proven to have a more specific non-SOP meaning it can be recreated. * Pppery *it has begun...05:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Prefix: "Indicates that the following string is a newsgroup." This is a total misunderstanding. 1. It's not an English prefix but a fragment like biz or www in domains. 2. The dot is a separator, so alt.suicide.holiday is not a prefix alt. on top of suicide.holiday, but rather the three components alt, suicide, holiday all separated by dots. 3. It doesn't mean "newsgroup in general" but a specific hierarchy (alternative groups), as opposed to (say) comp for computing groups and rec for recreation/hobbies. All of those are newsgroups; alt is just one subhierarchy of newsgroups; so the etymology is wrong too. Equinox◑11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Equinox. What I was referring to when I wrote that was uses of the separator to refer to fictitious newsgroups. As such "alt.suicide.holiday" would not fall under what the definition was intended to cover, but "post this on alt.stupid.questions!" would. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I can understand the lack of will to create telegraph uniform, the term is so 19th century. There are very few derived terms listed at uniform (tango uniform doesn't count). On the other hand, there are plenty of derived terms for telegraph, many are red links, but this one never occurred to anybody. The best I can suggest is adding the two citations/quotations to both telegraph and uniform. DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems like a relic of the days when we had English entries for this kind of thing just to collect in one place the reflexes of the cases where it was applied in Latin (we used to have sug- as an English prefix, ostensibly used in suggest). If there are not instances of it being applied in English, then delete. - -sche(discuss)06:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
You're right in saying it's not a suffix. The Oxford Dictionary of English calls it a combining form, from Latinfactio, in nouns of action derived from verbs ending in -fy (such as liquefaction from liquefy). I think it's keepable somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Don't we already have entries for affixes (or affix variants) that are (at least mostly) only found in loanwords listed as non-productive? I don't see how this is any different from those. 2601:242:4100:22C0:FDAB:807C:167A:56D18:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Claimed as THUBs, but all translations are word-for-word, either directly ("heliocentric" + "orbit") or indirectly ("heliocentric" = "with Sun at the center, around the Sun" + "orbit"). — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /15:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, the rationale for this entry is woefully inadequate. We don’t include phrases just because some schools of thought consider them contradictions in terms; that is not enough to make them idiomatic. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 02:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
If it is sum of parts then the number of uses doesn't matter. Your existing single citation is a mention, not a use. Equinox◑20:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough information to recognize idiomatic nature or even extrapolate its being grown by wumaos. Basically this is paranoia, Apisite cannot convince me that there is a conspiracy to push this terminology, although I am all into McCarthyism. Fay Freak (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep per the OED, quotations (e.g., “both animal and vegetal remains”; “a form either wholly or partially animal. (who never has human form)”), and derived terms (e.g., semianimal(“half or partly animal”); cf. semihuman). J3133 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: I have added two more quotations: “I’m no longer human or animal or vegetal” and “though undoubtedly human, it was very animal in its instincts and ways”. The former uses three adjectives; the latter, with a modifier, clearly shows that this is an adjective. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I would probably delete, if not found in other phrases. Similarly we don't have an entry for "dabba" purely because of "yabba dabba doo". Equinox◑20:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
"An objectionable or unfortunate person." This is sorry(“pathetic; contemptibly inadequate”) + ass(“a person; the self”). Many adjectives can and do replace "sorry". Equinox◑10:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that it is a common phrase in legal writing makes it a useful entry. "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers" (WT:SOP). Also see the spirit of WT:PHRASE. Jonashtand (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this is what i call a motor memory typo, not a conscious blend of two words. A single attestation of the word spoken out loud would convince me otherwise, but I doubt we will find one, and absence of proof is not proof of absence, so I don't know what to do. The word already passes RFV inasmuch as it has three cites, but whether we have three cites or three hundred there is no way to prove that the intended sense is the one we list. Strong evidence against the cited sense would be if the same document spells it once this way and once as promulgate, but there are plenty of other cites for the blended spelling, so we would never really eliminate the claim that it's purposeful. What should we do? —Soap—12:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Some other evidence I thought of against the claim we make:
The substring -gulate is fairly common in English, while -ulgate is only found in two words and their derivatives. This is the sort of situation that leads to motor memory typos.
The substring -gulate does not actually occur in the claimed parent word promulgate.
There is no obvious pronunciation for the blended word.
