Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

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.


Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for verification
Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.
Requests for deletion
Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.
Requests for deletion/Others
add new request | history
Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other namespaces, such as appendices, templates and modules.
Language treatment requests
add new request | history
Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, mergers and splits.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new request | history | archives
Discussion of proposed moves, mergers and splits of entries or other pages.
Category and label treatment requests
add new request | history
Requests for changes to Wiktionary's categories or labels, including additions, deletions, renames, mergers and splits.
Requests for cleanup
add new request | history | archives
Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for entries in English as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms whose existence is in doubt

Templates:

See also:

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.


July 2023

take its toll

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

  • 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)Reply
  • I would say that the "take ... toll" pattern is in itself idiomatic enough to keep, but there are the usual doubts and problems about how to lemmatise it, given the variations possible. Mihia (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
keep. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This sense of "toll" seems to be usable for any figurative "cost" in the form of negative effects. Phrases like "exact a heavy toll" come to mind, not to mention "pay a price". "Take" is fairly strongly collocated because it alliterates and works well prosodically with "toll", in the same way the "pay" and "price" go together. Whatever comes in between is prosodically unimportant, so it can be almost anything that makes sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, petition for speedy deletion of take a heavy toll. That's like creating separate entries for e.g. taking a long break, taking a short break, etc. JimiYru 06:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep in some form. As far as I can recall, I have heard this most frequently in the context of hard work taking a toll on health or relationships, which seems fairly well detached from collecting a toll or a price. bd2412 T 20:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Lambiam (in the TR) and Chuck note occasional variation in the verb (exact, demand, etc). On one hand, variation exists for many idioms: one normally verbs one's way out of a paper bag, but Steve Martin told Ben Stiller "you couldn't act your way into a paper bag", there are occasional references to plastic bags instead, etc: occasional use with other verbs does not necessarily "unset" a set phrase. On the other hand, the pay... examples mean we do need either an entry for the phrase with pay..., or a sense at toll. But I don't know if that "unsets" this phrase: MW does have it.
If we keep it, we have to decide where to lemmatize it (as noted above), but the current situation where take its toll is the lemma and take a toll is a soft redirect seems fine, since Ngrams finds that take its toll is more common than take a toll.
It looks like there are 3 votes for delete/SOP (DCDuring, Chuck, Jimi), 3 votes to keep (Mihia, Allahverdi, bd), Pppery seems not to take a clear position (but might be saying delete?).
I'm on the fence, leaning towards keep. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
If it helps any, I think the main reason that this configuration is so common is the alliteration of the two stressed syllables, as in "pay the price", "bear the brunt", "live and learn", "set in stone", "now or never", "call it quits", "do or die", "get the girl", "have a heart", etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep, where take its toll is the lemma. I agree with Pppery that toll is not used in its complete sense and therefore, is idiomatic. TranqyPoo (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If there is no further comment, I intend to close this as kept, shortly. bd2412 T 04:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The boldfaced T in your signature stands for T-minus. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

September 2023

be at

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

If the usage examples are correct (and I don't know that they are) I think this would be worth keeping since it departs from standard English grammar. Vergencescattered (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm of two minds. On the one hand, I hate this—"where are you at " (or "where you at"!) means exactly the same as "where are you". But people do say this. My nephew says it all the time. If it's worth keeping nonstandard grammar, then I guess we should keep it. Though the meaning does seem pretty transparent, and I doubt anybody will be left in the dark if we don't keep it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • If kept, we should list the standard-grammar sense too (which I have now added), otherwise it looks as if "be at" only has a slang or non-standard use. As far as the non-standard use is concerned, does it occur only with "where"? If so, this should be mentioned. Mihia (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
It seems perfectly intelligible with the very first sense of at, "In, near, or in the general vicinity of". Where are you at, where are you in the vicinity of? I am at the mall. I am at Dave's place. Etc. So delete IMO. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete, agree with above. TranqyPoo (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete, not really seeing how this is a separate sense (requiring its own entry) from at (in, near, or in the general vicinity of (a particular place), sense 1). I think this sense might be non-standard (at least to pedants), but that does not retract from it ultimately being SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the colloquial sense is NSOP because 'at' has no meaning, it's the same as 'where are you'. Justin the Just (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Justin the Just: For me, at least, at is being used to mean in or located: “where are you at” is the same as saying “where are you located'', both of which are indeed synonyms of “where are you”. Comparing sense 1 of at, it does not exactly seem like a filler word with no meaning when used in be at. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

October 2023

school-age

Attributive form of school age, not a real adjective. We also don't want working-age alongside working age. PUC13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note that it excludes university (and probably kindergarten, if people want to split hairs). Soap 18:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
I don't think any purpose would be served by deleting this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete the hyphenated attributive sense, following precedent. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

November 2023

Lulu

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

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)Reply
They wouldn't be attestable unless three people actually had that name 83.151.229.56 11:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep, since this is an RFD of an ==English== entry for "A female given name from Chinese" (not e.g. a Volodymyr-style entry for "A transliteration of the Chinese female given name 璐璐", or a ==Chinese== entry). If there are doubts about whether it exists as ==English== name, RFV it. If people want to delete ==Chinese== multi-character given names as SOP, that's a different discussion. I don't think we can expect someone who sees Rebecca and Lulu in English-language fiction, or nonfiction about Asian-Americans or Asian-Australians, etc, to intuit that they're 'supposed' to look up the etymology and English pronunciation of Rebecca as such, but look Lulu up as ... what, Lu + Lu? Not only in Chinese but also in English can you name your child any arbitrary string, as Elon Musk showed; as 83.151 said, our attestation criteria constrain which ones have entries, and if the general given-name category nonetheless gets swamped with one type of entries that we consider to undesirably crowd out other types of entries, we can move them to a separate (sub)category, like we did for alt forms in certain non-standardized languages where they were swamping out other lemmas in a way people didn't like. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per -sche and This, that and the other. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

December 2023

foregoing

Rfd-sense

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

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)Reply
Comment: Currently the structure is unclear.
  • Et1 of foregoing is empty, but based on the definition, seems to correspond to Et1 of forego.
  • Et2 of foregoing points vaguely to forego which contains two et's.
Presumably User:Chuck_Entz reads Et2 of foregoing as a reference to Et1 of forego, otherwise why suggest the deletion of Et1 of foregoing? So then we would have two et's under foregoing that are both based on et1 of forego ...and nothing for et2 of forego.
I am strongly in favour of making the etymologies explicit in the foregoing entry, rather than missing or implicit.
I am neutral on the grammatical recognition of the adjectival form.
However, I thought a noun form should be added, per Talk:foregoing#noun (sorry if that's off-topic). Or is that already covered by the gerund label?
—DIV (1.145.214.72 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC))Reply
'forgoing' is a common mistake for this word. Does that indicate something deeper abt this adjective sense? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

unrequited love

SOP: "love that is unrequited". I don't believe "even though reciprocation is desired" should be part of the definition. PUC09:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many of the translations are similarly SOP (imo) and not worth entries. PUC20:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was referring specifically to the translations of the word unrequited in the SOP translations at unrequited love, which are not all present in the unrequited entry. This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the Japanese and Chinese translations make this worthy of a THUB. — Fytcha T | L | C 01:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm leaning towards keep per FRIED, per the points above. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

El Camino Real

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

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

do want and do not want

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

Keep. They are not grammatical and would not make sense otherwise: compare my bad. Equinox 22:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Some of the verb inflections given for do want are rather suspect. DonnanZ (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Comment. Both the etymology and the usex for do not want suggest that the term is an interjection. Is this also the case for do want? In that case, it is plausibly a back-formation from do not want.  --Lambiam 12:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete: elision of certain words (“ do want ”) doesn’t, in my view, make these lexical terms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. These do not follow normal grammatical rules/patterns, so I'm not sure how they can be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment. On the face of it, could be anything: "do like", "do not like", "cannot compute", "am hungry", etc. etc., just a shorthand or telegraphese English with almost limitless variation and applicability. I would keep these only if genuinely they have become strongly idiomatic, which I wouldn't know. Mihia (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep per Equinox. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 07:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete "do want", keep "do not want". "Do want" seems to be sum-of-parts, even if an abnormal formation (in some cases these words can be said together grammatically). "Do not want" as an interjection, although clearly derived from the bootleg Star Wars mistranslation, is both recognizable and utilitarian enough that I'm pretty sure it's used out of context; that is, at least people hear it and understand the joke, using it as a general substitute for "no!", even if they don't connect it with Star Wars. P Aculeius (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete "do want" per Mihia as a pretty common nonstandard grammatical construction, keep "do not want" as it has gained additional meaning from the Star Wars meme. "Do not want" literally means that someone is refusing some offer or wishes for something to be changed, but here it is a synonym of "Nooo...", which is used to express dismay without necessarily implying any particular volition. -- King of ♥ 23:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete “do want” and keep “do not want” per above. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

because reasons

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

It's actually already given as an example at because. (Saying "because X", rather than "because of X", seems to be recent net slang.) Equinox 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention that "for reasons" is also used. So this meaning should be moved. A Westman talk stalk 22:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
The disobedience of grammar is already documented at because so I don't see the point of this. A Westman talk stalk 02:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox: time to take a step back and tone down the snappiness, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think you pinged the wrong person... CitationsFreak (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Word0151 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
I’ve heard “because, NP” (e.g., “because, politicans”) used in conversations. I’m not certain what constitutes Internet slang (Facebook, TAFKAT, neither of which I use?).  --Lambiam 12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes that's exactly what this is an example of. "Because cozzie livs" is one I've seen/heard a few times recently where it literally just means "because of cost of living pressures". It wouldn't surprise to hear it dropped into conversation but it still originated at net-speak. 49.188.70.132 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
🐒 Word0151 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@Sgconlaw: Compare I can't. J3133 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yup, we should nuke that one too. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
Keep but replace with link to "because", it's an example of "because {noun}" which isn't typically grammatical outside internet slang. 49.188.70.132 03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment. Telegraphese abbreviation with "because" could be anything: "because hungry", "because responsibilities", "because children", etc. Is "because reasons" enough of a distinct set phrase for us to list individually? I'm undecided. Mihia (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
On the fence like Mihia, because while you could extend this use of "because" to almost anything, "because reasons" might be common enough to be recognizable as an idiom for inarticulate explanation. While I think it's transparent because I'm used to seeing it, I imagine a lot of people might be confused on seeing it for the first time, not recognizing it as a set phrase and thinking it to be a mistake, rather than a deliberately ungrammatical and vague collocation. This will only be more so if it fades from use; people will wonder why it was said, and an entry will help. So perhaps lean keep. P Aculeius (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

twelve hundred

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

Delete, yes, dumb. Equinox 04:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Convert all but the clock sense to an &lit sense. Or maybe delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Entry for hundred already includes the clock sense. Why do you think these should be kept? Word0151 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I thought the sense said something different. Delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Since the. 24-hour clock sense is already explained at hundred, delete the entire entry and all similar entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep the lot. DonnanZ (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete all, useless. PUC20:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep for the ones in the 24 hour clock. John Cross (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete all The clock sense is already explained at hundred so these are all trivial SoP. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

non-English: Undeletion of "not English" sense

Deleted sense:

Sense in entry:

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

Support: You can have non-English food, for example. It was a silly RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support per above. MedK1 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose it means “not” and “English” in all senses of that word, making it SoP. Delete the entire entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
@J3133: in that scenario I abstain because I do not support such entries on the whole. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete all of these non- entries. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
nonEnglish is a non-runner, in British English at least. DonnanZ (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Obviously both senses should live or die together. I'd rather see them both die; the word is totally transparent. This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support Binarystep (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Broadly speaking, I would like to say Delete as limitless SoP pattern all "non-X" that mean "non- + X". This is why we have an entry for the prefix "non", so we don't have to individually list a million different compounds that all mean exactly what it says there. However, a fly in the ointment is that I do feel that we should keep, let's say, "non-runner" (at least in horseracing and vehicle senses) even though strictly this only means "non + runner", but I cannot exactly explain why, at least not at the moment. Mihia (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose as SoP, and delete the existing entry on the same grounds. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

December solstice

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

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)Reply
Is the rest of the set not SoP too? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete SOP. winter solstice might be a set term worth keeping, but this is a clear SOP. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am waiting until December to cast my vote as per tradition. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

tacit collusion

SOP: a collusion that is tacit. PUC11:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
What shall be your view on the creation of tacit consent Word0151 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete: ultimately it’s a form of collusion which is tacit, so it’s SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply

Isotope names

The naming of nuclides is very systematic (element name + mass number, hyphenated), and there is nothing here but borderline WT:SOP mixed with encyclopedic content. The table of nuclides has over 3000 known entries; for example, the known isotopes of uranium range in mass number from 214 to 242 (cf. w:Isotopes of uranium). An entry consisting of chemical symbol + mass number is also included.

LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll need help tagging these. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agree with @ExcarnateSojourner. Hftf (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

run

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

The horse ran a great race.

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

The horse will run in the Preakness next year.
I'm not ready to run a marathon.

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

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)Reply

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

This has gone uncommented upon in over a year. Unless there is a substantive change to this state of affairs, I will close this as showing no consensus for deletion, and leave it to editors to be bold in sorting out the contents of the entry. bd2412 T 04:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

neutron radiation

Obvious SOP. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep Word0000 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete no reason for keeping given, looks SOP to me too. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This is the accepted term for a type of radiation; compare ionizing radiation, alpha radiation, nuclear radiation etc. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

occasional furniture

Apparently I prematurely archived the RFD of this term. It was resolved as far as it concerned occasional table, but not this entry. See Talk:occasional furniture. This, that and the other (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nobody has voted delete so far, may as well keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would say keep as this appears to be somewhat idiomatic, at least if the current definition is to be trusted: it claims that items belonging to the “occasional furniture” category are specifically small, versatile and often made to be folded away/hidden. A quick Google search corroborates this with results of small, ergonomic stackable tables, seats, nightstands and a few commodes. A grand piano, sofa, dressing table, bed, etc. can be restricted to occasional (sense 3: “intended for use as the occasion requires”) use, but it does not appear that these items belong to this category, so I do not think this is actually SoP? Like, the occasional furniture label including a guest bed would be SoP but the occasional furniture designation including a pullout sofa / foldable bed whilst excluding (or, just, not including) a guest bed does not seem SoP to me. Tl;dr sense 3 of occasional does not infer smallness nor versatility, which is what occasional furniture (perhaps only ostensibly!) indicates from the brief research I did. @This, that and the other thoughts? I could very easily be misguided here. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna deletion was originally argued for by @PUC. This, that and the other (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you – my bad! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@PUC: Perhaps we are actually missing a sense at occasional that means “(of furniture) lightweight, small, easily portable, storage-efficient ”? Perhaps a modern derivation from—a subsense of—occasional (“intended for use as the occasion requires”)? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

January 2024

morel

Rfd-redundant: "Any of several edible mushrooms", versus the taxonomically-specific second sense. Tagged by DCDuring but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Definitely redundant: "the common morel or yellow morel" is Morchella esculenta. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Delete/combine. Fay Freak (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep/redefine as ‘any of several mushrooms resembling those in the family Morchella’, similar to how we have true soles and other fish called sole covered by separate senses at sole Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete: I was wondering whether this was one of those words that were originally used in a generic sense and only later given a precise scientific definition, but the OED says it has always meant only a mushroom of the genus Morchella. Add to sense 1 that if the word is used unqualified, it generally means the common morel. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

number homophone

Sum of parts. It was added to the WT:REE request list, and uhh let's say that a recent user has been loudly begging for creations lately; thus it got created. But it is really nothing more than number + homophone. Equinox 06:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Christmassed out, Christmassed-out

A Wonderfool entry, ostensibly an adjective. However, as noted at Wiktionary:Tea_room#Problem_with_Christmas_verb_(word_of_the_day_for_25th!), this is SOP with a common and productive sense of out. The Christmas part seems to be a verb ≈"to subject to Christmas"(?), because you can also be Christmassed to death (rather than out), if things happen which google:Christmas you to death, and equally you can be meetinged to death if people google:"meeting you to death", or you can be google books:meetinged into apathy, turkeyed out, turkeyed to death, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd like an entry for turkeyed out... I have an awesome pun waiting for thatDenazz (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
To go with chickened out? DonnanZ (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not quite as funny as thaat Denazz (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

freak

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

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

Would labelling them "dated" do the trick? DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
  • I would put "hippie" and "drug addict" as subsenses under sense 4, or perhaps combined into one subsense, possibly with a label such as "now largely historical", or explicit mention of the 1960s, if it's considered that these senses are largely confined to the 1960s or references to the 1960s. Shocking to think of the 1960s as "historical"! Mihia (talk)
Perhaps "especially in reference to 1960s counterculture" would be an appropriate label. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

I support turning these senses into subsenses, I'm not sure if that means I should vote 'keep' or 'delete' (I wouldn't want them to be deleted altogether without subsuming them under what is currently sense 4). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

aerophobia

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

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

February 2024

hobosexual

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

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

time perception

SOP. PUC23:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, a redundant circumscription without concept. An actual term is autonoesis. Fay Freak (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why delete when there is a Wikipedia article with the exact title? newfiles (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's also a Wikipedia article with the title "List of cities in Australia by population"... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It has been altered to a synonym, so is there some rule which says that we delete synonyms? DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes: WT:SOP PUC11:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it had been treated as a synonym in the first place, perhaps you would have left it alone. DonnanZ (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment - I suspect some uses of this might pass WT:PRIOR, given it's something that's frequently studied. Theknightwho (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It serves as a useful and convenient synonym and has a wide coverage in the world of philosophy. newfiles (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep as a synonym. Inqilābī 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Not useful as a synonym. Ultimateria (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete as a clear case of SoP; a very common collocation but a collocation nonetheless. Keeping entries such as this one—that is, SoP collocation synonyms for otherwise specialised, uncommon or rare entries on Wiktionary—is a commonly proposed but IMO silly idea. By this same logic, we should have tens of thousands of entries for fear of X, X fetish and stuff like bad handwriting (who says griffonage?). Definitely a valid opinion but a goofy one that will open a (quite large) can of worms! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Magnificat and Nunc dimittis

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

Note: There was a Tea Room discussion about this last year. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Al-Muqanna, in case you're interested in weighing in on this. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep per TheKnightWho's comments above. The vast majority (entirety?) of the time the Mag and Nunc are performed together as one unit with an organ accompaniment (so it might be better to slightly generalise our definition to say 'performed' rather than 'sung'). The very fact that it's hard to find 'Mag' meaning 'Magnificat' and 'Nunc' meaning 'Nunc Dimittis' outside of the phrase Mag and Nunc attests to this fact. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

diriment impediment

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

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)Reply
I think diriment would pass RFV as an adjective per se. I found some uses of it in a predicative position: "this affinity is 'diriment' of marriage" and "The impediment is diriment only if...". This, that and the other (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it depends on whether "diriment impediment" or "diriment" existed first. If the adjective "diriment" is derived from the expression "diriment impediment", then "diriment impediment" should be kept per WT:JIFFY, isn't it? --Saviourofthe (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 2024

takes (something) to

In this form, we probs don't want it. Other cases including placeholder "something" can be found at Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/something. Denazz (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we're going to delete it we should also delete taking (something) to, took (something) to, and taken (something) to, no? Vergencescattered (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

-tive

this doesn't seem to meet criteria for inclusion 2601:242:4100:22C0:AD:D9D8:8F5E:4926 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

mutual aid

This phrase has not four senses. It has a single SOP sense but is used in a variety of contexts. PUC23:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

blue ribbon jury

SOP: compare blue-ribbon committee, blue-ribbon commission, blue-ribbon panel, blue-ribbon investigation. We're missing a sense at blue ribbon, however. PUC13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, Since the above comment, the missing sense has been added to blue ribbon and this is SOP. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

language resource

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

Keep as a specific technical term; see WT:PRIOR. Lunabunn (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Lunabunn what is it about this sense of language resource that is more than just a "resource pertaining to a language"? Of course, if the term is used in computational linguistics, one expects that it will refer to resources that are relevant to computational linguistics, but that doesn't necessarily give the term more meaning than the sum of its parts. This, that and the other (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete as the definition stands. Ultimateria (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