Good catch, this does look very much like e.g. (in the other direction, erroneously forgetting to type part of a word) son-law or precipation, the latter of which I can even find on Nasa webpages and in military handbooks (but tellingly, they all also use precipitation). All of the cites provided for promogulate use promogulat(e|es|ing|ed) only once, while making frequent use of promulgate, and for the 2005 cite, other editions have promulgate even in the one sentence where the 2005 edition has promogulate. Furthermore, I can't find any sources which e.g. gloss or explain the word, as I would expect someone to do it they were using a word that looks so much like a typo of promulgate but which they meant to have a completely different sense of promote + regulate. IMO it is clearly a typo in the cites provided, and probably in all cites, although spoken examples would be persuasive as you say. As it stands, I say we delete this. It was added by a good contributor, but even good contributors sometimes misidentify some new string of letters they've spotted as intentional new words when really they're typos; compare Talk:xyrophilic or recondit. - -sche(discuss)13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I am all too familiar, from personal experience, with motor memory typos. (Original coinage?) This certainly seems like one. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not so sure. "Caliphate" simply means a state led by a caliph; if this were sum-of-parts, it would simply mean a caliphate encompassing the entire world. However, I believe the phrase is used to refer to a specific version of an Islamic theocracy, in which a particular version of Islamic law would be imposed on everyone. This would be more strict than the historical states that called themselves caliphates, and in fact while the title of caliph implies that one is the successor of Mohammed, it doesn't necessarily require theocratic rule, much less the specific vision of a particular, contemporary extremist movement. After all, the Ottoman sultans claimed the title for several centuries, and didn't operate as a strict theocracy! This seems to me to be more along the lines of "New World Order", which doesn't mean just "any global order that happens to be new", but which has specific social or cultural meaning that can't be intuited from the words alone. P Aculeius (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This is my first nomination, so I hope I'm doing this right! Sense 2: "Used ironically in a situation where one had the opportunity to scare someone by speaking suddenly." I don't understand how this is a definition of "boo". Do words normally have distinct definitions when used ironically? I'm also having trouble visualizing this use, which seems rather nonsensical to me. Maybe I could just have deleted this as obvious nonsense, but I wasn't sure that would have been appropriate, and I thought I'd better seek feedback first. Also, and I don't know whether this should (or needs to be) discussed here or in a separate nomination, but I'm not sure that sense 1 needs the words "especially a child". Perhaps children are more likely to shout, "boo!" or be shouted "boo!" at than adults, but I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the definition of the word. And could I just have "been bold" and deleted one or both of these things? Most of my contributions on Wiktionary have been new definitions, rewording, or comments on talk pages, so I'm a little unsure of myself. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes. “to scare someone by speaking suddenly” seems oddly specific. And every kind of child-directed speech can be used ironically. So this definition in question is at least superfluous in combination with the other questionable definition, the claim of the target of scaring being a child, so something must be deleted.
To get the real picture, scaring is not to be taken literal anyway. In affective neuroscience after Panksepp we assumerough-and-tumblePlay as a basic emotional system positive in contrast to Fear, and by saying boo one targets the former primary-process system in order to train or maintain social interaction as a function of the age, i.e. booing is always “ironical”, so one should combine definitions with the line that the interjection is used to playfully introduce a sudden scare. The definition in the words “loud exclamation intended to scare” took itself way too serious. Fay Freak (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree with that last point. Shouting "boo!" when one jumps out at someone isn't necessarily ironic. A bit camp, perhaps, but that's only because our notion of what's scary—for adults—has changed, likely due to familiarity with horror movies and similar tropes. I don't think that playfulness or social interaction theory form any part of the definition of "boo". The definition is what it means, not what interpersonal dynamics might justify its use. "A loud exclamation intended to scare" is at least simple, straightforward, and accurate, whether or not grown-ups regard it as childish compared with a jump scare by an axe-wielding maniac. P Aculeius (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I have witnessed this. For example, someone is (apparently) alone in a room, and you draw attention to your presence by (quietly saying, not shouting) "boo". It's humorous. Equinox◑11:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it can't be used ironically or humorously. I'm asking whether that constitutes a separate definition of it. It seems to be "the same meaning, but used ironically". Is it normal to have a separate definition for anything that can be said ironically or humorously? Perhaps the visualization issue is due to the wording: in your example, the presence of the person saying "boo" is either known, but unannounced until the person speaks, in which case there was no "opportunity to scare someone"; or the person's presence was not known, in which case quietly saying "boo" will still scare (or at least startle) someone, and therefore not be ironic. But either way, I don't think that ironic use of a word or phrase constitutes a separate definition. Is it normally treated as one in Wiktionary, or is there something special about this word? P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