May 2024

araneomorph funnel-web spider

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

If it's SOP, how does araneomorph (any of the Araneomorphae, a suborder of spiders whose fangs cross with a pinching action) + funnel-web spider (any spider of the families Atracidae, Macrothelidae, and Macrothelidae, all of which weave funnel-shaped webs) give us araneomorph funnel-web spider (any spider of the family Agelenidae)? Doesn't seem SOP at all. Theknightwho (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
If WP is to be believed (w:Funnel-web spider), we appear to have a simple a set-intersection type scenario here. The funnel-web spiders that are araneomorphs happen to be the Agelenidae. That makes it SOP if you know your taxonomy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

good deal

Sum of parts. I suggest adding a separate section in deal as interjection. JimiYru 06:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Although I am not familiar with this expression, as far as I can tell I would lean towards keep, if only because of such similarity with the better-known or more widespread expression a good deal, or indeed literal sense such as "I got a good deal on my new car", which could confuse people as to the intended meaning of this "good deal". I don't think the present example makes the greatest sense ever relative to the definition, however. "You got everything packed? Good deal!" How does this "affirm, indicate agreement, or consent"? Can we find a clearer example? Mihia (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    People who use this phrase in this way intend it to mean approval or affirmation. "You finished the job? All right!"is exactly synonymous. 2600:1702:2C18:5F00:4956:14C5:17EC:D2CE 16:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I have also noticed that, while great deal covers noun uses without "a", such as The audience is generally unaware of the great deal of work that goes into its creation (and in fact a great deal is missing (redirect only), and needs to be added if only for the adverb sense), the corresponding uses of good deal without the indefinite article, which could be directly substituted into e.g. The audience is generally unaware of the good deal of work that goes into its creation, are missing. Most probably the organisation of "(a) good deal" should be changed to mirror that of "(a) great deal", in which case the entry for "good deal" would be kept anyway, for the "ordinary" idiomatic uses. Mihia (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NOW DONEReply
Keep. The challenged sense isn't SOP as "Deal!" doesn't exist on its own as an interjection. Arguably the unchallenged sense is but we do have a good many/a great many/a good few (and now a good deal and a great deal). I'm unaware of the strange exclamation "Good deal!" though, so perhaps that should be sent to RFV instead? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per above and WT:HOSPITAL: if the usage note is to be believed, this sense ostensibly exists largely in the southern US. At least, I have never encountered it before. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As things stand, keep, because I don't see any sense of deal which would allow "good deal!" (in its interjection sense) to be interpreted successfully. I've heard this interjection, and in many of the contexts in which it's used, no deal is involved: "good deal!" functions like "awesome!". I added some cites, moved the usage note into the label, and tweaked the definition. Some other cites at google books:"oh, good deal" from much earlier might also be this sense. - -sche (discuss) 07:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-kept. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Achilles tendon reflex time

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

Kiwima actually deleted it because the original author provided a very unclear and unambiguous definition, not because it was SOP. newfiles (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
N.B. Kiwima's note in the logs --- rfdef|en|OK, so that's what the test is used for, but the definition says nothing about what the test actually is. newfiles (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thus, I recreated the term after finding the correct and accurate definition in the field of medicine. It wasn't an easy task to locate it. newfiles (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would you care to respond to any of my points? newfiles (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the record, there was some discussion about this on my talk page. This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you kindly for the information. newfiles (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

malding

Rfd-sense adjective:

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

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

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

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

Strictly "being" in a state is not the same as "becoming" that state. Equinox 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Isn't this just like raging or fuming? BigDom 13:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is there any way of proving or disproving that the lemma is misdefined and should be "to be extremely angry ..."? * Pppery * it has begun... 06:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

disem-

Not a prefix. disembowel is dis- + embowel, disembark is dis- + embark, etc. PUC20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED has an entry for this prefix. Still delete?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=disem- newfiles (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
If there is no instance of a word actually formed with it, then yes, delete. PUC08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
disem-/disen- would be a derivative of dis-/-em and and dis-/-en. newfiles (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"-em" / "-en" is not right, as these are not suffixes. PUC08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's disemelevator (and the lack of a corresponding *emelevator), but it failed RFV in 2021 due to being mostly attested online. It could potentially be allowed under our new policy, but it's also clearly based on disembark and analyzable as dis- +‎ em- +‎ elevator anyway. Binarystep (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The OED entry pointed to by Mynewfiles isn't a real entry, just a little discussion of the use of the prefix dis- with en- and em-. However, it does say this:

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

When it comes to attestation requirements for affixes, we generally look for three words formed in the modern stage of the language using the affix. If we can attest those three words (or others like disemelevator) I would say this prefix can be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Heh, I see our entry for disemburden has for its etymology dis- +‎ emburden. OED doesn't have an entry for the latter word, but we do. Equinox created it so it's almost certainly real. However, its absence from OED suggests that disemburden predates emburden, which would make our etymology diachronic. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anachronic, you mean? PUC07:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
anachronistic, you mean? LOL!n newfiles (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Clearly. Anyway I looked into it some more and I think OED's remark is simply a reflection of lacunae in its coverage:
So it looks more and more like PUC is on the money. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
For disembowel the 1933 OED also has this:
Disembow·el, v.
 --Lambiam 18:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Weak delete. It does seem to be dis- + em- rather than disem-. (It does call to mind -icity, which I argued for keeping in 2011, but -icity has a pronunciation difference, relative to -ic + -ity, going for it... and it's been 14 years, maybe I or other people would feel differently about it if it were brought back up for discussion...) - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

make-work job

The definition gives a wrong impression of idiomaticity because its focus is off. It's true that a make-work job is likely to be a "job that has less immediate financial benefit to the economy than it costs to support", but make-work job does not actually mean that; it just means "work assigned or taken on only to keep someone from being idle". In other words it's a plain SOP of make-work + job, and is no more entryworthy than make-work project, make-work activity, make-work policy, etc. PUC22:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom; surprised to see this RfD has been ongoing for so long! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

time stands still

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

  • I would keep this somehow, since it has connotations beyond the impossible situation (short of travelling at light-speed) that the words literally describe. There are, however, the problems mentioned earlier of how to list it, since there is no obvious infinitive form. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is correctly classed as a phrase (non-prepositional). DonnanZ (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
time stood still is also a phrase. Mihia (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most metaphorical phrases denote impossible situations if taken literally (“the impossible happened”; “his eyes were fiery coals”; “my blood turned into ice”). The fact that they have nonliteral connotations is IMO an insufficient argument for considering them to be lexicalized. Lexicalization requires that these connotations are nonobvious, for example because the original meaning of some of its parts has become obsolete, as is the case for the expression shuffle off this mortal coil.  --Lambiam 09:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the connotations are completely obvious. Someone could think that "time stands still" referred to a very boring situation, one in which time dragged to an extreme degree, which is almost opposite to what it does often mean, e.g. in "I saw the car coming straight towards me, and for a moment time stood still". Having said that, the present quotations at the article do not all seem to very clearly illustrate this sense, which is the one I think the definition is referring to (though I don't think it is the greatest definition ever written), so this could need attention. Mihia (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can also have a village where “time stands still” (or “stood still”), which can mean that nothing dramatic happens there so one’s soul can find rest, but also that the local traditions are old, allowing us to have a peep through a telescope back in time. Perhaps it can also mean other things; it is what you expect to see for a sum of parts that by themselves can have several meanings. Alternatively, one can say that “time was frozen”, with a similar range of meanings.  --Lambiam 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mihia: I feel that what you said actually supports my views. Why couldn't someone write that a performance was so boring that "time stood still" for her? It wouldn't be obviously wrong. I also agree with @Lambiam's views above. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
They can write that, and, in fact, at least one of the examples that we presently have may refer to this sense. (The examples are mixed up and do not (all) illustrate the sense that the present definition apparently refers to.) However, I doubt that an entry should be disqualified because it has a range of uses. In fact, the contrast between, say, "a village where time stood still" and the "car coming towards me"-type usage is even more reason to keep, I would say. Above all, and different from, let's say, "time drags", "time goes quickly", "time goes slowly", etc. etc., this one to me just feels like a set phrase that has an identity of its own, some quality greater than the sum of its parts. Mihia (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The cites that we have are no good (they are clearly straightforwardly saying that time (sense 1.4) stood still), but I think this can be salvaged. I've added one cite that feels more clearly idiomatic, using the phrase adjectivally to describe travel through a storm as as "a time-stands-still' ride", and I'm sure I've seen it as a standalone phrase ("The glasses hit the ground and shatter. Time stands still. What have I done?") but it's hard to search for. I've also added a second sense (used to refer to historic-feeling places such as "a town where time stands still"), although I'm not sure about the definition. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for adding the additional citations. newfiles (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

apple blossom, apricot blossom, orange blossom

Blatant SOP’s. Orange blossom’s mitigating circumstance is its handful of one-word Romance equivalents, which might perhaps insure survival as translation hub.

There’s also cherry blossom and peach blossom, which have separate meanings, and plum blossom, which does things right. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

June 2024

Ishango bone

Specific individual objects: do we want these? I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards "no: delete". We do not, for example, have Uluburun shipwreck, Bülach fibula, Moregine bracelet, Liudhard medalet, Sutton Hoo purse-lid, Azelin chandelier. Compare #Einang stone, below. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep demon core. Being the subject of memes and pop history videos has led to some use of demon core as figure of speech (e.g. "the demon core of ...") Nicerink (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I also mentioned in another thread, we need to be cautious about allowing "the X of Y" as qualifying figurative use because this pattern can be found with all manner of proper names -- even "Gettysburg Address" (e.g. "the Gettysburg Address of Baseball"), which most people have voted to delete. Mihia (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have tentatively created Uluburun shipwreck (mentioned above) to stand alongside Ishango bone. - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have created Sutton Hoo purse-lid (also mentioned above). This feels weird to me, but it seems like the consensus is that we do want these...(?) - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

the math ain't mathing

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

I would prefer to list this as a negative form, because nobody's going to search for the math is mathing. It should be noted that it's not just ain't though; isn't will also do, and perhaps is not. Soap 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep This would be my preference as well. I've heard it said various ways in the negative form owing to regional preferences for those constructions, they don't impact the meaning. Also, like @Nicodene:, I would shift the scrutiny to the positive entry as it strikes me as artificial at first glance. RogueScholar (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Redirect. See Category:English negative polarity items for examples of terms being listed in the positive. @Purplebackpack89, are you going to RFD and RFV all of them? Ioaxxere (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
More likely I'd CREATE the negatives. If a phrase is used mostly in the negative, a definition should exist with the negative phraseology. That shouldn't be controversial. you can't judge a book by its cover, Rome wasn't built in a day, clothes don't make the man and many other phrases containing not, don't, can't, etc already have entries. And, for what it's worth, the negative polarity category seems to be a strange mishmash. Some of the things categorized in it already contain "no", "not", "don't", etc. Some of them are used in both the positive and negative. And one more thing: will your vote change if "the math is mathing" fails RfV? Purplebackpack89 21:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Purplebackpack89: All those examples are proverbs, which have a fixed wording. On the other hand, the math is mathing doesn't have a fixed wording. The quotes show various variations replacing "is" with "appears to be", "started", "just isn't", etc. If "the math is mathing" is never used in a positive context my vote could change although this isn't the case here. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're sure that isn't the case? Are you prepared to back up your statement by adding enough positive citations for it to pass RFV? Purplebackpack89 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep We have different version of terms. It's not a big deal. CheeseyHead (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Phrase is more commonly rendered in the negative (the math ain't mathing or the math is not mathing) than in the positive. I'm not even sure "the math is mathing" without the not or ain't even passes RfV. Purplebackpack89 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Redirect one to the other (I don't care which), and add Category:English negative polarity items. PUC15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since one can say things like, they didn’t provide enough data for us to say whether the math is mathing, it seems better to use this as the main form. But isn't this SOP, with a verb sense of math (“to add up, compute; (by extension) to make sense”). Note that there is also the entirely positive collocation “the math did math”.  --Lambiam 21:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't you be a little concerned that that phrase isn't actually cited that way, in the positive? As of now, it doesn't pass RfV. Purplebackpack89 23:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
When you wrote this, there were many positive quotations, including one in precisely this form. I might be concerned for its safety if no quotations had been found after this term had been listed for a considerable time at RfV. Here at RfD we deal with different concerns, such as whether this is merely a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 09:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Those quotes were added between when I wrote that and when you responded, FWIW Purplebackpack89 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep It really dosen't matter if it is more common or not. Any other reasons for it being removed? CheeseyHead (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

hair remover

Sum of parts. Included in Collins but that definition doesn't seem convincing. Einstein2 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep as a synonym of depilator and depilatory. Inqilābī 19:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure how that supports keeping the entry. Are you suggesting we should keep hair remover alongside depilator/depilatory per WT:THUB? We only tend to do that when the one-word synonym is rare and the multiword entry has a much higher chance to be entered as a search term (e.g. Anglistics and English studies; tractor driver and tractorist; infectious disease specialist and infectiologist). The translation table is currently in depilatory, and it actually seems more frequent than hair remover. Einstein2 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hair remover is a simpler word more likely to be employed in everyday speech, while depilator(y) sounds more technical and inkhorn (and I came to know about the latter term just yesterday). We probably don’t have any such guidelines but I am of opinion that every synonym of a term should be valid entries. Inqilābī 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Boots

Not sure that it has a figurative sense (none in the entry at the moment) or that it passes WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say it's a household name in the UK. I was surprised to find recently that Boots manage the pharmacy at Kingston Hospital. DonnanZ (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
But does it pass WT:BRAND? Can we find sufficient evidence that one would call, for example, a Lloyds or Superdrug pharmacy a “Boots”? — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
i tried searching a few phrases and got hits like "good old Boots" but all that i found refers directly to the chain. Soap 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have never heard "Boots" used to mean "pharmacy", except when people are using it as an example where the specific company isn't actually relevant: if someone suggests you "pop down to Boots to get some sun cream", they're just saying you should go and buy some sun cream in town, and are unlikely to think the specifics of exactly where you buy it matter, without some additional establishing context that limits it to Boots in particular. However, you can do the same with any common chain of shops, depending on the product; the implication is that it's an example, not that the term actually carries the broader meaning. Theknightwho (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would argue it should be kept in this case TBH, since it might be ambiguous; compare also entries like YouTube (any website that allows users to upload content, noun) and Pornhub (any pornographic website, noun). Regardless, I could not find any solid attests for Boots being a common way to refer to any pharmacy, hence my vote below. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw: Well, LloydsPharmacy has sold off all of their pharmacies in the UK. As for Superdrug, if the shop in my town (which is next door to Boots!) is anything to go by, it doesn't have a pharmacy, concentrating on cosmetics, toiletries and the like. I think Boots would pass WT:BRAND in the UK, they do sell Boots-branded pharmaceuticals, and the name has been around for a very long time. DonnanZ (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete – fails WT:BRAND. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

July 2024

Double antibody suffixes

Monoclonal antibodies are assigned names according to a complicated WHO naming sytem. The usual nomenclature is the following: a variable prefix; an infix referring to the medicine's target (target substem"); an infix referring to the source of the antibody ("source substem"; omitted in antibodies named after 2017); a suffix ("stem" = -mab for every antibody named before 2022). (E.g. abciximab: ab- +‎ -ci- (cardiovascular) +‎ -xi- (chimeric) +‎ -mab (antibody).) -zumab, -ximab and -umab were created by JoeyChen in 2020 after removing the entries for the standalone -zu-, -xi- and -u- (I haven't found a relevant discussion prior to the changes). However, these are merely three of the frequently co-occurring combinations of and , and semantically are not more closely related to each other than e.g. and . Guidelines also treat source substems and stems as different entities. I find the treatment of these combinations as genuine suffixes misleading, therefore, I think they should be deleted (along with their categories) and removed from the etymology sections of antibody entries, while -zu-, -xi- and -u- should be reinstated as infixes. Einstein2 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per above. Also, shouldn't these be translingual? 172.97.141.219 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Move to -u-, -xi-, -zu- and convert to Translingual entries, if this reasoning is right. But the revision history at -xi-, which redirects to -ximab (the former was moved to the latter by @JoeyChen), says “xi- is not used without the suffix -mab.” Is this true, and can Joey join this discussion and elaborate? — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:94C1:89B:DC72:27DA 02:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Trans-Siberian

Nonstandard use of capitalization. Vex-Vectoꝛ 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's an alt form, I would allow it. But transsiberian is much more dubious. DonnanZ (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The prefix trans- is not normally capitalized, nor is the word trans-Siberian a proper adjective. To capitalize the T is nonstandard per capitalization of English words. It is not a valid form of the word, nor is it notable enough as a nonstandard form to merit inclusion, and should be deleted. It appears to be mistakenly reanalysed from Trans-Siberian Railway, which is indeed a proper noun.

On the other hand, transsiberian follows the older tradition of uncapitalizing a proper noun when it comes before a prefix (cf. other examples such as transalpine, transamerican, or transneptunian). This is perfectly standard in the English language, and is highly attested. What exactly do you find to be, “much more dubious”? Vex-Vectoꝛ 15:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the detailed explanation. A reminder to Donnanz that whether you personally like or loathe a word bears no relevance in our inclusion, and stating your opinions thus can be confusing and misleading in a formal procedure. Inqilābī 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's hardly necessary, but I did forget about transatlantic. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
We keep non-standard spellings too, and this is not a valid ground to rfd an entry. If you doubt its attestation, then go over to WT:RFVE. Inqilābī 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
So be it, then. Vex-Vectoꝛ 15:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
We do delete rare misspellings, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think, therefore I am

Alongside I think therefore I am, presented as a proverb (which it isn't). PUC19:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PUC: I have changed the forms to phrases instead to match the main entry. What about the translations with entries (e.g., French je pense, donc je suis)? J3133 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, the French, it's not a proverb. PUC18:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Japanese has an interesting translation 我思う、故に我在り and Chinese also seems to be a set phrase from literary Chinese, I wouldn't want them deleted. Justin the Just (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In keeping with my vote last time: keep. The fact that this has been snowcloned suggests that it has lexical value, as do the translations that Justin mentioned. This phrase is also used as something of a philosophy "catchphrase", apart from its literal context. In its original context (i.e. Descartes Meditations) it was SOP and non-idiomatic. But it has since taken on a life of its own as a set phrase. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew Sheedy: Indeed, you've made that argument about snowclones before, but it's as bad as it was the first time. That a phrase is snowcloned doesn't prove it has lexical value in and of itself. By that token we could create the first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club (Appendix:Snowclones/first rule of X: do not talk about X). PUC18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@PUC: Yes, I guess you're right that the snowclone argument isn't very good. I mostly reiterated that argument because no one pushed back against it last time. Nonetheless, I still think it has lexical status as a philosophy "catchphrase". It's often the only thing people know about philosophy and I've heard people use it simply to signal, "Hey, I know some philosophy too!" But I'm simply trying to express my gut feeling that the phrase is lexically significant. If other people disagree, so be it. I'm not strongly attached to this entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew Sheedy: Fair enough, I just wanted to push back against that specific argument. PUC12:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fix what? PUC18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking "fix that it was tagged as a proverb", but it's already been fixed, it's now a phrase. And @PUC, what rationale other than "it's not a proverb" do you have for deletion? Purplebackpack89 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

August 2024

plasma gemstone

Appears to be SOP, plasma already refers to a mineral. ScribeYearling (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

keep Doesn't the Fried Egg rule apply? Plasma is not always chalcedony. Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
But cat's eye marble and cat's eye gemstone don't exist either, despite the fact that cat's eye can refer to both a gemstone and style of marble as well as a few other senses. ScribeYearling (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The fried egg test would apply if there were other kinds of gemstone that one could reasonably refer to as being plasma gemstone (for examples, if there were also gemstones fashioned from blood plasma), so that someone unfamiliar with he term could not know which sense is meant. An organ is not always a musical instrument, but in organ music it is obvious that this is about the instrument, not about someone’s lungs, so the combination is a transparent sum of its parts. Likewise here.  --Lambiam 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

live under a rock

Rfd-sense "to live in isolation" as distinct from sense 1, "to be isolated from knowledge of current events". Maybe we can reword sense 1, but I disagree that this is a different sense. PUC14:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete – I am inclined to agree. This second sense seems very rare, perhaps it might simply be a misinterpretation of the first sense; through some searching I found only a handful of uses for "live under a rock" to mean "living in isolation" (such as being a recluse or extremely introverted) on Reddit and Twitter. IMO not worth combining into the first sense either unless there are some more usage examples to be found that I am missing, otherwise it seems like undue weight to me. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

September 2024

as a matter of law

No quotes and seems like SOP. -saph668 (usertalkcontribs) 16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

door close

Note the buttons on the bottom left and bottom right.

and door open. Dumb. There's a button on my lift reading call in case of emergency Denazz (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The "names of buttons" (on computer keyboards and gamepads) was argued years ago, and in general they were kept... Start, Jump, Fire, etc. I argued against this. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54BC:581B:5785:CEDB 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. In lots of elevators the so called door close button doesn't actually close the door when pushed and is just for show. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:C47:40B8:9E8:5244 12:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That makes no sense. Get an account! P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. If there was some evidence of the button being called "the door close", it would be different, but every Google Books hit for "pressed the door close" adds "button" afterwards. SOP. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
True, but nobody says "pressed the start", "pressed the delete" either. What you really should be looking for is "pressed door close" and similar searches. This, that and the other (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Smurrayinchester * Pppery * it has begun... 00:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Smurrayinchester. Argument so good they were cited twice. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Talk:Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. In lots of modern elevators the button only closes the door when the elevator is in fire service mode and does nothing during ordinary operation. Marsbar8 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. The fact that the door close button is useless (like most crosswalk buttons) is beside the point, in my opinion. ScribeYearling (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

diamido-

Prefix unused? Denazz (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep @Denazz: took some Googling but I found usage for this use in diamidobenzene, diamidophosphoric, diamido-ether and diamidogen. Looks rare but attestable. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Isn’t this di- + amido-? Polomo47 (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes it is! Dima Minyailo (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

October 2024

igpay

Looks like straightforward Pig Latin to me, even when it's used to refer to police officers. Considering that there is at least one Pig Latin counterpart to pretty much every word in the English language, we shouldn't even get started on Pig Latin entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Delete – I agree: if we had a fancy "Pig Latin for X" template, there would easily be thousands of attestable entries. Additionally, considering Pig Latin words are all formed via the exact same rules, I feel like having entries for each would serve no useful purpose. (Was gonna write this message in Pig Latin, but I could not be bothered to work it out in my head). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

noradrenenergic

Rare misspelling. Einstein2 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how common it would have to be to warrant inclusion as a misspelling, but a quick Google search (including also using Google Scholar and GBooks) reveals tons of results for this term from several journals and numerous books spanning 1977 to 2022. As such, I am leaning keep. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’m not convinced it is a misspelling. The form noradrenergic may come by haplology from noradrenenergic = noradren- +‎ energic.  --Lambiam 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I now think it is a misspelling; the suffix is -ergic.  --Lambiam 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

even if

RFD-sense, in an unconventional sense (perhaps a more appropriate forum can be found). Rather than deletion, this discussion concerns the repurposing of sense #1 as an {{&lit}}. Sense #2 is also better repurposed as a {{synonym of}}. These two operations are easy to justify and perform; what leads me to bring this to discussion is the translation table, a mess which contains what I suspect is a mix of translations of the unidiomatic sense of the expression and the idiomatic ‘even though’ sense; language-wise, the translations on even if and even though do not overlap well, and importing adequate transitions to the latter will require expert attention. ―⁠K(ə)tom (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMO it is clearly SOP, so if retained it should be as an {{&lit}} because of sense #2 or as a translation hub. The translations that I am competent to check are also SOP, though; even the Greek translation. (Although we write at ακόμα και αν, ‘(literally: "even and if")’, a better literal translation is “even also if”, which is also used in English. The combination ακόμα και, meaning basically the same as the English adverb “even”, is also used standalone, and although ακόμα και αν (akóma kai an) is far more common, just ακόμα αν (akóma an) is also used.)  --Lambiam 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding sense 2, "even though" -- "if" can mean "though" generally, as in e.g. "She is polite, if a little cold". Is there a special idiomaticity about sense 2 that makes it more than "even" + "if" in the sense "though"? Mihia (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SOP, per Lambiam and Mihia, or (if enough translations are idiomatic) retain as an &lit/THUB. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete both per above—in their current definition, at least. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we should keep both senses or neither. It would be unhelpful, I believe, to list one but not the other. Despite my earlier comment, I am now thinking keep both as helpful for clearly setting out the difference. (I say "clearly", but I think that sense 2 could be made clearer, which I intend to do.) Mihia (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

November 2024

we got company

Not sure this "pronoun" (ahem!) is more than sum of parts! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F4E8:32FB:F63A:C6A4 15:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it’s idiomatic, as also the equivalents in my two native languages, which aren’t word-for-word and thus put the entry under the protection of WT:THUB, if not WT:PB. Though we also have we have visitors in English. It is hard to fathom here what makes you sound like a native speaker. Fay Freak (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, even supporting speedy as no useful content given. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Arguable POS does not equal useless content. We can change to Interjection, or Phrase, and then? Fay Freak (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep the second sense, "encountering an enemy", as clearly idiomatic: company does not list any senses that could infer enemies or bad guys in general. To me, at least, "we got company" clearly carries a very different meaning to "we have company"; disregarding tone (as we all know, English is a tonal language frfr), the latter example sounds like it could be referring to having people over, whereas the first hypothetical example immediately sounds much more threatening and negative, as if it involves a group of villains. While the first example can easily be a synonym for the second example, this does not work the other way around – "we have company" does not quite carry such connotations. Also, I have no idea why it is listed as a pronoun, and my professional cryptographer charged me extra for the first sense, so I was not able to afford to have it translated and thus am not sure what it means. But the second sense goes hard. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete and add relevant sense at company per Romanophile below. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other Thoughts on this? (pinging you to see if this RfD can achieve consensus). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna I'd be happy to delete this (and we have company) and replace it with a sense at company, but it would certainly be good to have some cites. This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would have speedy deleted this - the creator is generally clueless, and their inability to use Standard English is a serious hindrance to their participation on this site. But since we're here, maybe move/recreate at we have company and redirect nonstandard forms there. This, that and the other (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Redirect to company. Doing a search on Google Books, it looks like ‘getting company’ is not excluded to this phrase. (Example.) The only problem is that our entry for company wants this particular sense, so somebody has to expand that. This would be fine as an example sentence and a redirect, but it does not need a proper entry. (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 07:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

vegetable

Rfd-sense “Adjective”. This is, rather, a noun modifier, right? Polomo47 (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep, I think. I very nearly agreed with you, but my Oxford has it as an attributive adjective, while Collins treats it as a modifier. DonnanZ (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep sense "Of or relating to plants". I have added the example "This substance is vegetable not mineral" which I think stands up as adjectival. Abstain for now on the sense "Of or relating to vegetables", but we need convincing examples to justify keeping it. Presently there are no examples at all. Mihia (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right, reading back now, it seems obvious that sense 1 is valid (I wonder what went on in my head at the time). I guess what I’m questioning is, rather, sense 2, yeah. Polomo47 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sony

Rfd proper noun sense: “An international electronics and media company based in Tokyo, Japan.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: the names of corporations/companies are not allowed on Wiktionary. However, we are keeping the attested noun sense per WT:BRAND; see, for example, what we already do for entries like Motorola, Android, Hot Wheels, SoundCloud, Nokia, etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whoever closes this needs to be aware of WT:Grease pit/2024/November#Template:transclude and Template:rfd-sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong keep. Same reason as in WT:RFD/English#Samsung. It's entered the lexicon per the quote at Samsung: " them, potentially, are the Sonys and Samsungs of tomorrow". AG202 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sega

RfD proper noun sense: “A Japanese video game developer and publisher and manufacturer of arcade games and formerly of video game consoles.”

Another one that fails WT:COMPANY. We do not have Blizzard (surname only), Ubisoft, Tencent, Take-Two Interactive, Playtika or Microsoft Gaming etc., nor should we, and we do not need an entry for Sega either. Of course, we are keeping the attested noun sense per WT:BRAND, as we do for many entries like Hot Wheels, Motorola or Nokia. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Symbol, RfD-redundant: senses are “the sun” and “(alchemy) gold”; redundant to Translingual symbol entry, senses 1 (“(astronomy, astrology) Sol, the Sun.”) and 4 (“(alchemy) gold.”). J3133 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@J3133 Should we bundle the redundant English senses of 🝥, 🜂, , , and here as well? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: I suppose as they are redundant you support their deletion. J3133 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do – yes! Thus, delete all per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: I have added all but removed because we have it is as a noun (with plural ☿es) instead of a symbol. J3133 (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete all, if possible. Regardless, I definitely support deletion of . Polomo47 (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. CitationsFreak (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted all. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

i merged the quotes into the translingual sections, and did the same with . kwami (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

compliment fishing

As fish for compliments was (wrongly, IMO) deleted. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wait, why was fish for compliments deleted? 😭 It cannot be SOP if the sense is “to degrade oneself” can it? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let's request undeletion instead! It's been a year. Polomo47 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
See Talk:fish for compliments. I don't see how it means "to degrade oneself"? PUC12:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would say that's exactly what it means. "Do you like my haircut?" isn't fishing for compliments even if the speaker is hoping the listener will say yes. "I'm so ugly and my hair always looks so stupid" is fishing for compliments. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
the definition at compliment fishing mentions degrading Polomo47 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not sure whether it should be at fish for compliments, as it's nearly always phrased as fishing for compliments, just because fishing is a gerund. But that's a policy issue—it's definitely not "sum of parts" and compliment fishing is not a typical way of phrasing it, so should redirect to fish(ing) for compliments. The definition could also use some work, as it seems hypercritical; this can be fixed by minor rewording. P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep, and bring back fishing for compliments. MedK1 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

December 2024

Baidu

Rfd sense: “A Chinese multinational technology company specializing in Internet-related services and products.”

Rfd sense: “A particular Internet company.”

Rfd sense: “A Russian Internet company which operates the largest search engine in Russia.”


Each of these senses fail WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. We will, however, keep the senses for the search engines (the websites) themselves, as permitted by WT:BRAND. We already do this for other search engine entries like Yahoo!, DuckDuckGo etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete all, per nom. Let's pay attention, however, to the translation boxes in those pages. They may need to be renamed? (Although, those are all but useless anyway!) Polomo47 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Google is a difficult one. I'm most concerned about ensuring the derived terms box is kept (see my comments about a "derived terms hub" under #Apple). Most of the derived terms are based on the name of the search engine, but many come from the company name itself (de-Google(d), Google tax, Googleplex, Googlephone, Googler etc, and even Gmail and Go). Where do we put these if sense 1 is deleted? It's misleading to imply that they derive from sense 2 (which would be the only sense remaining in the entry), but at the same time we would be doing our readers a disservice to selectively remove them from the list. The issue is circumvented if we keep the company name sense. Moreover, if the company name and the search engine were different, but the company name had still given rise to such a varied palette of derived terms, I would unhesitatingly vote to keep the company entry. So keep Google on that basis.
Delete the others - there is no special lexicographic value there. Etymologies of company names can be dealt with by Wikipedia. This, that and the other (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep Google per the above comment. AG202 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dole

RfD sense two: “Dole Food Company, a U.S. agricultural multinational corporation.”

Fails WT:COMPANY. Also, it is not a nickname or clipping (which might have made it allowed as an entry?) because the company was renamed to Dole plc, so Dole is the full company name. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arceism

Pokemon term; this fails CFI per WT:FICTION. -saph668 (usertalkcontribs) 21:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Should this be in RFV, just in case someone can find 3 citations independent of reference? If this doesn't get sent over, though, my vote is delete. Polomo47 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete per nom – I presume that the page creator simply did not know about our policy on words originating from fiction. Otherwise send to RfV I suppose but eh, I really doubt that this type of entry would have any figurative uses: I did some searches on Gbooks, Twitter and Reddit but could not find any such uses outside of a fiction (Pokémon) context. P.S. I was going to try and throw an “Oh my Arceus!” (which ironically might be entry-worthy since it was invented by Pokénerds and not the show itself) somewhere in this text to be humorous but I could not find where so just pretend I placed it somewhere very clever and that everyone clapped and laughed at how funny I am. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Question: Did the word "Arceism" actually originate in the Pokémon universe, or was it invented by fans? I've never heard the word before, and I'm still not too clear on this question after googling the word. The linked Bulbapedia article doesn't contain the word. Khemehekis (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Send to RfV. This is a fan-coined term for a fanon concept, and has been in use for over a decade. Compare Jediism or Snapeism. Arceus is basically a creator deity in Pokémon canon – the first-ever Pokémon, said to have "shaped the world" – but this religion doesn't exist in the games. I wish people would spend five minutes doing research instead of spouting off erroneous assumptions based on a flawed interpretation of WT:FICTION. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for answering my question, WordyAndNerdy. I was suspecting that. Khemehekis (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems like this term was not coined inside the Pokemon franchise for an in-universe fictional concept, but was instead coined "in the real world" to denote a thing that exists (at least as a joke) in the real world; thus, as with Whovian or Jediism, FICTION doesn't apply. So, yes, keep as far as RFD is concerned, but RFV if there are doubts that it's attested. - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

printer buffer

Seems SOP to me. You can create buffers for all sorts of devices or processes which could all be aptly named "X buffer". — Fytcha T | L | C 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Weak keep. Although this meaning of buffer is covered at Etymology 2 senses 1.3 + 1.7, I wonder if it’s immediately clear from reading the compound that the buffer comes pre-printer, not post-printer? I don’t think this nuance can be easily explained syntactically, because I can imagine the syntactically identical outflow buffer and inflow buffer. Polomo47 (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It sounds like this term refers specifically to a physical device - a standalone box that would sit there and do the buffering - as opposed to a simple memory buffer belonging to the computer (or printer). I'm not even quite sure that sense 1.3 at buffer captures this (it only says "storage medium"). Perhaps sense 1.3 and/or 1.7 need expanding, and they should almost certainly be moved together in the entry. This, that and the other (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Skype

RfD second sense: “The company Skype Technologies that develops telecommunications software.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. We are, however, keeping the first proper noun sense per WT:BRAND. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gatorade

RfD sense: “The Gatorade Company, Inc., a company that sells sports drinks.”

Fails WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. We can keep the noun senses per WT:BRAND, like we do for Coca-Cola and Pepsi; at both of these entries, we do not have the company name senses for either. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

round number bias

WT:SOP Mach61 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. We do have articles like confirmation bias, normalcy bias and selection bias but these are fine (not SOP) as their meanings cannot be ascertained simply by their names alone. “Round number bias” is bias in favour of round numbers, just like “cat bias” would be bias in favour of felines or “example bias” would be bias in favour of examples (some meta humour for you); this word formation is not present in the other aforementioned examples (i.e. normalcy bias is not bias in favour of things or people that are normal). Thus, a clear case of SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

moss-covered

SOP? P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say so, although "moss-grown" implies that the moss grew on whatever it is, while "moss-covered" technically does not indicate how the moss got there, even though it probably grew in situ. P Aculeius (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, delete, absolutely SOP. Maybe it was so obvious that no one (me included) wanted to point it out. Polomo47 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Amazon

All of these fail WT:COMPANY: company/corporation names are not allowed on Wikt. FYI I have purposefully excluded organisations (like airlines or councils), companies with three or more derived terms, and brands (which are allowed per WT:BRAND) from this RfD. The former two rationales are rather arbitrary, but I will nominate such corporations separately in the anticipation of possible discussions/refutations.

Amazon (etymology 3, proper noun sense); Armani (etymology 1, sense 2); Bayer (sense 2); Boeing (sense 2); Burberry (sense 2); BuzzFeed (proper noun, subsense 1); Chanel (sense 3); Exxon (sense 2); Grab (proper noun, sense 1); Meta (both proper noun senses); Revlon; Versace (sense 2); Viacom; Visa (proper noun, sense 1).

If deleted I'll add the company names to the etymology sections where relevant, such as for Grab. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. Oh, but consider that definition-line explanations may be more useful sometimes. For example, BuzzFeed could say A news and entertainment website run by BuzzFeed, Inc.. Polomo47 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unbundle. I think these need to be taken individually. For example, "Versace" is a shortcut for referencing expensive style, e.g., Simon Sebag Montefiore, Sashenka: A Novel (2008), p. 432: " She was met by a beautiful black-haired secretary, a Russian girl not much older than she, in a little black suit with a tiny skirt and colossal high heels, all set off by a clinking gold belt. Katinka knew at once, just from the girls proprietary slink, that this "Versace girl" was not exclusively Pasha's typist". bd2412 T 18:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@BD2412 You can create a noun sense for it! Something like, e.g. Temu. In this context, Versace (and I reckon Gucci) could be listed as a noun or perhaps an adjective for something expensive/flashy. In such contexts, it is not a proper noun. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: It is better to create the sense first and then debate the deletion of the proper noun referencing the company, the definition of which might then become the etymology for the new sense. bd2412 T 22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@BD2412 If I made my aforementioned planned changes now (such as adding the company names to the ety) would you consider changing your vote? Bundling all of these entries, which are being nominated for deletion under the same policy, just saves time. I would have to edit them all twice if we decide to delete the proper noun senses, i.e. describe what the company is/does in the ety section instead of just mentioning the company name now (which would make the definition redundant/unnecessary). But I can do this if you would like, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: Yes, if you added appropriate senses where they apply, which I would guess to be the case for Armani, Chanel, Meta, Revlon, Versace, and Visa. bd2412 T 02:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mars

Etymology 2: brand name that has not entered the general lexicon; does not pass CFI as per WT:BRAND — This unsigned comment was added by Lunabunn (talkcontribs) at 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

There is a danger in removing every brand. I think it is wrongly classified as a proper noun; it should be a common noun, as you could say: "Can you buy me a Mars when you're at the shop? Here's the money." Personally I call them Mars bars, but anyway, apart from the vast difference in price, it's no different from buying a Bentley, Porsche, or even a Toyota. A Mars (bar) is different from other chocolate bars, in the same way as a Porsche is unlike a Toyota. DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The definition should be listed as noun instead. Other than that, seems reasonable to me. Polomo47 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

sexism

  1. The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to others.
    The notion that either gender is superior is sexism.
  2. Discrimination or different treatment based on sex or gender, especially discrimination against women.
    The fact that there is only one woman in a management position in that company makes it easy to believe that sexism runs rampant there.
  3. Attitudes or actions that are based on or promote the expectation that people adhere to stereotypical social roles (gender roles) based on sex.
    The sexism of making and promoting violent films for men and romantic comedies for women.

RFD sense 3. I don't understand why we need three definitions for one thing, but for now let's just check whether we really need sense 3 as well as sense 2. Isn't the sense 3 example a case of "different treatment based on sex or gender", i.e. what it says in sense 2? Mihia (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Senses 1 and 2 would be difficult to combine; the belief in the superiority (or inferiority?) of one sex and discrimination in favour of or against persons on the basis of sex should probably be distinguished. Sense 3, however, seems to be a specific subset of both of the first two senses, though the example sentence (fragment) falls more clearly under Sense 2. I'd say that Sense 3 can be deleted, though one could make a case for keeping the example. P Aculeius (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me that the difference between (1) and (2) is probably that (1) refers to a belief system, while (2) refers to an application of this belief. I agree that there is technically a distinction. On the other hand, we don't distinguish this in, let's say, ageism, which was under discussion earlier, and you could argue indeed that the sense 1 example also fits the sense 2 definition. I'm also not certain myself whether "sexism", as a belief system, refers always to a belief in the superiority of one sex, or could also refer to a belief that the different sexes should be treated or expected of differently. Mihia (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that ageism has ever been treated as a belief or philosophy as opposed to a practice, perhaps because everyone knows everyone will all experience each age if they live long enough. Sure, we have people opining about old fogeys or young whippersnappers, but that doesn't really translate into a philosophy the way that say, male chauvinism can exist entirely as an abstract or attitude with no action or power to discriminate on the basis of sex. Many more people believe in the superiority or inferiority of a particular sex than actually have the opportunity to act in accordance with that belief, or affect others meaningfully in the process.
So in the context of sexism, like racism, there are pervasive beliefs entirely separate from discriminatory actions that may or may not consciously arise from them. For instance, people who believe that women need to be protected or patronized, or that women are the natural caretakers of children or the home, may not believe that acting in accordance with such beliefs would be discriminatory, at least in the sense of holding men to be superior to women. I think that's what you're getting at with your last sentence—but formulating that into a definition could be tricky.
I agree that it can be regarded as sexism, though it might be hard to distinguish from the acknowledgement or accommodation of actual physical differences between the sexes. I suspect that the sharper the distinction is drawn, the more politicized it might become, because people have a wide range of opinions on every minute detail—and most people don't want to be labeled sexist! P Aculeius (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's fairly easy to find references to "ageism" as a "belief", e.g. https://bchumanrights.ca/glossary/ageism/ to give one example. Then again, at anti-Semitism, for example, which I would say also could be either a "belief" or a "practice", if we wanted to split hairs, we only have one sense (in the way relevant to this discussion). Mihia (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem with combining the first two senses—which would make sense 3 redundant, if it isn't already—is that while it's often hard to distinguish between belief and practice, as both example sentences 2 and 3 illustrate, IMO, we often do so in real life. We refer to people as "sexists" because of their attitudes, divorced from any specific actions they might take in conformity with their beliefs, and we refer to certain practices as "sexism" because of their effects and implied motivations, even in the absence of any philosophical basis for them. The two are frequently blended, which argues for consolidating the definitions, but also frequently distinguished, and the distinction is important. If the senses are consolidated, the definition should be worded carefully, and it may be difficult to do so without making such a definition convoluted. P Aculeius (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Sense 3 is for manifestations of sexism which are not explicitly discriminatory in intent or outcome (as in sense 2), nor underpinned by the belief that one sex/gender is inherently superior to another (as in sense 1). It's for cultural stereotypes and "microaggressions", like jokes about women being unfunny, bad drivers, or inordinately fond of shoes. This term has the same range of expressions as racism. If I wanted to map expressions of racism onto the current definitions of sexism, white supremacy reflects sense 1, racial segregation reflects sense 2, and the debate about appropriate Halloween costumes reflects sense 3. These phenomena are obviously different in terms of their scope, impact, and history. We'd be doing a major disservice if we tried to consolidate them all into a single muddled definition. Nuance is a necessity in this case. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
My initial reaction is that we should improve the definition of sense 1 (to incorporate what sense 3 is getting at, i.e. merge 3 into 1 and 2), in line with how racism does not split "race A is superior to race B"-type racism and "race A inherently likes X, race B inherently likes Y"-type racism into separate definitions but covers both in the same definition(s). At least on first consideration, I'm not seeing why trying to split 'hardcore' discrimination / supremacist attitudes or actions and more microaggressive attitudes or actions into separate senses would be the best way of handling things (we don't seem to split racism, homophobia or other discriminations that way). This does make me notice that some of our other entries' definitions are lacking, though (for example, I've just tweaked transphobia to have a fuller definition like homophobia). - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I expanded sense 1. WAN's sureness that sense 3 needs to be a separate sense gives me pause, but ... it does seem to me that sense 3 is just another way of getting at sense 2, different treatment based on the idea that people of different sexes are (or should be) different. I could maybe see making sense 3 a subsense of sense 2 (revising its wording a bit)...?? Or just deleting it in favour of sense 2 (and sense 1), keeping the usex. As I said above, the phenomenon sense 3 is describing w.r.t. sex also exists for other X-isms w.r.t. X — a while ago Hollywood studio execs were mocked for the racism of only marketing certain kinds of films to Black people and being surprised to learn that "Black people like fun things, too" — but we don't (currently) make that a separate sense of racism or other isms AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fender

Rfd sense: “A manufacturer of electric guitars”.