With no further feedback, I've gone ahead and deleted the second sense, and done a little trimming of the other two, as indicated above, and also deleting the words "or many members" as an alternative to "a member" in sense 3; I think readers will assume that what one person in a crowd can do, several can also do. Also slight rewording of the first: it seems a little extreme to refer to someone frightened by a concealed person shouting "boo" as a "victim". P Aculeius (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
will to power is an SOP actually, just like will to truth, will to stupidity. Nietzsche used this 'will to' in a similar manner as other "will to"s. Do we create the entry- will to truth to show what truth means to Nietzsche? What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. -Nietzsche. What power means here, why create an entry for? Word0151 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Strong keep and yes, create the others. This term isn't SOP because it doesn't make sense in English. It's a calque of a German expression, which may well have been SOP in the original context, but certainly doesn't retain it's SOPness in English, where the grammatical structure is quite opaque. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Why does it not make sense in English? To be succinct, will to power just means will to power. All other contemplations, what power means etc., are of no dictionary value, and doesn't add much. Word0151 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
=> Do you mean that since the phrase "will to" is not used colloquially, we should include it? Not an impressive refutation. => The phrase is special for sure and has a connotation, but what is its value here? Look at the superficial definitions given there, do they make sense. I have tried changing them. keep if my edit is not reverted 🦇 Word0151 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
There are a lot of shallow idiosyncrasies in philosophy whose presence in any lexicon one may be uneasy about (language game), yet this has caught on enough to require explanation and hence a dictionary entry, though our explanation will stay imperfect. Fay Freak (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not the sum of its parts, because you can't determine the meaning from the words alone. I know what each of those words means, but not what they mean together. Does it mean "the will to obtain power"? "Will that becomes power"? "The will to use power"? You can't tell what this phrase means simply by understanding the individual words—unlike, say, "go over there" or "five fat turkeys". Those are the sum of their parts. Without a definition, and perhaps the quote in context, nobody would know what "will to power" means, which is why it needs an entry in Wiktionary. P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
SOP. Both the terms Magnificat and Nunc dimittis can refer to the canticle itself or to a musical setting of the canticle. While musical settings of the two canticles are frequently published together, as they are performed together in Anglicanevensong (or evening prayer) liturgies, that fact doesn't give the term any meaning beyond its component parts. Graham11 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep - this refers to a specific musical setting with two parts, in the same way mass refers to a specific setting in a musical context. What distinguishes it is that they're written as one unit: you can't take a Magnificat from one setting and a Nunc dimittis from another and call them a "Magnificat and Nunc dimittis" with the meaning of "a musical setting of the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis". Theknightwho (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Only if we agree that diriment is an adjective. Doesn't sound like one. Merriam-Webster has an entry for "diriment impediment" but no entry for "diriment" alone. Equinox◑15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete. Non-SOP definition and can have interesting translations but still we make ourselves ridiculous if we have this and it could proliferate, what else is brutally something? Fay Freak (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, the amazing Kiwima added another sense to this entry, which would make this entry perfectly legitimate and it could then be safely removed from RFD. newfiles (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Mynewfiles: that does not resolve the SoP status of sense 1. Also, just because one sees a red link somewhere does not necessarily mean that it is a proper entry to be created. Since this is a wiki, the link could have been added by an editor unfamiliar with policies such as "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion". — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. But I don't appreciate "PUC"'s comment that I'm "adding a lot of crap". That is very rude of him. I'm very conscientious of the entries that I create. newfiles (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I would say that 'bar' would be a better choice of word than 'beat' here but I agree (of course I prefer 'crotchet' to 'quarter note' too). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
True. The occurrences in question are parts of compounds like the German translation given. So delete. The translation table can be moved to the noun section, for even though we voted to delete attributive-form sections, we did not take the same decision specifically for their translation sections. Some people in the vote opposed (6.: Ketiga123 only formulated it) deletion of the hyphenated-form entries for the translations’ sake. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete: any mineral that can occur in its pure form can be "native"; it seems unnecessary to have a separate entry for every mineral that can be "native", differing only in the name of the mineral following the word "native". P Aculeiustalk05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