Fails WT:COMPANY. We can, however, keep the noun sense per WT:BRAND and mention this company name in the etymology section for the noun (which I could add myself). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

operator

  • Sense: A thief or charlatan,
  • Sense: A major criminal, and
  • Sense: Someone who is successful at pursuing women; a player

all seem to be variations of sense 5: "A person who is adept at making deals or getting results, especially one who uses questionable methods." I think the first two are more obvious than the third, but the sense of "operator" as someone who schemes, connives, convinces, games the system, etc. covers all of them—it's just a specific example, if you look at the quotations—they don't really seem to imply that the successful pursuit of women is the meaning of "operator", but rather that an operator ought to be good at pursuing women. And that's the same as sense 5, IMO. The definition could use some work, and maybe the example sentences could be saved, but I don't think there's a separate meaning here. P Aculeius (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merge senses 11–12 with 5 (and keep some of the quotations). I am on the fence about sense 13; the 1974 attest is clearly sense 5 (“great operators ... with the girls”) but I am not really sure of the other two.. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see the other two #13 examples as just the same. The context shows that pursuing girls/women is the activity being referred to. Mihia (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

London City

What is the benefit of such an entry? Nobody calls London "London City" as far as I know. I've been there often. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:93E:A84E:6BB:94C 20:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since "London" can refer to either the city proper or to Greater London, "London City" helps readers identify which is intended, even though it isn't a common way of doing so. The phrase also turns up in collocations such as "London City Airport", where again it distinguishes the city from the larger metropolitan area. The entry's usefulness comes in helping readers who might wonder whether "London City" is synonymous with one of these, or another place called "London", or whether it has some other specific meaning, such as "London Town". P Aculeius (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not parse "London City Airport" as "the airport of London City". I parse it as "the city airport of London" (as opposed to a suburb airport, or whatever). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A4:1965:C286:A290 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some fun things that crossed my mind: reading about this (not your reply specifically) got the Wings album London Town on my mind. And it's great we have the entry. This line of thought was also how I figured out Kansas City, which I know from Kansas City / Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey, is the actual name for the city — which should've been obvious, since Kansas is a state, lol. Polomo47 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • FWIW, I have never heard of "London City" either, not as a thing that people refer to in any significant way, and I lived there for a number of years. "London City Airport" I parse as the "City" airport in London, i.e. serving the City of London, not the airport in "London City". Mihia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Remarkably I just wrote almost exactly the same thing (down to the word "parse"), without having read your comment. So, yes, agreed, very much! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A4:1965:C286:A290 01:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’ve always parsed it as ‘the airport of the ‘City of London’’, rather than ‘the airport of London, the alleged city’ (unlike the two editors above) but then I do enjoy winding up Cockneys by telling them the fact that London isn’t even a city and Birmingham is the largest city in the UK. There is one Google Books hit which uses ‘London City’ twice in quick succession, though it’s not altogether clear which meaning is being referred to. A weak keep from me btw. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The pronunciations I hear on YouGlish YouGlish I support the "London city-airport" argument: they sound as if they're saying London | City Airport. I think you misunderstood what the others said. They haven't said anything about an alleged city: they're talking about parsing the name with a "city-airport" grouping as opposed to a "London City" one. Polomo47 (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
AFAIK, London City only applies to the airport, City of London is the correct title for the city, alias the Square Mile. You could add Category:en:Airports to this one. It's not an important airport, as it has a short runway, and only STOL aircraft can use it. DonnanZ (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you're right that "London City" could be used as an abbreviation for "London City Airport" (but with a meaning like "London - City" or "London (City)", so still doesn't alter the fact that, in my opinion, "London City Airport" is "City airport of London" not "airport of London City"). Mihia (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A Google search—unfiltered—suggests that "London City Centre" is used by travel and some financial sites to describe central London. There are also the London City Lionesses, a women's soccer team. "London City" also seems to be used to describe things associated with at least two other places called "London": London, Ontario (London City Soccer Club), and London, Ohio (London City Schools). These are probably not the only instances of "London City"; they're just the first ones that turned up in fairly general searches. So clearly there is some use of the phrase, and it is sometimes used to distinguish the City of London from Greater London (I'm not arguing that it's "correct" or the proper name of the corporation), and sometimes used of completely different places. These uses may be a weak argument to keep the entry, but is there a stronger argument to delete than "I haven't heard this used" or "that's not how I personally parse it"? P Aculeius (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"London City Centre" means the city centre of London, not the centre of "London City". Yes, you can find "London City" used as part of proper names. This does not prove that "London City" exists by itself (I mean, in the case of London, England - I have no idea about other Londons). If you ask "London City Lionesses" where they are located, or originated, would they say "London City"? Mihia (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, the IATA code for the airport is LCY, for Heathrow LHR, and Gatwick LGW. DonnanZ (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, I'm not contending that "London City" is the correct name of the City of London—I'm saying it's one way that the city can and is referred to in some instances, and therefore readers benefit from having an entry: they may run across the phrase "London City" with or without another word (airport, centre, schools, theatre, football club, etc.), and wonder whether it means the City of London, or just part of London, or some separate entity that may or may not overlap with London—just as Greater London or the Diocese of London do. The entry tells them that the phrase is synonymous with the City of London, and not with some other entity—although if it were also used of another entity, then the entry would also aid readers by informing them of which ones are sometimes referred to this way. Without an entry, someone running across "London City" would be left wondering whether it is or isn't the same entity as the "City of London". P Aculeius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete – Regardless of the above arguments, is “London City” a generally valid entry for us? This might be SOP, just London + City.. we do not have Tokyo City, Los Angeles City, Mumbai City, São Paulo City, Shanghai City, Istanbul City etc, and a lot of these have their own metropolitan areas that could be confused for the city proper or centre or CBD whatever, i.e. Los Angeles County (colloquially Los Angeles) or the Greater Tokyo Area (colloquially Tokyo). London should not get special treatment nor should we create the aforementioned red-linked entries as city is used as a descriptor; by that same logic we might have Kingston City (which can have several senses) and hundreds of others that are not really helpful to readers. Instead, we can just—and indeed, we do—list the various senses at Kingston or London etc. That said, I would not oppose a redirect either. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most Londoners, if they call themselves that (I don't), live within Greater London, often a long way from the city. DonnanZ (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have New York City, though. (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I always thought that "New York City" had a particular explanation, i.e. to distinguish the city from the state, which, indeed, our entry does mention. Mihia (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna This specifically refers to the City of London, not London. The former is only a tiny part of London, so it's not like the other examples you give, and it's not giving London special treatment. Theknightwho (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me that this should have been at WT:RFVE.  --Lambiam 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep - this is obviously a matter for WT:RFVE. It's clearly not SOP, since it refers specifically to the City of London, which is not the same as London, which means it cannot simply be London + city. Theknightwho (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Although "London City" is not in my experience a "regular" term, no doubt someone somewhere has put those two words together, so in that sense it can no doubt be "verified". However, I think it unlikely that it is used only in the sense "City of London". For example, "Things to do in London City" is talking about London as a whole. In the case that it does mean City of London, it could be construed as "London + district of London", i.e. the City district, in the same way as we see e.g. "Places to see in London Kensington" . Mihia (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep but RFV - If this term exists, it's clearly not SOP because it refers to a specific small part of London, not the city as a whole. I find its existence kind of dubious though, since I've only ever heard that phrasing used to refer to London City Airport (which is not itself in the City of London, although it is relatively close). Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

hat

Rfd-sense "(Internet slang) User rights on a website, such as the right to edit pages others cannot."

How is this different from "A particular role or capacity that a person might fill."? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom—essentially the same sense, just in a different context. Having this distinction is not necessary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's the same, because the generic role sense suggests that the hats are something one can exchange at will (rather like Edward de Bono's "Six Thinking Hats", or the idea of "putting on one's thinking cap"). The Internet thing is different because this is an actual measurable privilege granted only to selected users (administrators, etc.) and not a figurative "mode" that anybody can choose to switch into. (I remember in old IRC days I used to refer to the chanop's distinguishing @ symbol as the "at-hat". But I probably made that up.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A4:1965:C286:A290 01:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, does hat never refer to a physical job/formal position? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep per IP. – Svārtava (tɕ) 04:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep or merge the two senses. ScribeYearling (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

fourth estate

Rfd-sense "A hypothetical fourth class of civic subjects, or fourth body (in Britain, after the Crown, and the two Houses of Parliament) which governed legislation." This doesn't seem idiomatic to me. These historical 'estates' are covered by the etymology, so we wouldn't be removing any information from the entry. The quote could be moved under 'used other than idiomatically'. Wikiuser815 (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

imaginary friend

The phrase refers to a friend who is imaginary, as such this is SoP. It could be made to redirect to "imaginary", where I've already added this as a collocation. Wikiuser815 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. Indeed, a very common collocation but still SOP at that. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete unless we create social relationship. Fay Freak (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. An "imaginary friend" isn't merely a friend who is imaginary, but a specific psychological concept (I'm going to refrain from doing as the entry does, quoting from the lead of the Wikipedia article of this title) with a considerable amount of literature devoted to it—including a lengthy article on Wikipedia. I admit I'm only familiar with the concept as applied to children who develop artificial personas with whom they can interact—but on that basis alone I would consider this term to be more than sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is a non sequitur since by necessity psychological concepts, as the mental reflection and preconception of the world, can be sums of parts. So man, as he designs himself to interact with others, typically maintains such a concept, and for greater effect vividly replays it when having the opportunity, as it is case at the relevant age. If I study medicine I also am an imaginary medical doctor in an imaginary hospital, if I study law I am an imaginary attorney or judge in an imaginary courtroom, and so on, but nothing similar is being verbalized in psychologese given that psychological researchers would have to have intersections with occupational professions as particular subsections of the population, which increases expense in study design but decreases interest in their research. Fay Freak (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. One says "she has an imaginary friend", "I'm talking to my imaginary friend", etc.. You do not talk to a "phenomenon where a friendship takes place". The "imaginary friend" actually is the imaginary person. Google AI-generated definition is correct: "An imaginary friend is a character or personality that someone creates in their mind, often as a child." Mihia (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that our definition is poor. I think it was taken verbatim from the lead of the Wikipedia article on the topic—which also needs work, IMO—or possibly vice-versa. But either way, it's certainly more than sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, SOP, and if we really must keep it then fix the definition. PUC19:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The acid test, as always, will be whether the (corrected) definition, when any dressing is removed, really means anything more than "a friend that is imaginary". It seems to me that a distinguishing feature of the non-purely-SoP "imaginary friend" could be that the imaginer actually interacts with the friend in some way (as, in fact, P Aculeius mentions above). For example, most likely the following isn't referring to "our type" of imaginary friend: "I think he made up that whole story about going there to meet a friend just to throw us off the scent. I think the meeting was imaginary, and the friend was an imaginary friend." The distinction does seem a little flimsy, however. I abstain. Mihia (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Compare imaginary illness, which in most cases means an illness thought to exist purely in the imagination of a hypochondriac, but can also refer to an illness imagined by someone else. The very fact that it can mean both these things makes it obvious, IMO, that the term is a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think what I was trying to say, not very clearly now that I look again, is that someone could make a case for an "especially" entry; in other words, yes, it could mean any "imaginary" + "friend", but in particular it means the sort that you have a chat with. This is the sort of "especially" argument that we might see for "tram driver" and the like. Yes, obviously "tram driver" means "person who drives a tram", but in particular it means one who drives as an occupation and carries passengers on a public service. But, as I say, I am not personally arguing strongly for this. Mihia (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don't blame the author for submitting this given how well known the concept is, but this is better suited for an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. The meaning is too obvious. (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 12:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Isn’t the term “imaginary friend” also a euphemism for God (or other deities) among non-believers?
Example: “Are you praying to your imaginary friend again?”
This sense extends beyond a mere SoP, I think. 98.203.250.141 21:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see the example you gave as SoP: someone saying that intends no more meaning than "friend who is imaginary". Yes, that definition is in disagreement with the interlocutor's, but that changes nothing. Compare groomer. Polomo47 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. See translations in fr:ami imaginaire and pt:amigo imaginário. André Koehne (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@André Koehne, it's not just any translation that suffices: the translation needs to be idiomatic. The same sum-of-parts argument applies for both of the translations you mentioned, since they are word-for-word translations. Nominated the Portuguese page for deletion. Polomo47 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47 not deletion in french? See sources in w:Imaginary friend... it's suffices? André Koehne (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to edit the French Wiktionary, so I didn't do anything there, but I do think the entry should be deleted. Not sure what you mean about the Wikipedia entry, though. Polomo47 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keeped, in Portuguese. André Koehne (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Given this user's command of English, their vote should be ignored. PUC08:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Weak delete. Forgot to vote for a while; changed to weak because I could see the WT:PRIOR argument but I don't find it very strong in this case. Like, the examples we have on that page are also idiomatic for other reasons. Polomo47 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. The pertinent meaning ("the subject of a friendship or other interpersonal relationship taking place in the imagination rather than in physical reality") conveys something more specific than the parts. To repeat my earlier example, "I think he made up that whole story about going there to meet a friend just to throw us off the scent. I think the meeting was imaginary, and the friend was an imaginary friend" is not an "imaginary friend" in the pertinent sense. Mihia (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm now thinking the definition is simply incomplete, and that "imaginary friend" hasn't any such restricted meaning (which requires prior knowledge). We need to see if all "imaginary friends" are "friends that are imaginary" (no one seems to question it), and if all "friends that are imaginary" are "imaginary friends" (I say yes), in which case that's proof of SoP, no? Polomo47 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see it as similar to magic carpet which arose elsewhere recently. Yes, "magic carpet" can mean any carpet with magical properties, whatever they may be, and yet specifically it means a carpet that can fly. Although in some sense "magic carpet" in the "flying" sense is SoP, nevertheless we should in my opinion give it its own definition, and I would say the same principle applies, slightly more weakly, but still viably, just about, to "imaginary friend". Mihia (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per WT:PRIOR. It's a technical term for a specific psychological concept. As pointed out by P Aculeius there's a bunch of literature and research related to this phenomenon. "Imaginary friends" seem to mainly manifest in young children. That's a narrowness of use that the definition ought to reflect. Can also be used as a disparaging reference to God (cf. sky daddy). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Now attested as a derogatory term for a deity. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can only compare this to groomer. Don't think this is a real sense. Can go in the entry as a usage note. Polomo47 (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Mihia & WordyAndNerdy. AG202 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

agriculture minister

+other ministers. SOP? TypeO889 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it unless we can satisfy WT:THUB. I would say we keep cabinet minister and foreign minister as not SOP, and minister of justice and interior minister as translation hubs. Definitely delete the rest. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, marking one's own homework. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Donnanz What does that mean? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: For your sanity, I would advise you to not take Donnanz seriously, or even ignore his comments entirely, especially those made here at RFD. They're teeming with pointless trivia, passive-aggressive jabs, personal attacks and weird non sequitur. PUC14:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There was a user account for TypeO889 created around the time (1506, 19 December) when Luna threatened to sue me for libel in ankle-high. It has now been mysteriously deleted. This is not pointless trivia etc. DonnanZ (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Correction: The account was created without creating a user page. DonnanZ (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe that the "/not s" placed in that comment was meant to indicate "not serious", although you did accuse two people of commenting under made-up identities. It sounds like this comment is also aimed at Luna, although it's a legitimate argument for deletion (I'm not saying I agree with it; I'm not sure), and the comment below under "baby cake" also seems to refer to this one. If you want to accuse someone—or multiple someones—of sockpuppetry, I believe there's a better way of doing it. P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't really care as long as we can get rid of all the minister redlinks one way or another Vergencescattered (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

fall orange

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

The definitions of both this entry and autumn orange are comically lacking (bad labels, bad definitions, ...). If it refers to a specific colour, someone should add that; if not (like "18th century green"), it should be deleted. Possibly a question for RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This does exist as a colour, but it's not an American spelling, it's an American term. Done Fixed. Brits don't usually call autumn "fall". Keep somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete, because as far as I can tell neither "fall orange" nor "autumn orange" exist as colours (see "summer yellow" below), except to the extent that anyone might happen to associate orange with the season. There seems to be no specific colour that is regularly named this; it is not found in W3, no specific definition is provided, and there are no citations or quotations for any of these. I have no doubt that there are uses of the phrase in some durably archived sources, but I don't know of any that would amount to something less vague than the sum of its parts. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, obvious SOP as written. To keep, some evidence needs to be provided that this is used in a non-SOP way. This, that and the other (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per my rationale at #autumn orange. Alternatively rfv it. Inqilābī 15:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

summer yellow

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

  • Keep: Like RfD rationale for autumn orange, saying "seriously crap" is a seriously crappy rationale that doesn't address CFI Purplebackpack89 00:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    But are these actual colours, or just whatever the creator wants them to mean? I used to write about colours, and list those that occurred in major dictionaries. I can't recall anything called "fall orange" or "summer yellow" referring to a specific colour—as far as I know, these phrases mean nothing more than the definitions say: an orange that reminds one of fall; a yellow reminiscent of summer (but wouldn't a fall yellow be just as valid? Is yellow more associated with summer than fall?). Webster's Third New International Dictionary has "Autumn", "Autumn blond", "Autumn brown", "Autumn glory", "Autumn leaf", and "Autumn oak", four of which are synonyms for colours defined elsewhere, but there's no "Autumn orange" or "Fall orange", and I don't see any "Summer" colours. These seem to be inventions of the editor who created them, and to the extent they have lexical meaning, it's just sum-of-parts, like "grape red" or "wood brown" or "cloud white", none of which refer to a specific colour—though there's a butterfly called "wood brown"—and so are just random and transparent descriptions. P Aculeius (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That seems more like an RfV question, @P Aculeius Purplebackpack89 01:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't see how plain RFV would help. No doubt "summer yellow" can very easily be cited, along with virtually unlimited other ad hoc compound colour names. It seems to me that we need citations that consistently use the term more precisely or specifically than as "the colour that the words conjure up in the mind". For example, sunset yellow is a specific dye with a specific chemical composition, which you would not know purely from the name. Or perhaps this is what you meant anyway. Mihia (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete, obvious SOP as written. This, that and the other (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
At least fall orange makes sense. I'm not sure that summer yellow does - I have winter jasmine (what, no entry!) with yellow flowers at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Delete' all three of fall orange, summer yellow, autumn orange, as SoP. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per my rationale at #autumn orange. Alternatively rfv it. Inqilābī 15:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

January 2025

barcode reader and barcode scanner

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

  • Delete both per nom. I wanted to see if barcode reader was an official name for that particular plastic handle-shaped handheld device thingy (in which case it would probably not be SOP), but it does not appear so. There are many objects and devices bearing this name. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oof! Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think card reader is a hypernym for various particular designs, by dint of which this is not more SOP than letter opener, you just don’t see the technical intricacy. Keep. Fay Freak (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’m slightly on the fence here, card reader seems idiomatic as they can read phones and watches (and I even know one person who has a readable ring!), albeit card info contained on phones and watches. Barcode reader/scanner seems less so but they can be a gun-shaped gun/scanner/reader or rectangular and they can be wired to the counter by the till/register or mobile. Also some can read QR codes, do price checks, print price labels or stickers from a mobile printer, and scan a batch of barcodes for printing from a computer later on, as well as scan items for click and collect purposes - the most advanced ones can do all of the above, are mobile and (in my experience) are rectangular and go by the name HHT (handheld terminal). The entire counter of a self-service checkout that you scan items on could even be thought of as a ‘barcode scanner’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep both. DonnanZ (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Australian rhyming slang; Cockney rhyming slang

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

Delete per nom; if these were proper nouns they would be kept, e.g. Antarctic English, but they are not, hence SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep Cockney rhyming slang at least, per WT:JIFFY and WT:LEMMING (as it's the very first type of rhyming slang and is defined in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) . --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep Cockney rhyming slang, as a recognized "dialect" that is frequently used to explain the etymology of various words and phrases, not only in Wiktionary but other standard authorities, e.g. Partridge. I don't know whether the same is true of Australian rhyming slang. P Aculeius (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

lemon yellow

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

Keep, it appears to be a recognised colour. I even found it on a tin of paint. DonnanZ (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Was it a durably archived tin of paint though? Rowjanes (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Will this do? List of RAL colours on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DonnanZ (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, I don't care about whether the entry deletes or keeps. I just like the "was it a durably archived X?" joke. Rowjanes (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I dunno... The lemons I buy are not quite as bright in colour as what wikipedia calls Lemon (color) ( ⬬⬬ ), but more like  ⬬⬬  or  ⬬⬬ . When I keep the lemons for too long and they turn the mellow yellow RAL Classic colour "Lemon yellow" ( ⬬⬬ ) shown in the list on Wikipedia, I throw them away. In everyday use, neither lemon nor lemon yellow, used as a colour designation, correspond to a precise standard. IMO these terms refer to the colours of actual lemons, which vary over a considerable range. The use of a fancy name in a particular colour standard does not make it lexical; some other names from this standard are “Pearl blackberry” and “Fibrous green”.  --Lambiam 15:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep per Donnanz. And I would like the nominator to explain further why they think the word isn't lexicalized...what research led them to that claim? Why is sky blue lexicalized but lemon yellow isn't? Purplebackpack89 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete, transparently SOP. You can find all sorts of crappy names on tins of paint. This, that and the other (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep, as a standard description of various bright yellows, even though the colour itself isn't standardized. Other dictionaries consider this to be the name of a colour. W3 defines it first as "a variable color averaging a brilliant greenish yellow", and secondly as a synonym for Cassel yellow or Chinese yellow. It would be silly to delete it simply because it isn't always the same hue, saturation, and value. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The question is if it means anything more than lemon + yellow. Since the color of lemons is not fixed, "lemon yellow" will obviously refer to a color falling in a particular range of colors and that doesn't make it non-SOP. Svārtava (tɕ) 13:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It doesn't make it sum-of-parts either. By that definition, most of the colours defined by other dictionaries shouldn't have definitions either, because they're also variable. Ranges are definable too, and we shouldn't be coming up with excuses to delete entries that other dictionaries consider worthy of inclusion. P Aculeius (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Svārtava, should we then delete green because it refers to a range of colors and not a single hex triplet? Absurd! Purplebackpack89 21:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 06:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. Noting that literally almost any "thing + colour" combination, where "thing" has a known typical colour, seems to be citable: mushroom brown, pumpkin orange, grapefruit yellow, coal black, broccoli green, moon grey ... etc. etc. Mihia (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And yet most of these aren't defined as colours in most dictionaries, which do include lemon yellow, either with a separate entry or under "lemon". OED, under "lemon", sense 5, shows "lemon-yellow" in use since at least 1807; Ridgway depicts "Lemon Yellow" on plate IV of Color Standards and Color Nomenclature (1912), which is widely used as a reference in taxonomy and the sciences. Not just anything that typically falls in the range of some general colour gives rise to a distinct name, which is why most of the above examples, except for "coal black", are redlinked: good luck finding them in dictionaries (I might not be surprised by "pumpkin orange") or art supply catalogues. P Aculeius (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I am opposed to including or excluding entries simply because other dictionaries include or exclude them. In particular, popular dictionaries almost certainly include certain terms (e.g. "lemon yellow") and exclude others (e.g. "grapefruit yellow") on the basis of how common or familiar they are (which we don't, provided that minimum citation requirements are met), and probably without applying our concept of SoP with any great strictness or consistency. Ideally we should have our own rules for potentially SoP colours -- if indeed we need additional specific rules -- so that different people can apply the rules and arrive at the same answer. Otherwise, it is arbitrary that someone says "I think that X is a 'proper colour' while Y is not", even when Y is as easily citable as X. Of course, if there is a "hard" definition, such as an exact dye or chemical (as in my elsewhere example sunset yellow) then that should be sufficient to keep. If we can't say anything more than, essentially, "colour of the stated thing", as is presently the case with "lemon yellow", then I am unclear what is our valid rationale for keeping the entry. I am also dubious about descriptive definitions such as "a vivid green", "a soft orange" etc. being in themselves sufficient, because these could be created for any "thing + colour" where "thing" has a known typical colour. Mihia (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment: lemonyellow is citeable, which COALMINEs this: 1, 2, 3; others: google books:"lemonyellow". - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

DeRo

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

Category:en:Nicknames of individuals. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C54E:F82E:FAA1:E7A5 20:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's not something I would want to include. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree. In sports, it is quite common for players to have cool nicknames; these names are not really fit for a dictionary, though, are they? But, seeing as this is de jure allowed to be included, perhaps this should go to the Beer Parlour for opinions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Is dictionary material. Famous nicknames can be found in dictionaries, and there's even entire dictionaries for them. (Plus, we could have a sort of reverse dictionary, where you look up famous people and see what nicknames they've gotten.) CitationsFreak (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
But why—why are humans in a dictionary? 😭😭 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not humans. Terms that refer to a specific humans, or groups of them. And as for why some might look up them up, maybe they read a nickname and are curious as to who it refers to. Or maybe they're a writer search for a succulent sobriquet for a certain individual. CitationsFreak (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

co's

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

Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, a more recent discussion removed the pronoun section from bro, leaving it only as a noun (correctly, IMO), which we do regularly delete possessives of. Pronouns, OTOH ... I agree with Mahagaja, keep this; pronominal possessives formed with apostrophes are a small class and one we seem to keep (we also have him's), and which seems reasonable enough to me to keep. - -sche (discuss) 17:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

badak

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

Delete: I looked through Gbooks for a while and did not find any occurrences of this word in an English sentence (without italics, that is). However, perhaps this is better suited for RfV? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Changing to keep per the newly-added attests; I do not think RfV is necessary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The s-plural badaks can only be English, not Indonesian. That plural can be found in GBooks. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C27:44:B850:D46 10:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Send to RFV if necessary. But it has three citations now, with an s-plural that cannot be Indonesian. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8D65:C8C3:ADBB:E9DF 09:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

beard louse

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

Delete per nom. If this referred to a specific genre of lice, say the crab louse, then it could perhaps be kept—however it does not. Notice how we do not have an entry for hair louse despite that word being super common. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Phacromallus Re-read "closing a request" above. One vote qualifies for "no consensus" if anything. Ultimateria (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

the D

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

Yeah, delete. It should be OK to include "The" in place names where it is officially used, there's about 15 hamlets around England named The Green, and oodles of streets with that name too. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Weak delete for consistency's sake, as we have two meanings for 'the T' listed at T. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Redirect to D so users can locate the relevant def easier; compare the Hub. But yeah basically delete it. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete or redirect: redundant to D. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it's more convenient to have the entry at the D rather than moving it to D and adding a label like "(used with "the"). Soap 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Redirect to D. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted; would not oppose it if anyone wishes to recreate this as a redirect. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

TWOW

Definitions:

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

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

What about The Winds of Winter? PUC01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
All the more reason not to have this one. All the Google Books hits are for that one and a few other published works with the same initials. There are also lots of scannos and some kind of (lowercase) term in linguistics or philosophy, but apparently not this.
The fact that this is on a "Battle for Dream Island" fandom wiki doesn't help- that group was so focused on their favorite spot on the internet that they fought for 11 years to get it on Wikipedia in spite of having none of the evidence for notability that Wikipedia requires. I hope this isn't a continuation of that battle. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, while I can understand why you might think TWOW is just "another BFDI thing", I believe that it is seperate and notable enough to warrant its own definition of Wiktionary.
Firstly, on the BFDI Fandom wiki you are talking about, it explicitly states that "Ten Words of Wisdom is not a part of the BFDI franchise". While there are some similarities with TWOW and BFDI (them both having the same creator, many TWOW fans being BFDI fans, and most notably, the contestants are being represented as "booksonas", which are similar to a BFDI character), TWOW is its own thing seperate from BFDI, although the 2 communities do slightly overlap. However, there are many TWOW fans who are not a fan of BFDI, and there will be more fans of that type because of LingoTWOW: a TWOW with over 400 contestants that is hosted and announced by LingoLizard, a linguistics channel of 60000 subscribers, unrelated to BFDI.
Secondly, the TWOW community is quite sizeable, and there are many "TWOW"s. The second official season of Ten Words of Wisdom, "Eleven Words of Wisdom" has over 16,000 contestants, and the official Discord server regarding TWOW has over 5,000 members. There is also a list of TWOWs, which contains a lot of TWOWs. Take note that a lot of those TWOWs are named something along the lines of " TWOW", which denotes that it is a writing competition similar to carykh's Ten Words of Wisdom.
Thirdly, there are already many definitions related to object shows, BFDI, and TWOW on Wiktionary, such as object show, objectsona, and booksona.
Some final notes are that TWOW can also be used as a suffix (-TWOW, e.g. Magnetty TWOW) or more rarely, a prefix (TWOW-, e.g. TWOWlympics), a lot of the TWOW community and TWOWs operate on Discord (but recently, there have been many TWOWs on YouTube) and I will admit that I have a slight conflict of interest with the TWOW and MiniTWOW Wikis on Miraheze, due to me being staff on both wikis. - AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
What is the reason for deletion? The entry is really poorly formatted right now, but I've seen the initalism quite often (i.e., seems attestable) and the content isn't hard to fix. Polomo47 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I added citations. // AFasterSlowpoke (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reason for the delete is Example: Nonsense, Crosswiki trolling. This seems to be an own invention and does not seem to be a verifiable spread. WikiBayer (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, you’re obviously mistaken. The user most definitely did not make up the word, and the entry is not wrong enough that I’d consider it “trolling”. Polomo47 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

geop-

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

i believe it is only in geopbyte, yes, and as such would fail RFD. Soap 09:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

be a thing

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

trade minister

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

Delete per nom; a clear case of SOP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete Vergencescattered (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

screw

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

Synonyms: bugger, eff, to hell with
Screw those jerks, and screw their stupid rules!

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

Synonyms: (vulgar, slang) fuck, forget, (Australia) sack
Screw the homework for now.
Screw him, let's run.

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

Merge or otherwise delete one of them per nom. MedK1 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believe the problem is with the UXs under sense 11: those are wrong and should be under sense 10. Sense 10 ought to be like, "They screwed me ". Maybe this could go to RfV to see if it's really used with no "over">
Outside of that, I believe they are indeed separate senses because saying "screw those jerks" is not close to saying "you should screw those jerks". Polomo47 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't see why #10 ought to be (essentially) any different from what it is at the moment (except possibly if it is to allow non-imperative use). As for "screw = screw over", have you checked the other senses to see whether this is covered elsewhere? To me, "screw over" usually means "cheat", sense 3. "You should screw those jerks", in a sense 10/11-relevant way, could be seen as a non-imperative use of #10. If #11 is supposed to cover this then, to me, the definitions need to be stronger. I can't see "You should screw those jerks" as really meaning e.g. "You should give up on those jerks". Or do you think otherwise? Mihia (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd say it's a mistake to list noun senses 6/7 and verb senses 2/3/10/11, because all of those simply reflect that screw is the minced equivalent of fuck and is therefore substitutable for it in most contexts. You could replace them with one noun entry reading "Equivalent to fuck, but less vulgar", and one verb entry saying the same thing.
With regard to the difference between 10 and 11 here, the overlap occurs only because sense 10 mentions "contemptuous dismissal". Sense 11 is dismissive, but not necessarily contemptuous; you can use the word to dismiss something that you don't necessarily disapprove of. Sense 10 is strongly pejorative, and that feels like a meaningful difference to me. 2601:647:C901:20C0:4131:EB5D:B72B:DB4A 08:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

miniendoscopies

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

"He underwent miniendoscopy": uncountable. "He underwent a miniendoscopy": countable. I find zero hits for "miniendoscopies" plural even in a Google Web search. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:45DC:DAFF:2127:3937 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but it's easy to attest countable usages, like here. I don't believe we usually require attestation of plurals when it's predictable like this. Polomo47 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
If the plural form is not attested but “a X” is, then you could perhaps use {{en-noun|!}} which produces plural not attested. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

penetrative sex

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

Keep due to the concept of non-penetrative sex and oral sex. Also WT:FRIED applies because there is a social understanding behind it restricting it to humans: when I search it with dogs it is mostly dogs on human females but not between canines. Probably also WT:THUB in some extra-European cultures. Fay Freak (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can we find several other phrases involving sense #4 of "penetrative", i.e. "Pertaining to sexual activity involving penetration by the penis"? If we can cite general use then it would boost the case for deleting, I think. Mihia (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I only know sources in other languages. It makes sense because of pene-. LIrala (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's "penetrative and non-penetrative abuse", "non-penetrative and penetrative experiences" (of CSA, etc), "penetrative acts", ~ rape, ~assault, etc. I suspect that all of these collocations including "penetrative sex" sometimes refer to any penetration, e.g. insertion of fingers into a vagina, but they might also sometimes only refer to (certain, non-oral?) penile penetration. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am not apodictically reckoning the entry as one we have to keep, but as the situation stands we—and even more so non-lexicographers, not least youths—are thus confused about the terminology that from this and that that it would be a contradiction to keep contrasting terms we can make a case for keeping. The legal (?) terms you mention have more contextual peculiarities. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
In colloquial usage, I've usually seen this term exclude oral sex, as in these two Reddit threads. I wonder if we should split the definition into loosely and strictly accordingly. AG202 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes it includes, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the context. LIrala (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete: the fact that some uses include all kinds of penetration and others might include only some kinds of penetrative is interesting, but it seems to me like a feature of penetrative, because AFAICT the same differences in scope can be found in other phrases like penetrative abuse / acts / assault / experiences / rape (see also google books:"penetrative anal", google books:"penetrative vaginal"), so AFAICT all of these longer phrases are SOP. - -sche (discuss) 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

forward time machine

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

troll bot

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

Is kept by WT:COALMINE, as aimbot is. Fay Freak (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
trollbot is currently red. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Irrelevant. It’s your job to consider whether a reason to keep anything can be construed before you nominate an entry for deletion, as we have limited capacities to format quotes and formulate answers to everything. Daily Dot editors seem to like this spelling even. Fay Freak (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
TBF it is a simple mistake to make; it should really be (though obviously this is not always case) up to the page creator to add an entry like trollbot as an alternative form of troll bot so that editors know that the alternative form not only exists but that the entry is thus kept via COALMINE. :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per COALMINE. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-kept per the contentious COALMINE policy. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

put

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

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

Homoousion

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

  • Merge: determine whether the capitalized or uncapitalized form is more common, and merge the other entry into it. Also, revise the definition as we don’t have meta definitions like “an occurrence of ” as it’s just needless duplication and potentially applies to every single term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Merge Jberkel 09:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

flatfooted

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

I can see why one might imagine these are adjectives from the wording of some of the senses, but in each of the example sentences, which agree with those senses, "flatfooted" appears to be modifying a verb: caught, walk, hit, squatted, drink. Thus it appears to be correctly identified as an adverb. Also, if only which part of speech it is is in question, why is this entry—including the adjective—up for deletion? P Aculeius (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, you're as confused as the editor who created the "adverb" must have been. My Oxford only lists the adjective for flat-footed, with flat-footedly as an adverb (see flatfootedly). It gives an example for the adjective flat-footed: many companies were caught flat-footed by international competition.
If I said I was caught naked, you can look at naked and find, quite rightly, that it's not an adverb. There is an adverb though - nakedly.
I think FoM2 is right, and the adverb can be merged with the adjective. And flat-footed has the same problem, and should be amended similarly. DonnanZ (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
flat-footed should be defined simply as an alt spelling of flatfooted (or the other way round, whichever anyone prefers). We shouldn't be repeating definitions for trivial spelling variations. Mihia (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
A possible test: "I was caught in a flatfooted manner" isn't the same as "I was caught flatfooted". The latter is more like "I was caught while I was flatfooted". Walking flatfooted seems different: you could say "I was walking in a flatfooted manner", though you could also say "I was flatfooted while I was walking". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree. The "caught flatfooted" example is clearly adjectival. The "squatted flatfooted" and "hit take-off board flatfooted" examples are probably adjectival too. "walk flatfooted" seems more ambiguous to me (would it be a "flat" adverb? ha-ha). Compare also barefoot. I've never heard of the "drinking" sense.
On balance, I would move all the adverb senses to adjective (not delete, since they are not already covered by adjectival senses), possibly tinkering with the definitions to make them clearly adjectival, and possibly 2 and 3 could be merged.
The "walking" example is under the definition "Putting the entire foot down at once, rather than landing on the ball of the foot and then lowering the rest of the foot", as if "landing on the ball of the foot" is a normal or natural way of walking. I have just tried this, and I find it incredibly awkward and unnatural. If I deliberately try not to walk "flatfooted" then I put my heel down first. See also . Should "ball" in fact be changed to "heel" or to "heel or ball"? Mihia (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
IIRC, running is ball-of-the-foot first, while walking is heel-first, though the main rule in racewalking has to do with always having one foot in contact with the ground, not where on the foot the contact occurs. "Landing on the ball of the foot" sounds more like tiptoeing to me. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
In any case, I suppose there is no reason why "flatfooted" shouldn't be an alternative to either, so I think I will change it to "heel or ball". Mihia (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

February 2025

typical bandicoot

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

Send to RFV, I s'pose ... Mihia (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Some context: taxonomy is based on the concept of types. Any taxonomic group consists of everything that is closer to the type of that group than to the type of another group at the same level a.k.a rank. A typical x is an x that is closer to the type of the group of x's than most x's.
The problem with identifying typical x's with a specific group of x's is that "typical" is relative. That means that if you're talking about something in a different subfamily from the type, then typical members of the family are in the same subfamily as the type. If you're talking about something in the same subfamily, but a different tribe, then typical members of the subfamily are those in the same tribe as the type. You could theoretically follow this trend down to levels such as infrasubspecies or races, but there's probably no practical reason to do so. There are probably only a few plausible interpretations of "typical bandicoot" in the taxonomic sense- but there's no inherent semantic reason for that.
The hard part about verifying usage would be pinning down which level is meant. If "typical bandicoot" refers only to members of the same species, it contrasts not just with different species, but different genera, subtribes, tribes, subfamilies, and perhaps other levels in between. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
To keep, I would be looking for a meaning along the lines of common gull (not a "common" + "gull") -- i.e. one in which the adjective "typical" doesn't just have its ordinary dictionary meaning, irrespective of what is being contrasted with what. To me this seems feasible in principle, but I'm not seeing anything promising in search results. It could also be hard to prove (especially with limited references) if, in fact, a "typical bandicoot" also is a "typical" + "bandicoot". But, as I say, strictly speaking I suppose it is a question for RFV ... Mihia (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

FedEx

RfD proper noun sense:

(business) FedEx Corporation, a package express company.

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

I would keep as an abbreviation. Why just this and not include the verb? DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree, we do have KFC after all. So keep --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Should we also have Subway, Asda, Dunkin' Donuts, Target, Burger King, Wendy's etc.? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, corporation names are not allowed on Wiktionary. Unofficial names and abbreviations are allowed, like in the case of UPS, but FedEx is the official, formal name of the company (the FedEx Corporation), not a nickname nor an abbreviation, so it is not eligible as an entry. The verb sense is fine because it is a genericized trademark.. look at Hot Wheels for instance. The proper noun sense for the company is not listed but the noun is. If we allowed corporations there would be tens of thousands of entries just for random companies; we can leave those for Wikipedia! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's not so well known in the UK, as it is in the States, and it was originally Federal Express, I believe. UPS is better known in the UK. Don't forget this is a global dictionary, not US-orientated. DonnanZ (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with that too. The situation with UPS and KFC is slightly complicated by the fact that they can be abbreviations for different things (albeit rarely) but we should allow abbreviations. Hot Wheels is a strange one, we have similar senses at Ford and Honda that refer to individual cars made by these corporations but but we only list the company name as a separate sense to the cars (and motorbikes) it makes at Honda. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have a suspicion that FedEx became a shorthand before it became the official company name (i.e., they changed it to "FedEx" because that is what people were calling it), in which case WT:JIFFY would apply. If this is not the case, however, then I would include the company name in the etymology, rather than as a definition. bd2412 T 17:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Quick update: According to Wikipedia (which we trust implicitly) the "FedEx" name was adopted in 2000. Google Books shows uses of "FedEx" in the 1980s/90s, and "FEDEX" going back to the 1970s. bd2412 T 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia can make mistakes; I made a correction earlier, where "Picton Council Council" was written for a former borough in Picton, NZ. DonnanZ (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well it can, but this isn't one of them. bd2412 T 22:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. It's as good as its editors, and I know you edit it too. DonnanZ (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
To be fair, Wikipedia cites this to the FedEx website, which also says that the original name of the company was "Federal Express", rebranded as FedEx for advertising purposes in 1994, and formally changing its name as a corporate entity in 2000. Either way, uses of "FedEx" prior to the rebrand should satisfy WT:JIFFY. bd2412 T 04:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: Does the WT:JIFFY analysis change your view on this nomination? bd2412 T 16:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@BD2412: Yes, that should. Can you link the sources here to verify? :3 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Here are a few:
  • In the matter of the merger of Federal Express Corporation and Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 16 NMB No. 112, in United States National Mediation Board, Determinations of the National Mediation Board, Volumes 16-17 (August 4, 1989), p. 433: On December 21, 1988, Federal Express (FedEx) notified the board by letter that FedEx and the Flying Tiger Line Flying Tigers had filed with the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) for approval of their intent to merge.
  • Air Force Journal of Logistics (1999), p. 9: In contrast to military organic transportation, express commercial carriers—such as Federal Express (Fedex), United Parcel Service, Airborne Express and Emory—are more responsive to customer demands and are able to adjust flight schedules and airlift capabilities on a daily basis if necessary. According to the Program Management Advisor for FedEx, they are able to fly an additional aircraft with only a few hours notice if necessary to ensure the on-time arrival of cargo.
  • "Keeping up in the Silver City", Meriden Record-Journal (December 30, 1984), p. C-1: SAYINGS IN: "Parts is parts" OUT: "Where's the beef?" IN: "I'll Fed-Ex it to you" OUT: "I'll send it Special Delivery" IN: "Awesome" OUT: "Gag me with a spoon"
  • "ZapMail zaps profits", Pacific Daily News (December 22, 1984), p. 48: FedEx said its profit fell to $10 million in the latest quarter from $30 million a year earlier.