(Keep? see below). It's not just a keyword that occurs in code: it is used in English. "You need to alloc 40 bytes here, Fred." Equinox◑16:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Equinox Can't you use quite a lot of keywords as verbs like this? I'm not saying that's a reason we shouldn't include them, but you have a lot more experience of this than me. Theknightwho (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: Yes, but there is some kind of line. I mean if I say "this function has got two IHttpHandlers" then that's hopefully not includable, but if I say "an enum can have multiple names representing the same value" then it probably is, because the word seems to be used to describe the thing, rather than to quote the literal text. We have an entry for lambda and would not object to "this word contains two lambdas". However, having searched Google Books a bit more, it does seem that the citations for alloc seem to refer to an actual keyword or function, and may not be as generic as I imagined. In that case, send to RFV to find citations that everybody will accept. See also malloc, which is a C function (not technically a keyword) but really is very often used as a verb. Equinox◑05:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
"(Australia) A pizza with a non-traditional topping of gourmet ingredients." By no means specific to Australia (there was or is a "Gourmet Pizza Company" restaurant chain in Britain, along with a "Gourmet Burger Kitchen"). I doubt that the gourmet-ness has to be restricted to the toppings, either. Just seems SoP. Any food can be made "gourmet". A sandwich! Equinox◑05:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with your reasoning: any food be called "gourmet" based on its ingredients or manner of preparation. P Aculeius (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I've eaten at pizza restaurants in Australia that offer a more expensive "gourmet" section of the menu, which often includes pizzas with toppings not traditionally found on pizzas (such as salmon or satay sauce). But some of the gourmet pizzas are just gourmet versions of traditional pizzas. The term is still SOP notwithstanding all this. This, that and the other (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per above. SoP. As a side note, when my wife and I returned to Australia after a long absence, we noted how common the term gourmet had become. --Dmol (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Equinox, Surjection: I can't be 100% sure, because they're using proxies, but this IP looks very much like someone we've been playing Whack-a-Mole with for years: they're absolutely obsessed with blends, and are always trying to sneak in lame and poorly attested examples. You can be sure that they wouldn't know or care about this if it weren't a blend of Java and Python. I've now blocked their whole range- they've been working on cites for skinoe and skanoe with other IP addresses within the range. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
A halt is a cessation of movement or other activity, so this seems like a sum-of-parts entry. The definition is “come to a standstill,” and standstill provides halt as synonymous. Furthermore, all variations of come/bring/grind/screech to a halt/stop/standstill are used, and they all mean the thing they're expected to mean (grind here in the sense of “to move with much difficulty or friction”). Hythonia (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, part of me supports having "something"s used as placeholders to be in parentheses, as in "drink (something) like lemonade" or "spring to (someone's) defense". CitationsFreak (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Romanophile: dental fricative is SOP too. I wondered whether it could be a defence, but either entry should be deleted.
The encouragement is limited by the capabilities of the vocal tract, to which alphabetic writing systems and hence actually used terminology are limited, so one could keep the terms in consideration of incoming search traffic; is their presence good for children learning phonetics? Ach-Laut is actually used German and another dictionary has ch-Laut which illustrates how encyclopedic the definition is: if it is both ⟨ç⟩ and ⟨χ⟩ it is on two distinct articulation places, palatal and uvular: there isn’t any definition other than “what, i.e. the phoneme or quasi-phoneme (according to functional load), the graphic sequence typically stands for (in the language we talk), because man doesn’t know language-independent phonetic terminology”.
So you are right that the analogy is strong. It is not really reasonable to assume idiomaticity for one such combination, like th sound, only because it more often makes sense than crazier Verlegenheitswörter. One should consider that not everything that language users answer in a questionnaire is a valid designation; elicited terms should have to be separated as invalid vocabulary, to some degree. Fay Freak (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This seems like SOP, either way. See the Interjection section at English time. I would say the rest of the phrase is just there to be polite. Not that I know a lot about bars and pubs... Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete "time gentleman please" as it's a clear mistake: the phrase is "gentlemen". (What if there's only one customer in the pub? Haha. Still doubt it.) Equinox◑07:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Postposition PoS header (should be Preposition if this is not an Adverb)
From beginning to end.
The baby cried the whole night through.
The usage seems very close in meaning to the Adverb def:
To the end.
He said he would see it through.
The adverb usage example would work pretty well:
He said he would see the crying through.
The adverb usage example, as most usage examples, should probably not use the term it rather than a common noun, it often being arguably part of an idiom or otherwise changing the usage by virtue of its 'lightness'. DCDuring (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards a redef. Maybe something like "One who resembles a characteristic of Mr. Clean, such as an obsession with cleanliness or being bald"? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I’ve redeffed the term as “Someone seeking cleanliness, especially if to an excessive degree.” The earlier definition agreed with neither the PoS heading (“Noun”) nor the quotation from a Bob Dylan song and was plainly wrong. --Lambiam10:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)