RfD-kept. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Royal Mail

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

Obv delete. All the British utilities (postal, gas, electric, etc.) have been nationalised since the 80s or earlier. But that's not the point. Even state organisations are still orgs, they are proper nouns for attempts at things. (Ha! Watch DOGE sail through RFV.) Homework: if an org called "Royal Mail" was either not royal, or not doing mail, would that give it more Wiktionary points? Or would it still be out of bounds by default, as an organisation name? GREENPEACE? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1070:8DBC:498C:45B1 05:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
They have lost a lot of business with the growth of the Internet. And a political question: should it keep the Royal if it's sold to a Czech? Afterthought: I think you mean privatised, not nationalised. DonnanZ (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP. Not seeing how it can pass WT:COMPANY. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

before GTA 6

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

To put my concern another way: to me, it seems like "GTA 6 is taking a long time to develop" is information about GTA 6 (to be covered in w:GTA 6 or possibly GTA 6) which can be referred to in various ways — not just " before GTA 6", but e.g. "weed got legalized before they released GTA 6", or "...before GTA 6 dropped", "released", etc — rather than "before GTA 6" being an idiomatic lexical phrase that means "the other compared event is unlikely". (But clearly other smart people view it differently, which is why I brought it up, to find out if other people view it the way I do!) - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Really specious argument. It is an idiom. And if I had not had read it on Wiktionary I would not have understood those humorous YouTube comments and other joke tings. Fay Freak (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Generally used in satirical or hyperbolic contexts rather than as a literal comment on the game's release schedule. Arguably passes WT:PRIOR or WT:LIGHTBULB since understanding its meaning without explanation relies on knowing that GTA6 was stuck in development hell for a decade. That's an uncommon situation for a AAA game but it's not the only time it's happened recently. And yet "before DA4" isn't used in the same memetic way. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep, assuming that the definition is correct and usage of the expression is reasonably widespread. I see no obvious way of understanding this from the literal words. HOWEVER. I have read the etymology sentence "It indicates incredulity that an event is seemingly less strange than GTA 6 releasing" several times and I still don't understand it, or how it explains the usage. Can someone familiar with the term improve this? Struck per comment below. Mihia (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Video games generally have longer production cycles than TV shows or movies. But it's relatively rare for a highly-anticipated big-budget title like GTA to get stuck in development hell for ten years. It takes a perfect storm of things going wrong in combination with enough miraculously going right to keep the project on life support that long. Major publishers are notorious for ruthlessly cancelling projects. So there's a once in a blue moon quality to this phrase. It's unusual that GTA6's production has been delayed so long and even rarer that it's actually going to release against all odds. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I get that "GTA 6 releasing" is extremely delayed and overdue. What I don't get, is why, if something is known to be extremely delayed and overdue, it is "unlikely, implausible, bizarre or strange" that something else happens earlier. Mihia (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if the (or a) missing ingredient in the explanation is that it is ironic? Mihia (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the definition needs improvement; at least as I understand it, the comparison is not necessarily expressing that the other compared event was per se "unlikely, implausible" to ever happen, it's specifically suggesting incredulity at the other event happening before GTA 6 (despite GTA 6 having such a long head start, having been in development for so long that it should've happened already). I'm not sure that's "irony" so much as a simple observation that it's incredible for a game to be taking so long that e.g. Eminem's child grew old enough to have a child.
To me it seems like the entry also currently fails to convey that "before GTA 6" can only(?) be used in comparisons (...in what I would regard as a literal way: saying X event, which occurred before GTA 6, happened "before GTA 6", and meaning by that statement that X occurred before GTA 6 occurred); if it can be used outside of comparisons, that needs to be demonstrated, and if it can't, I think we should try to make that clear by actually saying so in the definition or a usage note, (rather than just by hoping someone generalizes from the usexes that no other kind of use exists, since that's not an assumption people should make, as it would be wrong in other entries).
(But, again, I question what the idiomaticity is... people are incredulous that something else (e.g. that started development later) happened "before GTA 6" in the same way the person I quoted above is incredulous that Mozart (who is dead) released new music before Another Hour, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I really don't know. If e.g. "we got eminem being a grandpa before GTA 6" means "it's bizarre that we got eminem being a grandpa before GTA 6" so as to point out how long GTA 6 is taking, rather than actually "eminem being a grandpa is bizarre" per se, then, yes, the definition does seem wrong, and in fact there hardly is a definition, as far as I can see. Anyway, since I don't fully understand it I will strike my vote. Mihia (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's less a statement of incredulity at any specific occurrence – such as a 52-year-old rapper's ~30-year-old daughter having a baby – preceding the release of GTA6 than it is an expression of bemusement over the game's unusual delay or the general passage of time. There was a period in the early-to-mid 2000s when Chinese Democracy was used as a similar pop culture reference point. Some of the older Urban Dictionary entries preserve traces of that usage.
"Where has time gone?"-style musings aren't remarkable in and of themselves (there's a whole subreddit dedicated to them). But this particular iteration (before GTA6) seems lexically noteworthy. The underlying connotations of the phrase – about anticipation and a decade gone – aren't readily discernible from its constituents. Older readers might not have the context to work out that this is mainly a joke about getting older among Millennial and Gen Z gamers. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, there's really nothing to indicate that the game has been in development hell or that its production has been delayed at all; seven years of primary development isn't really that unusual for major games anymore. The phrase is more in reference to the intense anticipation surrounding the game (even the announcement of the announcement of the trailer broke records on Twitter) and the amount of time since the last series entry (12 years)—but the development itself isn't really too unique or unusual. Rhain (he/him) 01:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep—it seems quite idiomatic to me; I think the additional sense of this being said after something bizarre or implausible occurs adds a unique element to this word that, say, Half Life 3, Star Citizen or Beyond Good and Evil 2 lack. Additionally, these aforementioned games being used as examples of a long wait is quite rare in comparison to GTA 6 anyways. Compare also, perhaps, in Minecraft and in Roblox as valid entries (in my view, the nom may disagree with these as well) that are kinda vaguely sorta similar-ish to this entry. “I want to kill you in !! Rawr!” can be humorously said for any game one wishes. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per LunaEatsTuna --Oxocero (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete – literally just a meme, and calling it idiomatic would be a stretch JimiYru 06:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per strong demand from the GTA community. This term is very useful for anyone until GTA VI comes out. When GTA VI comes out then the term will be very notable. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I highly doubt the person who wrote of Eminem's grandfatherhood thought of "before" and "GTA 6" as being a single lexical item. Perhaps there is a spot in the Appendix for common points of comparison for elapsed time, but I'm not seeing it in this entry. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

my everything

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

The Valentine's Day special RfD! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Could be covered at everything ("he was everything to her"). If not, must be "one's/someone's everything" and not "my". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7554:3300:196:C6E0 19:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Why just RfD-sense, though? Polomo47 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete the whole entry as SOP. Could be "his/her/your everything". Ultimateria (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

just friends

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

  • Strong keep. I agree with others that the overtones are subtle. For me, that makes it more likely that all or part of the true meaning of the term could be missed and that is surely something we as the writers of a dictionary should be trying to help with. John Cross (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think keep per Smurrayinchester. But it could use an {{&lit}}. Polomo47 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per above; thought long and hard about it but I do think the context of this phrase's meaning ultimately adds to its idiomatically. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-kept. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

hopeless romantic

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

Keep as WT:THUB, for Spanish empedernido. I would imagine there are other languages with idiomatic translations as well. - saph ^_^⠀talk⠀ 22:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak delete, there are various ways to circumscribe related sentiments deriving from insecure attachment styles and shortened attention spans. We only begin to understand it, but for this entry, creators and talk page discussors didn’t and were at best as well confused after reading the entry. The present term can be translated as somebody who is in some respect desirous of entertaining romantic exchange (i.e. romantic) but struggles due to compatibility of personality and or environment with such goals (therefore a hopeless one).
At this occasion it is remarkable that we describe situationships as complicated and with but some equivalence, which is not wrong but not descriptive of what actually one fails to define, in this idea alleged to be defined by not being defined. Fay Freak (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. I wonder whether the definition is correct anyway. It reads "A person who strongly desires a successful romantic relationship, but struggles greatly to find or maintain one in practice", but couldn't, say, a man who has been happily married for many years also be a "hopeless romantic" if he behaves in a soppily romantic way to his wife (often buying her red roses, writing her soppy love notes n stuff)? Mihia (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete unless someone can find actual idiomatic translations. @Saph, the Spanish translation is misformatted — it's supposed to be either romántico incurable or romántico empedernido. empedernido hasn't this meaning by itself. Polomo47 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep as a common collocation, whether it's idiomatic or not. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak delete. For me, not quite enough individuality, given existence of e.g. "hopeless optimist", "hopeless dreamer", "hopeless idealist", and so on. "hopeless romantic" can be an example at the relevant sense of "hopeless", which in fact it cunningly already is. Mihia (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

nearing

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

Added by someone named M Corley, perhaps? But the diff is interesting, being quite sophisticated for a drive-by hoax. Mihia (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
If it was real, I would expect it to be found in an old dictionary of some sort. Probably not a famous one, as that would already show up, but still a pre-1900 one. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Strictly speaking should be moved to RFV I suppose. Mihia (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

say

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

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

they say survived my RFD with one of these increasingly troubling and unsatisfactory outcomes whereby keep and keep as THUB votes are conflated and apparently added together to result in a "full keep". Not that I feel enormously strongly about they say per se, but this issue generally does need looking at. Mihia (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Is this sense really exclusive to "they"? Can you not write things like "people say 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' ...". I suspect the true lemma here is just "say" and "they say" should be deleted as SoP. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's just sense 3 of say. Any other meaning stems from the subject of the sentence, be it they or people, both of which carry a meaning of undeterminedness. Polomo47 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

jaw

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

We need a note on the page to link these compounds, somehow, anyway, to attain clarity. Fay Freak (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Could we "define" it as a "word of uncertain meaning" (which seems to be the case)? It would give us an anchor for the links. I don't like "certain set phrases" much though. If only for the musical instrument (using that term in its loosest sense!) then we should say so. Mihia (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
{{n-g}} seems to fit such cases since honestly they are not (or unlikely to be) comprehended to have meaning in isolation, as opposed to elements like interfixes (-s-) positively known to have no meanings. Cf. lick, خر (xar). But this is what it has, without using the template. WT:EL does not allow us to have etymologies without POS and glosses. But the gloss line, understood broadly, is to describe what a morpheme is for, by what we understand. Fay Freak (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes indeed, it should be {{n-g|A word with uncertain meaning used in ...}}. If the PoS is uncertain too then I dunno, but if we have to choose something then noun might be a better bet than adj. Mihia (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
In fact, of course the existence of e.g. jaw's harp does indicate noun. Mihia (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
If a word only occurs in a compound, we should not include it alone, since it doesn't occur alone. For example social notworking does not require that we create a page for "notworking", since that never occurs alone. (We can, of course, use "see also" links from appropriate entries.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:94A1:F093:C692:AC1C 21:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I suppose it depends whether it was ever a "real word" distinct from "jaw" ety 1. We imply at jaw harp that "jaw" may have been the original form, but not from "jaw" ety 1 -- in which case this "jaw" must have meant something once, mustn't it, just that we don't now know what. On the other hand, if "jaw harp" and other "jaw" variants are simply a corruption of "Jew's harp" etc. then I agree, it doesn't have any independent existence. But this seems to be uncertain AFAICT. Mihia (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
If the word has no known meaning, and even its existence is uncertain, don't you think "see also" is adequate — pending further scholarship? (I remember as a kid seeing "scarre" in the dictionary, a Shakespeare word, and my mind was blown because it said something like "uncertain meaning". What? There are words without definitions? Talk:altoruffled is another good one.) Otherwise we might as well have an entry for the cran in cranberry. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:94A1:F093:C692:AC1C 22:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you may be right. Mihia (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Although, wouldn't a "see also" in a single ety section imply that it definitely is the "same word"? I think the interest here is that it might not be, even though on the face of it one would imagine that it "obviously is". Mihia (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. We do have a standard approach for this, used already on thousands of pages: {{only used in}}, though see the talk page for my suggested improvements. Hftf (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Hftf Purplebackpack89 04:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

March 2025

put out

Rfd-adjective sense "taking offense, indignant". How is this different from the past participle of put out sense 3.1: "To cause someone to be out of sorts; to annoy, impose, inconvenience, or disturb"? PUC12:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@PUC: I see this from time to time—it is difficult to distinguish an adjective from a past-participle use of a verb (for example, one can say "She was miffed." Adjective or verb use?). I don't know if there's a way to do so. Happy to hear what people with a good knowledge of grammar say about this. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Generally if one can insert "very" then it is an adjective. Since "very put out" is OK, that indicates adjectival use is possible. Mihia (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

click off

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

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

I don't think this is transitive, actually — it might be ambitransitive. “I opened this window, and now it won't let me click off!”. Means “to exit”, “to close out”. Not sure what this means for idiomaticity, though. Polomo47 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've been clicked off about this kind of "phrasal verb" at Wiktionary for about 16 years. There are many true phrasal verbs; there are some that only specialty phrasal verb dictionaries have; and there some that are more than sufficiently transparent, even in novel uses, such as above, to not be worthy of being in the lexicon. DCDuring (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Assuming it's a phrasal verb (i.e. "off" is an adverb, particle, whatever you want to call it, and not a preposition as I originally thought), which sense of "off" do you think is meant? Mihia (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
This strongly appears to be an established idiomatic lexical unit, like sign off, in a way that other conceivable word combinations in this context e.g. "tap off" or "point off" or "exit off" aren't. It also gets stressed/intoned as an idiomatic unit, in a consistent way that "get off" is but "jump off" isn't in "Fred, get off/jump off the bed". Hftf (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

a) The phrase need not be used alone to justify a redirect
b) That was never proven at RfV that it was never used alone
c) Here is an instance of "the corpse at every funeral" used without an accompanying "bride" or "groom"
d) There are many additional instances that do not explicitly follow the exact phraseology of "the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral"

Purplebackpack89 12:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I say recreate, yes. Those seem like useful redirects, and I didn't find anything in the RfD discussion that really justified deletion. Not sure where this RfV is. Polomo47 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Rather than create redirects, why not look for occurrences of the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral separately, and if at least three qualifying quotations for each can be found, create entries using {{short for|en|the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral}}. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I feel like I’m missing some important context here, because I couldn’t find the RfV in question. Would someone link me to it? Polomo47 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47 This has never been to RfV. It was speedied without an RfV... Purplebackpack89 20:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Unwanted redirect" is a common and valid justification for speedy deletion, because we rarely use redirects. If it had been the kind of "short for" entry that Sgconlaw suggested, sending it to RFV would have been appropriate, but we can afford to be more aggressive with redirects. I'm not convinced by PB89's defense above so I vote don't recreate. Ultimateria (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lunix

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

Delete per nom. Low-key imagining this entry with the Misspelling of Linux template. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
i changed the definition to
Deliberate misspelling of Linux.
I think i just didnt know at the time that that template existed. Soap 01:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment: well, it definitely exists, though it seems to have peaked in popularity more than twenty years ago, so even long-time fans of Commodore might not have heard of it. It's still archived and theoretically still being updated here if anyone's curious, so it's citable in the loosest sense through GitHub and its print mentions, but I don't know what to do. Do we file this under WT:BRAND? In which case it would surely not pass. Oh well. Soap 01:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

highering

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

Delete: redundant to the participle sense. Svārtava (tɕ) 14:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 00:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Strong keep. Just because it is rarer doesn’t mean it is redundant to keep this, and it indeed looks a pretty valid adjective like its commoner synonyms. OED has an entry for it too. Inqilābī 18:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

without prejudice

Rfd-sense:

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

Seems redundant to sense 3:

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

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

I can see how the relatively opaque definition of 3 would prevent someone who was looking for sense 4 from realizing that it was intended to already be present. If we delete 4 we should try to more intelligibly incorporate its sentiment into 3 (and broaden the label, since this is also used outside of law). - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
How about "Choosing to take a stand without binding future decisions"? CitationsFreak (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’d say without-prejudice correspondence may not always involve taking a stand. There are discussions on a possible settlement of the dispute, but parties don’t wish to be bound by any factual assertions or settlement proposals if the matter ultimately cannot be settled. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Suits are withdrawn or dismissed with or without prejudice all the time, depending on the circumstances. All that would be necessary would be to indicate that "prejudice" indicates that the issue in dispute is treated as though adjudicated (whether or not it really was), so that it can't be raised again in the same dispute. I'm sure that can be worded more succinctly. Sense 3 is certainly both confusing and redundant. But why wouldn't the legal use of "prejudice" be covered under "prejudice", when "with" and "without" are used in their ordinary senses? "Without prejudice" seems SoP if "prejudice" includes the legal sense. P Aculeius (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will leave guys to sort this out more intelligently. Without describing what is ordinary and general and intended I cannot include translations just yet.
unbeschadet + genitive is a correct translation, it is used, as without prejudice to, in the context of statutory precepts excluding the derogation of others, or allowing the latter ones being an exception to the rule; the opposite being ungeachtet, notwithstanding, commanding the practitioner to ignore another provision in the given context.
The current definitions about “parties” and “legal interests“ have no meaning to me thus, and are suspect to be wrong as well. Unless the “party” is the legislator, the speaker of the law, himself, which is a twist and probably too much mental gymnastics, and still makes the definition unfortunate.
In English-language trade they as well pay without prejudice, and, now I think about it, whenever I read ohne Präjudiz in attorney letters, they probably learned it in international law firms or abroad. Our country bumpkins with law degrees found it hilarious, and the judge I asked about it esteemed it to mean the same as ohne Anerkennung einer Rechtspflicht (literally without recognizing an obligation (in case it will be seen differently)) (which the attorney letter in question thus had in pleonasm with that other anglicism).
They still use this idea of prejudice more broadly however in common law, as in “dismissed without prejudice”. Of course from German, Prussian, understanding the court always is prejudiced in the sense of recognizing his obligation to assess and decide the case. You only condition your declarations in the course of a litigation because you know it will be definite.
Wikipedia has a few ideas without coherence (and prejudice): It “is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law.” As etymologists taking the primary data serious, unlike Wikipedia, we should hypothesize that there are broad common law meanings which may have been restricted in EU English to continental dogmatics. The Wiktionary entry prejudice is a latent stub here and needs a historical investigation, but for now one might start to expand without prejudice. Fay Freak (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have merged senses 3 and 4 like this, removing the label from the first part of the definition, since the phrase is used this way even outside law (and even in discussions on this wiki). - -sche (discuss) 08:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hollywood Sign

“A Wooden sign in the neighborhood of Hollywood, Los Angeles”. J3133 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

A poorly-done entry, but it may qualify as a famous landmark, like the Statue of Liberty. DonnanZ (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I’m going to erect a similar grotesque landmark in my neighborhood and wait for it to become famous, then add an entry for it on this project. No thanks: delete. Inqilābī 12:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Rather you like it or not, the Hollywood sign is a very famous landmark not just in America but around the world. thus it deserves its own wiktionary page. Emezli (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
You said that about Beyoncé's perfume brand... which got rightly deleted. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A5:DA0C:1279:B6F0 13:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well if that’s the case, then delete the Eiffel Tower page then or the Golden Gate Bridge page then!! Emezli (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I remember seeing it when flying into LAX (for refuelling in transit, not to visit LA). DonnanZ (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Exactly it’s a very famous landmark that is apart of the history of Hollywood. there’s a page on Wiktionary about Hollywoodland, so the sign must have that strong of a significance to warrant its own Wikitionary page. Emezli (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • What's the deletion rationale? All I see to start is restating the definition. CFI vis-a-vis landmarks and several other types of geographic features is ambiguous. This isn't a trademark or company. And please don't say "encyclopedic". Keep unless a real rationale is provided. Purplebackpack89 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well admittedly you are right that we don’t have a clear policy on landmarks and stuff. We had similar discussions about this at #Einang stone. We could keep or delete these words on a case-by-case basis. Attempts to amend CFI may be initiated through Beer Parlour discussions or vote. Regarding Hollywood Sign, it is probably less notable than Shrine of Democracy, which lacks an entry but is perhaps (more) worthy of inclusion, because renowned carvings arguably make for more lexicographically notable landmarks than mere signs, however famous: it’s like the difference between Al-Khazneh and the specific blue plaque commemorating Charles Dickens. Anyway, we can provisionally rely on RFD votes for ambiguous areas as this. Inqilābī 17:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Initially, I was thinking this could ho either way for me. Then, I realized that the reason for inclusion of, say, Statue of Liberty is because it is first and foremost an idiomatic name! In comparison, the Hollywood Sign is a much more transparent formulation. While this is a particularly notable sign, I believe there are many signs in other places that can get a definite article. ow about those “welcome to” signs that appear so often in American media?
So,I say delete. Even if this is not 100% SoP, the combination of the term’s transparent formulation and the place-name policy’s exclusion of this sort of thing makes me want deletion. Just look at the entry: what is there to say in it?
a Polomo47 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Hollywood sign is more than “just a sign” its a symbol of Hollywood seen in numerous movies and tv shows, been parodied and modified numerous times. It the very first thing you see when you descend into Los Angeles. people fought tooth and nail to get the sign restored. If you delete the page then you might as well delete the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge and Mount Rushmore!!! Emezli (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes? We're not talking about deleting Hollywood, we're talking about Hollywood Sign, which as far as I know is not a metonym for anything. Much as I'd love to read in Variety that the Hollywood Sign has just greenlit a movie. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Neither is Eiffel Tower, Golden Gate Bridge and Mount Rushmore but yet those pages are still up!!! Emezli (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
So many exclamation marks!!! Do you reckon they make you more convincing!!?? Note that Mount Rushmore is kept because it’s the name of a landform. The other entries you mentioned are indeed in a troublesome position, because they supposedly go against policy, but common practice is to include them. As such, someone may present any reason to single out terms for deletion — I mentioned mine above, having to do with idiomaticity and, well, usefulness.
Clarifying on the latter criterion, Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, and Stonehenge can have useful pronunciation and etymology information; Golden Gate Bridge could only be useful for its etymology (which we don’t give), so I'm less certain about it; Hollywood Sign is really no more useful than for its extremely transparent definition. Polomo47 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don’t think bridge names belong to the dictionary. It needs to be deleted. Inqilābī 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, there are other notable bridges with entries, which I won't name, if that's how you feel. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep as a notable landmark; I do not see why would we delete this but keep others like the Statue of Liberty. Our policy on the inclusion of landmarks such as this one is on a case-by-case basis (perhaps poorly so), but this one really is iconic, even to non-Americans such as myself. I feel there is also a slight idiomatic-ness to it given, as Overlordnat1 points out, each letter is technically its own sign and there could hypothetically be other “Hollywood Signs” (e.g. any sign that says Hollywood on it), making this one the most distinctive. A very weak argument but there you go, hehe, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

at night

Very much SoP to my mind, in contrast to the more idiomatic constructions by night or by day. Inqilābī 11:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added a quote recently. Was that a wasted effort? DonnanZ (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it was not- because you’ve used the selfsame quote in another (more useful) entry (as I had expected) :p Inqilābī 12:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I often maximise the use of a quote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Oxford mentions it - the door is always locked at night - the bold text is theirs. DonnanZ (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just add {{collocation|at night}} at the entry night and call it a day. Inqilābī 13:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it's a prepositional phrase, not an adverb, so I changed it. DonnanZ (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I fail to see how by night is more idiomatic than at night. It's probably the nominator's personal preference. DonnanZ (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I do have a personal preference or bias here! At night sounds too bland to me, whereas by night has a literary feeling. The former is straightforward enough to be easily parsed as at + night. Literary(-ish) terms on the other hand are helpful to include in my opinion. Inqilābī 18:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's complicated: usually "at" goes with a point or boundary in time or space: "at midnight", "at 7 am", "at the seashore". You can't say "at day" (though, I suppose it might work as a poetic way to say "at daybreak"). The only other exception I can think of is "at sea". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree, it’s idiomatic and it’s far from obvious how to translate it into other languages (di notte and por la noche are quite different phrases, for example). Keep. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
We have the collocation template for such borderline cases where an entry would be unnecessary but a certain degree of idiomacy can supposedly be discerned. Inqilābī 18:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Would you call at best an exception? DonnanZ (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete: I do not really see how this could be idiomatic at all? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

April 2025

autumn orange

fall orange got deleted Vilipender (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, it shouldn't have been. A sad case of SoP-itis. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Seems like #fall orange was deleted out of process (at least, there was no concluding deletion statement); also, I was for a bit frantically looking for its talk page for the rfd vote. Anyway, I’m not inclined to delete either of these… Keep unless someone can refer to any policy on color names justifying their deletion. Inqilābī 18:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It's not hard to work out there were two "keep" votes and two "delete", hardly a reason for deletion. Anyway, Keep this one. It is a paint colour produced by Dulux. DonnanZ (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
For fall orange, User:Chuck Entz should explain why it was deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Because I saw it in the category for speedy deletion and I thought I remembered it as having already failed- my mistake. I should have followed my usual practice of letting other people close and delete these...Chuck Entz (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see. Thankyou. DonnanZ (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep as an idiomatic term; there is nothing inherently "orange" about a season of the year per se. Rather, the leaves of the trees that are shed during this season happen to be orange. I would be against, say, firetruck red. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete SOP - just means the orange color typically associated with fall or autumn. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Still Delete, doesn't seem to be treated as a specific colour, even with variation, in other dictionaries. P Aculeius (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

tabloid

Rfd-sense "A small biplane manufactured by the Sopwith Aviation Company and used during World War I"; referring to the Sopwith Tabloid. A specific model name; not a common noun. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just noting that the OED has one 1994 quotation where the word is not capitalized: "The ‘tabloid’ is romanticized in relation to the larger, slower airplanes that it replaces." In the rest of the quotations the word is capitalized. Maybe send this to RFV to see if the word is used in a generic way? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

spider-fear

Keep - per reasons given below. Leasnam (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete—clear case of SoP and does not meet COALMINE. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please see additional arguments below. Leasnam (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep - per reasons given below. Leasnam (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Very weak keep as somewhat idiomatic as pointed out below. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I edited the page and am now satisfied with it. Going to call this resolved unless someone has complaints. Polomo47 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sum of parts. From a quick look on GBooks, the only one of these that may have a chance at WT:COALMINE is water fear. See also the discussion regarding #fear of heights, either here or on the talk page. Polomo47 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are you ready to be single-handedly responsible for the destruction of what future philologists BOC-LUFIANS will term "Wiktionary Anglish"? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F050:4AD7:86D3:BA99 20:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad to see I've still got you on the run but you keep coming back - miss it do you ? Leasnam (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Lol. Or we can embrace it fully and make gay fear, gay hate as useful synonyms for homophobia, and clown fear for coulrophobia, water-loving for hydrophilic / hygroscopic... Polomo47 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
You mean like hate crime dohoho Leasnam (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be under the delusion that anyone here "made these" - these words are already in use as demonstrated by the citations. First comes the usage, then the Wiktionary. Thought you'd have figured that out by now... Leasnam (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did not mean to imply you came up with these, just as I did not come up with the strawmen I listed gay hate; gay fear (though this notably also means fear felt by gays, which indicates of SoP); clown fear.
It turns out we do have water-loving, and as I realized in a reply below, I do agree with keeping it and the "hydrophobic" sense of water fear. Polomo47 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Joking aside, these are poor apologies for fear of water, fear of spiders and fear of germs, which should be allowed, if it wasn't for the fear of SoP. A fear of gays is real, I have experienced it in the past. DonnanZ (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep - Since Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. Plain English counterparts to terms like arachnophobia, catagelophobia, ilithiophobia (which we don't yet have...) , are becoming more and more popular as alternatives to the old scholarly-styled varieties, even in scholarly writing. They are already in use in the real world (as evidenced by citations), so the claim that they are Anglish is laughable. If you want to keep up and be relevant and distinguished from other dictionaries and depict up-to-date usage, I say keep them. Synonyms are always a good thing to have. Leasnam (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, if hyphens no longer count, then they should go. waterfear is cited though. Furthermore, water fear is not "fear of water" (like being afraid of the water in your cup) but rather "fear of drowning", so it's somewhat idiomatic. Leasnam (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will accept "fear of ..." forms, nothing else. DonnanZ (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
water fear can be used for anything water-related: look at the quotes in water fear — even the "fear" part is relative. From rabies to drowning to apolar molecules.
Also note that, of the quotes you added for waterfear, I’d only consider one of them valid. The second quote is the title of a YouTube video (what?? this is straight from one of Ms. Luna–Tuna’s parodies); the third shows a proper noun, the name of a movie.
Though, if I understand correctly, you do vote to delete the other terms? Yes, per WT:SOP, Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases. Polomo47 (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete as SoP; no reason to keep. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Words in movie or book titles, or video titles count as usage, why wouldn't they ?
After I had retired for the night, I came to a weak conclusion that spider-fear might also be idiomatic, since it is unclear by the construction + , that the second element clearly denotes "fear of" (since these are all fairly recent constructions). Spider-fear at first sight could be interpreted as "a spider's fear" or "a spiderlike fear" rather than "a fear of spiders". Compare "spider sense", which does not mean "a sense of spiders " but rather the "sense that spiders have". So x + y constructions can vary in how they're interpreted, as spider-fear doesn't mean the "fear that spiders have".
Water fear has two senses: one related to "fear of drowning" the other to hydrophobia "resistance to becoming wet". The meaning cannot be deduced merely from the sum of parts, but from the context. This makes it somewhat idiomatic. Rabies and molecules can't actually emote fear. I've updated the entry to show each sense separately. Leasnam (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hm, on second look, that use as a calque of hydrophobia might just be idiomatic. However, the others (related to drowning, or to drinking water) are not and would need to be replaced with {{&lit}}. Unless you think the meaning is uncertain because it could also mean “the fear that water feels”.
Aboutispider fear, people mply don’t speak of spiders having fears, much less in a comparative construction. If we did, though, we would definitely say “spider fear is different from human fear”, as well as “dog fear”, and so on. I find that a weak argument for idiomaticity. Polomo47 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
In regard to the Youtube video cite that was removed, the Description of the video states: The nosey Rottweiler Tara is overcoming her waterfear, this is the third attempt to make it to the stone and when she finally reaches to the stone she just wants out of there., so it's not only in the title, but also in the Description. The same Youtuber has posted a second video titled Rottweiler Tara overcoming waterfear 2 with the description Rottweiler Tara is trying to overcome her waterfear again, this time she just wants the ball.. This is clear evidence that waterfear is a real-world spelling (usage) of water fear. Furthermore, here is a video showing that water fear is more than simply being afraid of water ] Leasnam (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
YouTube is not considered durably archived. Compare how Twitter is not either. Polomo47 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is not a RFV. The concept of water fear undoubtably exists. And we've used words used in Youtube to demonstrate general usage many, many times before. Leasnam (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
You looked for cites of unspaced waterfear to satisfy WT:COALMINE, and it cannot be satisfied if the quotations do not comply with WT:ATTEST. If I was doubting the existence of the concept, I would have gone to RFV; seeing as we are in RFD... Polomo47 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
...it doesn't seem to be able to be satisfied via a Google Books search. However, I am not opposed to leaving it as you've outlined further above. Leasnam (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
...and spiders do have fears: they fear people, insects (save the ones they intend to prey upon), other animals, predation, hot temperatures, stormy weather, many things. Leasnam (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete all * Pppery * it has begun... 05:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

compulsive skin-picking

SOP? Vilipender (talk)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. Polomo47 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. One of the subtypes of body-focused repetitive behavior disorder. These terms largely weren’t idiomatic a quarter of a century ago, before behavioral addictions were so understood, but above voters answer previous understandings, which are of course possible for the uninitiated. Cf. Talk:oral mucositis. Fay Freak (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am not convinced compulsive skin-picking is truly a "synonym" of dermatillomania. You would say I have dermatillomania but not I have compulsive skin-picking. Isn’t compulsive skin-picking rather the manifestation of the disorder? Polomo47 (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47: Sometimes, but for others it is interchangeable. Note that it is not about what someone would say in casual conversation but academic writing: the medical doctor from his POV but needs to distinguish manifestations (people have). You have the extension compulsive skin-picking disorder, successfully treated, and even defined subgroups. You would not argue that obsessive-compulsive disorder is SOP, likewise not that obsessive-compulsive is SOP—because you are initiated into the prior knowledge of this more widely known term, but on first encounter it very much looks like it. Fay Freak (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
From the definition of compulsive, how do you even know that the condition denoted by the term charged with SOPness meets – due to psychosocial impairment – the criteria of a mental disorder? And even with an appropriate definition of that adjective. I am satisfied that WT:PRIOR applies. Fay Freak (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Of course, a condition meeting some technical criteria of a mental disorder does not necessarily make it into a lexical term that people are primarily going to use a dictionary to look up. I'm not convinced this entry is dictionary worthy but I guess we're already way way far down the slippery slope with "words" like Yemenite deaf-blind hypopigmentation syndrome. And maybe if it's really a synonym or whatever, happy to keep. Hftf (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Hftf: Not the same at all. Anyone can get Yemenite deaf-blind hypopigmentation syndrome: it's only called that because the first observed cases happened to be Yemenites. So not SoP. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:173:E662:8997:244E 18:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's not even what I'm getting at; the idea that these terms are worthy of belonging in a general dictionary, the place people go to look up words or lexical units of language, is silly. Hftf (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

assistant field cornet

I think this is more encyclopedic material than dictionary material; even if it isn't, I think it's WT:SOP anyway. Saph (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Have we deleted military ranks as SOP before? If it was indeed an actual, official, specific rank as claimed in the entry, I would be reluctant to view it as SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

object thingy

The definition does not really make sense, but what it's trying to say is that a lot of object show fans include the phrase "the object thingy" in their usernames. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4936:1531:AACE:AD57 19:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't this be more suitable for a RfV instead? Also, looking at site:reddit.com "object thingy", there's 985 results for it. 49.145.100.19 23:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will send this to RfV instead because it doesn't seem like a RfD at all. Closed. 49.145.100.19 00:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
kept-rfd, This will be sent to RfV instead. 49.145.100.19 00:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Undid the IP's move. This is not an RfV matter at all, it's whether this entry carries any kind of meaning, which doesn't seem to be the case for me. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have read the definition of object show several times on Wiktionary, TV Tropes, Reddit and Urban and I still have absolutely no idea what it means. Could anyone please attempt to explain it to my dumbass? Because I vaguely think this might have a shot at being entry-worthy but I cannot comment here without knowing what it is for. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I want to mention that my interpretation (which is also pretty much what the entry says) is that object show fans make their usernames on social media “X the object thingy” — as in, one of the objects that goes on object shows. Literally a thingy that is an object, thingy is a filler word, yes, but I don’t see relevance in that. If there is nothing more the IP can add (that is relevant), I’ll be saying delete. Polomo47 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

got the morbs

Seems to be covered at morbs. 109.145.137.117 14:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it is and should be. Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom; I had to consider whether (the) morbs was derived from got the morbs, which would save this entry per WT:JIFFY, but there is no evidence that suggests this. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

osteonecrosis of the jaw

Is this SOP? - -sche (discuss) 14:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Someone will say no, but I say yes, delete. This is a dictionary, not a medical glossary, because we have neither the capacity nor the authority for it, and I don’t think it was ever a goal. Let people look on Wikipedia for what happens when you get ligma on each organ. Wikipedia has disclaimers, experts and references — we have not. Polomo47 (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I added the WP article for the benefit of users who might be interested, unlike yourself. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can we just ban DonnanZ from RfD? He has wasted countless hours of other users' time in replying to these discussions with what has lately ceased to resemble an argument of any sort. At this point, he serves only to say “keep” and play the martyr on every RfD discussion. Polomo47 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to waste time on that user, as I have more rewarding things to do, including editing Wikipedia on occasion... DonnanZ (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
May as well keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP; this is osteonecrosis as it affects the jaw. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

ne'er a

This was RFVed (WT:RFVE#ne'er a) but is clearly attested and Vex's rationale ("does not pass the fried-egg test") suggests RFD was meant, so I moved it here. It's possible to use "never a" in the same places as "ne'er a" (google books:"where never a"), so AFAICT the two must be equally either idiomatic or equally SOP, no? (I don't think the existence of nary has any effect, e.g. COALMINE, any more than onna and i'th' require us to have on a and in the.) Perhaps ne'er a and never a merit inclusion for WT:ONCE reasons? (The part of speech needs to be changed to "Phrase" or something better, I think.) (Edit: to clarify, count me as abstain.) - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom; this entry's current definition is SOP as the ety is simply ne'er + a, with no meaning beyond “never a”. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah but how do you get from "never" + "a" to "not a single". What sense of "never"? 83.151.229.56 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The same way we get to "not a". "Ne'er" is just a stronger synonym of "not". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Right. (@83:) The examples of "ne'er a" I can find offhand, e.g. (from Google Books) "Where ne'er a plough had dared to go since Time his race begun", seem to use never in an expected meaning ("where never i.e. not ever had a plough dared to go..."), but I'm open to a WT:ONCE argument that the grammar is unusual, if anyone wants to make that argument, and I'm open to being reminded of examples where the meaning is not easy to interpret, if anyone has any. Otherwise, it does seem like the entries ne'er and a cover this adequately. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
"You understand me? I, sir? Ne'er a whit" Taming of the Shrew Justin the Just (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
FWIW I did just notice that we have many a. Maybe ne'er a merits inclusion for similar (ONCE?) reasons? - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

May 2025

economic plunder

Tagged in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

As far as RfD is concerned, this should be a clear keep, since plunder does not typically mean embezzlement (although the two share many aspects) and — perhaps more importantly — economic does not typically mean “of public funds”, but rather “of money”... Maybe the definition is wrong, though, and that is a matter for RfV in my opinion. Polomo47 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete – @Polomo47 I think this might not be idiomatic, and the definition looks incorrect. If we consider the etymology being economic (pertaining to an economy) + plunder (to commit robbery or looting), it ultimately suggests the taking (stealing) of money from the local economy. Embezzlement is one form of this; from a Google search, it seems that similar monetary crimes like the money laundering of public funds can also be called an economic plunder, as can seizing or outright stealing money from the economy. I think keeping this entry would perhaps be like keeping monetary plunder. (Semi-related, but from the search results that came up, the Philippines label looks incorrect as the word is used in many varieties of English). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
If the current definition is wrong, and that broader definition is what would be appropriate, then, yes, this is SoP. The first results on Google seem to pertain to “accumulation by dispossession”.Polomo47 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

comp shop

Tagged for RFV in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. We have plenty of alternative forms, like this one, for multi-word terms — even if computer shop is idiomatic and attested and comp is attested, comp shop (if attested, which it should be) can definitely be kept — it is no less idiomatic than computer shop. Polomo47 (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Polomo47. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-kept. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

how dare you

Should redirect to how dare someone. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9158:619F:598F:E1DB 08:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought Equinox could have done that himself. But how dare someone is a weird construction, created by Equinox. I am inclined to Keep this as my Oxford lists it under dare, "used to express indignation at something: how dare you talk to me like that!" DonnanZ (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep - compare with how very dare you. John Cross (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, of course how dare someone is weird; however, on the basis that you can say you, he, she, they, and even common and proper nouns, and given that it would be unreasonable to either redirect those to the “you” form specifically or maintain separate entries for them all, and unless a better general form is found redirect. The “comparison” pointed out above as an argument for keeping makes... no sense? Yes, redirect that one too. Polomo47 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Elon

Rfd-sense: Elon Musk. One of thousands named Elon, and notable in the past, what, <15 years? Of course, names of specific entities is a gray (that is also to say, not green) area in CfI, but this is just so baffling to me that I’d like to see what arguments could be presented in favor of the sense. Polomo47 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

By the way, this Elon time thing seems deserving of RfV... I don’t mess with English RfVs, though. Polomo47 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are any number of places where the locals are known for being laid back regarding schedules and punctuality. A common metaphor is to refer to them as being "on time" ("Hawaii time" is probably the best known), as if they were in a different time zone. This seems to be an extension of that.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Abstain for now, but leaning keep, re Musk: for better or worse, we currently do have a ton of entries for people who can be invoked by last name alone: Bush, Churchill, Clinton, Goebbels, Hitler, Lenin, Marx, Obama, Sunak, ... the only ones I thought to check that we're missing are Engels, Johnson, and Roosevelt.
Abstain for now, but leaning delete, re Elon. On one end of the spectrum, if someone added a sense "Joseph Stalin" to Joseph, the case for deletion would (IMO) be open and shut, because no-one says "Joseph" in isolation without a last name or context and gets understood as meaning "Stalin". On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that we do have a sense "Adolf Hitler" at Hitler seems OK to me, and even having a sense "Adolf Hitler" at Adolf would seem OK to me (though we currently just have a usage note, which also works), because you can respond to something someone said with a sarcastic "OK, Adolf" and be understood as referring to Hitler. That, in turn, probably has to do with the commonness of Joseph vs the rarity of the surname Hitler and the (modern) uncommonness of the given name Adolf. It seems like there are not currently any Elons or Musks who come anywhere close to Elon Musk's prominence, but we may be too "near" to him in time to judge whether the names have become lastingly associated with a specific pol the way Adolf has (and the way Joseph hasn't). - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
For what it means about my consistency, I would want most of these individuals-in-surname-entries deleted, but I don’t care enough about it. I could see value in including names that are all but synonymous with an individual, such as Goebbels and Hitler, but then there’s the problem that it’s only one person (not lexicalized?) and thus more suitable for their Wikipedia biography. On the other side of the issue, names like Clinton and Bush are just regular names! People get referred to by their surnames all the time in academical/journalistic literature... we’re not gonna add senses to the surname of every single historian saying it can be used to refer to them — Hobsbawm! With people like Sunak, this goes doubly. I bet no one outside of the UK will remember them in a few years — as a Brazilian, I do not, but maybe the USAmericans do. Polomo47 (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I admit I was surprised to find, when I checked, that we had Sunak, and I would not object to deleting him. One approach I have seen on a few entries, which might work, would be to reduce "Barack Obama", "Bill Clinton" et al from definition-lines to usexes, linking to their Wikipedia articles (they do, after all, attest the names). - -sche (discuss) 00:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I do very much like that approach, actually, and was gonna mention it. The names of these people are great at illustrating the terms, as collocations and usexes should. Polomo47 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are many hits for "the Romanian Trump". Now hot, if attestations of this generic use of Trump as a common noun span a sufficient time span, it becomes includable, with some definition like "far-right populist politician espousing conspiracy theories, authoritarianism and pro-Russian views". A similar lot may befall the proper noun Musk, but we aren't there yet.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I should note that we have about ~300 of these on Wiktionary. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

consenting adult

Tagged in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The question here is whether "who willingly has sex" is actually part of the definition. If it isn't then this is just "an adult who consents" and is SoP. My inclination is that it isn't - context rather than the specific terminology used is what specified what is being consented to, and hence this should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Actually, strong keep: ignore consenting and focus on adult, noun, “a fully grown human or other animal” and “a person who has reached the legal age of majority.” In many contexts in which “consenting adult” is used, it refers to a person who has reached the age of consent, sometimes 14–17 in countries where the legal age of majority is 18, which means the “consenting adults” are not legally adults. Thus, this term is actually entirely idiomatic. This would be unless we add a sense to adult which is “one who has reached the age of consent” (or whatever phrasing we would actually use). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Seems much more like a sense of adult than anything specific to this construction. Polomo47 (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47 Do you know of any usage examples wherein adult means “one who has reached the age of consent”? If so, we can add that sense on said entry and delete this one. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I slightly misread your message, so my reply wasn’t too pertinent, but I do wonder if the definition of adult doesn’t mean “above a legal minimum age” in other contexts? I’m actually mostly agreeing with the point you make, I guess. On a side note, I found some uses of consenting adult, which confuse me... consenting adults jump off of cliffs, There are consenting adults trading with their own money. Must be a play on the sexual meaning. Polomo47 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47: OED has an extended use sense that is “(also in extended and allusive use) a person who is considered old enough to decide whether to engage in a particular activity.” I reckon those attests you linked are uses for this figurative sense that we do not yet have. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I looked for some attests in which adult means “one who has reached the age of consent” but I could not find any, even as as clipping of consenting adult (if there is, ofc, this entry should then be deleted). Furthermore, Merriam-Webster also has a consenting adult entry and defines it as “a person who is legally considered old enough to decide to have sex ...” but their entry for adult (noun) never mentions an AoC sense. OED also has consenting adult and, like Merriam-Webster, their entry for adult (noun) lacks any age of consent sense. Longman has consenting adult as “someone who is considered to be old enough to decide whether they want to have sex”. @Zacwill, Fay Freak: In conclusion, consenting adult is definitely idiomatic and should be kept. :3 I am definitely on yet another watchlist for those Google searches. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: In conclusion, it is a tautological expression. Naturally you won't find legal systems where adulthood is not linked with nubility and hence effective sexual consent, while sexual maturity is a tad earlier than cognitive maturity, in humans. Fay Freak (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete, per above. Zacwill (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The sexual nature depends on context, yes, delete. It’s worth noting that “above the age of consent” and “in adulthood” don’t always go together, but I attribute that to a fault in the definition, rather — as far as I can tell, anyone who says “consenting adult” should always mean “adult”, regardless of legislation. Polomo47 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Ironically, WF nominated this, and was the entry's creator. It seems to be a legal term, and both my Oxford and Collins dictionaries include it. It's a shame that the delete voters apparently didn't do any homework. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete, the clue lies in consenting meaning “capable of consent”. Legal dictionaries contain loads of uncreative and unintelligent combinations. Fay Freak (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The word adult is very important, as if a person is under the age of consent they are a juvenile.
In the Oxford Dictionary of English: "an adult who willingly agrees to engage in a sexual act"
In Collins English Dictionary: "(British) a person over the age of sixteen who willingly engages in a sexual activity"
In Merriam-Webster Online: "a person who is legally considered old enough to decide to have sex: an adult who has consented to have sex"
All the above concentrate on sexual activity. It's also worth reading Consent (criminal law) in Wikipedia, which covers other aspects. DonnanZ (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

thunder fire

Entering this as a verb seems to have been a misparse. The phrase "thunder fire you!" seems to be of the same kind as "God damn you!", i.e. "(may) X do Y". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B9E2:37CF:57AE:AA62 06:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hm, indeed. But a “thunder fire you” could be made. Or maybe “may thunder fire you”? Move there and keep only the interjection sense. Polomo47 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

may God damn you

SOP. Zacwill (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete—appears so. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

blonde joke

All SOP phrases. A joke about a blonde, a Kerryman and a Newfie. The only extra detail is that it's usually a joke about them being stupid, but I think it's safe to assume that a joke will always cast someone in a negative light (and aren't there also blonde jokes also be about blondes being stereotypically promiscuous?) Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Re: "I think it's safe to assume that a joke will always cast someone in a negative light", I don't think that's true. Consider Chuck Norris jokes, which assume absurd ability on the part of the subject (e.g., "When Chuck Norris jumps in the water, he doesn't get wet. The water gets Chuck Norris"). bd2412 T 04:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This one I think also belongs to this group, but I admit it's slightly different in that it's a joke about an Irishman, not "Irish" in general - although we do also have Irish as meaning "Irish people" ("many Irish..."). Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Eh, the WT:LIGHTBULB test is based on this specifically. It also aligns with how I perceive idiomaticity: you wouldn't call a joke whose focus happens to be blonde a "blonde joke" — and, for that matter, very few jokes would specify a woman's hair color if not to make fun of it, so it's WT:FRIED insofar as blonde jokes always have one or two themes. Keep that one for that reason, but the definition is very bad.
I haven’t ever heard of Kerryman joke, Newfie joke, or Irish joke. The first has a pretty bad definition that would make it SoP; the second would be idiomatic if the definition is accurate, but it likely is not; the third is probably idiomatic if the usage note is correct (though I suspect all jokes about Irishmen call them idiots), and that should get a new sense. Polomo47 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the difference is that a lightbulb joke is a specific structure of joke: "How many X does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A blonde joke is just any joke relying on stereotypes of blondes. Similarly, I'd differentiate an Irish joke - any joke relying on Irish stereotypes - from, say, "An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman", a specific tripartite joke structure. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This one too? Vilipender (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, unless there's really evidence of the phrase being used to refer to dirty jokes that don't involve genitals. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
"dick joke" is used to refer to dirty jokes generally even if they don't involve the penis. "It all amounts to a dick joke." Fish567 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I second Fish567. The term, "dick joke", can generically be used to refer to dirty jokes. bd2412 T 04:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

friends

Rfd adjective sense. Looks dubious Vilipender (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks like a noun to me: "He is my friend" + "I am his friend"= "we are friends". As for modifiers: "he is a close friend","we are close friends", not "we are closely friends" nor "we are very friends". The same kind of construction can be used with any name of a reciprocal relationship: enemy, acquaintance, classmate, neighbor, rival, stranger, lover, etc. I would contend that "person who shares the same taste in music"/"two people who share the same taste in music" is more of the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. The author did not understand English grammar. Some of our editors formulate many of our etymologies like this: Cognates withFay Freak (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Also citeable stuff like "I've been neighbours with" (Pete since 2020) Vilipender (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep. The RFD'd sense isn't "We are friends" (clear SOP) but "I am friends" (not grammatical on a naive reading). A few hits that do modify it like an adjective:
  • 1883 January 1, Grace Denio Litchfield, Only an Incident, Library of Alexandria, →ISBN:
    "But you will not be less friends with me because I like you best?"
    " I will not ever be less friends with you," Phebe replied, soberly.
  • 1893, Frances E. Crompton, The Gentle Heritage, page 70:
    But still I do not like to say anything against him , for I think I am most friends with Bobby, but I think I love Paul most.
  • 1985, Richard Hough, Mountbatten: Hero of Our Time, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, →ISBN:
    This was well known among all the party at Heiligenberg , as was the story about Lord Derby approaching the King and asking him if he could not be more friends with his children and make them less afraid of him.
  • 2012 November 28, Bruce Christianson, James Malcolm, Frank Stajano, Jonathan Anderson, Security Protocols XX: 20th International Workshop, Cambridge, UK, April 12-13, 2012, Revised Selected Papers, Springer, →ISBN, page 122:
    If we are going back to the example you had earlier with us, if you are to trust my recommendation of Matt, then you have to be more friends with me than I am friends with Matt, because otherwise I could be playing a game on you.
  • 2024 September 24, Noel Fielding, quotee, “Noel Fielding — things you didn't know about the Great British Bake Off presenter”, in Yahoo News:
    Now I'm slightly friends with Kate Bush which is more than I could have hoped for. She's a genius.
friends seems to be reasonably unique. The others Chuck lists mostly exist but are very rare and possibly non-native. A few hits on Google Books for "I've been neighbo(u)rs with", only a single one for "I've been colleagues with" (by a non-native speaker), a handful for "I've been enemies with" (mostly again self-published romances by non-native speakers), and some are clearly not grammatical (I was going to say "I am lovers with him" is clearly ungrammatical but bizarrely "I am lovers with..." and "I was lovers with..." finds hits exclusively from LGBT writing - mostly lesbians. Is it a special term only used in the gay community?). I wonder if we should also have a sense at -s: "When appended to a noun defining a relationship, creates a pseudo-adjective referring to the state of being in that relationship." or similar. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Smurrayinchester: I support the creation of this particle. Not to be confused with another adjective formans in colloquial British English which is rarely covered by the dictionary, found in butters, lengers etc. Many of these -ers formations fly under the radar, and do not make it into books.
Both constructions could be argued to be arbitrary rather than lexicalized, as shown by your preconception that this would be ungrammatical. There is just no as close and general relationship as friendship, so people get away with comparing it while still remaining comprehensible, evoking a frequent collocation. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Move to be friends (and move lovers to be lovers) - happy with that solution. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Obviously still a noun, not an adjective. Collocation with 'more' is to be compared with 'He is more a lover than a fighter', 'I am more a gentleman than a scholar'. Does not pass any serious adjective tests (*'very friends'). If you want to treat it as a peculiar idiom because of its grammar, instead of the obvious solution of just noting this idiom under the head noun 'friend', then it should be 'be friends with' (and the numbers enthusiasts can then create all their 'will have been being friends with' entries). -- Hiztegilari (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Hiztegilari "more a lover" is not analogous to "more friends", and any uncomparable adjective would fail "very X", so that's a poor test. Your "obvious solution" amounts to brushing the issue under the rug, and I can't support it. Theknightwho (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also, while I can't find "very friends", I can find "slightly friends" (see above), "somewhat friends", "kind of friends" etc
  • 2012 April 9, Katie Efird, My Perfect Life, Author House, →ISBN, page 66:
    After Jenna leaves a girl in my class named Rebecca, who is somewhat friends with Adriana, sits down beside me.
  • 2019, Titan Frey, Delivery at Zombie Lane, page back cover:
    Molly is somewhat friends with Josh and she's Kenny's school crush.
  • 2024, Reba Bale, My Kind of Girl: A Second Chance Lesbian Romance, Reba Bale:
    “Hi, I'm Kathy. I'm kind of friends with Ava's mother."
Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep based on these citations. Theknightwho (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I do like the idea of making a be friends with. Any reasons not to? Polomo47 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I note we also have make friends (see Talk:make friends); I wonder how much sense it makes to view be friends as friends#Adjective, but make friends as make friends. Would it solve the POS issue to view be friends as be friends, deleting this sense of friends? Conversely, if you want to treat this as friends#Adjective, should we also view make friends as using an adjective sense of friends, and if not, why not? Aren't we obliged to also have enemies#Adjective and/or be enemies, make enemies; rivals#Adjective; etc? If not, why not?
PS I notice we had a translation table at enemies, added earlier this year and listing a translation of "mortal enemies", which I removed. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete the doubtful "adjective" friends, in favour of be friends. - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would prefer creating be friends (and redirect be friends with, as make friends with redirects to make friends). bd2412 T 04:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The strongest point favoring the preservation of the adjective sense of friends is the fact that sentences with friends, as @Smurrayinchester suggests, permit a singular noun / pronoun as the subject (e.g. John is friends with Alex). If friends were a predicative noun, you'd expect it to agree in number with the subject (only John is a friend of Alex should be grammatical). The fact that it is able to not agree but still be grammatical suggests that friend with -s is functioning uniquely as an adjective. Like @Theknightwho says, trying to use comparable adjective tests for this word in the case that it's not a comparable adjective would of course reap failure; that is, very friends would fail in the same way that very daily would fail (and we can all agree that daily is an adjective).

I think a better counter to friends being an adjective is determining whether it sounds grammatical when used attributively. For me, postpositively, it sounds a bit weird, and prepositively, it's definitely ungrammatical. Compare a married person (prepos. attr.) and a person married to their spouse (postpos. attr.) with a friends person (prepos. attr.) and a person friends with another (postpos. attr.). To be fair, I wouldn't say either form—I'd just use the predicative form, i.e. the he is friends with (...) form—but I wonder what others think about the grammaticality of attributive friends.

Just like what @bd2412, @-sche and @Polomo47 think, maybe the most sound solution for this would be to create the entry be friends as an idiom or some phrase, just like make friends is, and then assume that this adjective-seeming, plural form of friend is not an individual adjective but instead just a part of this idiom / phrase. Should the adjective sense still be kept, I think it'd be better to keep the sense at friends instead of entering a sense at -s that defines -s as an adjective-forming suffix. I'm not aware of many adjectives formed by a noun + -s, so I'm playing it safe and assuming that -s as an adjective-forming suffix is not (very) productive.
Notes
  1. ^ married here is an adjective, not a participle of the verb marry.
  2. ^ This contrasts with words formed by a noun + -ers as @Fay Freak points out, of which there are a bit more.
Languagelover3000 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Languagelover3000 @-sche @Hiztegilari Counterpoint: you can't be "very friends", but you can be "potentially friends", "possibly friends" or "kinda friends" with someone - in other words, it can be modified by degree. We wouldn't have an entry for be running, for instance, which has similar semantics.
It possibly suggests friends behaves more like a participle, though it isn't derived from a verb, so I'd have to think more on that. Theknightwho (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
On second thoughts, that's actually just another argument that supports the fact it's a verb, so I agree: move to be friends. Theknightwho (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Another thing now making me think the best option would be to make the entry be friends is the fact that I've just realised all the grammatical sentences that have been given above can have their "adverbs" postposed without sounding too ungrammatical. Below are some excerpts of quotes or example sentences from above exemplifying this. The theoretical idiom "be friends" and the adverb modifying it are bolded.
  • You will not be less friends with me → You will not be friends less with me
  • I am most friends with Bobby → I am friends most with Bobby
  • If he could not be more friends with his children → If he could not be friends more with his children
  • Now I'm slightly friends with Kate Bush → Now I'm friends slightly with Kate Bush
  • I'm kind of friends with Ava's mother → I'm friends kind of with Ava's mother
  • Molly is somewhat friends with Josh → Molly is friends somewhat with Josh
For the above sentences, you could even put the word at the end of the sentence (e.g. Molly is friends with Josh somewhat).
Under the assumption that adverbs usually precede their head adjective but are not as restricted in position for their head verbs,1 I think this may seal the deal on the idea of this being an idiom / verb.
  1. Compare he is very happy and he is happy very* vs. he drove home quickly; quickly, he drove home and he quickly drove home.
Languagelover3000 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

spindown time

SoP: time taken for spindown. Similar to "startup time" and many others. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:74DB:73E4:8706:16F6 17:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. See above. Polomo47 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. Thank you for the analogy; it helped illustrate your point and influenced by vote. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this was RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Flock camera

This is a brand name: see Flock Safety. Seems too modern and niche to be genericized. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:74DB:73E4:8706:16F6 19:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why would you submit this to RFD? It's used all the time in day-to-day police work in the US. mysteryroom (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. It has not "entered the lexicon". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I respectfully disagree. It has very much entered the lexicon in the US in daily law enforcement interactions. I've also added three cites for reference. mysteryroom (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will concede that it is a fairly new term, since the design/mechanism has been around for less than a decade. mysteryroom (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Those uses are just brand names qualifying a noun. Contrast Polaroid (a print from a Polaroid brand instant camera) where the brand name standing alone acquired a meaning. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

love away

This is the sense of away meaning "from a state or condition of being; out of existence". That entry has the much more common example of "I'll sleep the rest of the day away", and we don't have an entry for sleep away, for instance. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A818:1F7A:7CB0:A6F9 21:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess this is away sense 7? Most of the senses in that entry seem like the same thing, though... I’d like some more examples before committing to a "delete". Polomo47 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

ShamWow

ShamWow, you'll be saying "Wow, this fails WT:BRAND" every time. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Definition doesn't even try to hide it. Polomo47 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, this may have been lexicalized: I just heard got so effectively wiped up that they might as well have been cosplaying as a ShamWow commercial. Can someone try their hand at improving the definition? Polomo47 (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I think this passes WT:BRAND and is lexicalized enough per the attestation of the plural ShamWows. Svārtava (tɕ) 08:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

glophonic

Per my comment there, at the short description parameter of the RfD template: "This entry (glophonic) should not have been made at all; this string as a putative adjective is not a word in English, and the word osteoglophonic (which see for its referenced etymology) is not derived from this putative word (in fact a nonword). Most ghits in Google Books for this string are merely artifacts of hyphenated instances of "osteo-glophonic" or inadvisably (i.e., poorly) hyphenated instances of "An-glophonic"." Quercus solaris (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like send to RfV. Polomo47 (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Since it was created with no definition and no cites, just an rfdef, I would delete this as "no usable content given" + the reasons given by Quercus. - -sche (discuss) 21:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

disinformation drive, misinformation drive

Sum of Parts? Means essentially, disinformation campaign, misinformation campaign. drive means campaign. Although blood drive, food drive, and toy drive exist. Though vaccination drive isn't existing 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes – I am inclined to opine that we should delete these as SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Greek alphabet

Alphabets used to write Greek, Zhuyin, Glagolitic, Proto-Canaanite. The last three have already been nominated some 13 years ago and had consensus to delete, but somehow remain as entries. Note that alphabets have been nominated for deletion time and time again, but the archives of these discussions are seldom linked to from their talk pages... Dutch alphabet and Hungarian alphabet seem to have a few.

I am nominating Greek alphabet for the same reason the other ones ("alphabet used to write Greek"), but I cannot in good faith do the same to, e.g., Latin alphabet (What's a Latin? Is it something you eat?). Polomo47 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or be a cannibal and eat a Greek? DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thought about it; clear case of SoP, and we could have this for every language. Delete. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Species abbrs

I'm pretty sure we outlawed stuff like H. erectus, to save ourselves the bother. More here,

Father of minus 2 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would argue that T. rex and E. coli have taken on a life of their own and are used by people with no clue about what the "T" or the "E" stand for. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
This doesn't appear to be an English RfD. I do agree that Translingual T. rex and E. coli need to be deleted, but not their English entries. Polomo47 (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47 I don't get it. Are you saying that E. coli is English only? I seriously doubt that. I could see an argument for deleting the English section at T. rex, but why the Translingual? This, that and the other (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
First, it’s important to explain why I think the Translingual entries deserve deletion. I think that it’s formulaic in the sense that any binomial name, in a scientific paper, can get abbreviated by writing only the first letter of the genus name. It’s, thus, more a general pattern than a phenomenon to be independently categorized. If we were to independently categorize it, we’d list E. as initialism of Epidendrum/Eranthemum/Eremurus/Erodium...
Second, I do think E. coli should be kept in English because, in that context, it is not formulaic — only a handful of binomial names have entered English usage (i.e., usage outside of particularly scientific contexts, which show Translingual usage), and the E. there is no longer abbreviating anything. And, yes, it is an entry to be made language by language: in Portuguese you’ll only see coliformes fecais (lit. fecal coliforms) and tiranossauro. T. rex in Portuguese is a borrowing from English and pronounced as such. Polomo47 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ditto for German. T. rex only is pronounced as English, E. coli as German Latin pronunciation. I don't see criteria by which more abbreviations can be entered, however; in general it has to be avoided at some point. Maybe one needs some lab or clinical practice to know. Fay Freak (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
C. difficile might be citeable in an "E. coli" way (i.e. used by laypeople who don't know the full name if they even realize it has one), although it's not as common; the common lay form is C. diff, which (whether we want to present it as Translingual or English) should certainly be kept. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reiterating that this is for WT:RFDO, since the entries are Translingual. My proposed solution is to repurpose C. diff, E. coli as English entries, look into attestations for C. difficile (sounds unlikely to have been lexicalized) and delete the rest (T. rex is already English. Is that the most common spelling in other languages?). Entries for other languages can then be added, e.g., to E. coli as suitable. Polomo47 (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

beard bug

As per beard louse Phacromallus (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know. Is a beard bug any bug found in the beard? If bug had a “louse” sense, then I’d understand... Hm, is there such a thing as, say, a pubic bug? Polomo47 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Seems dumb. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Calling a louse a bug is definitely informal. No beard, no lice or bugs. Send to RfV. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep, subject to RfV. We have head louse and body louse (considered different subspecies), and we have Morning Star and Evening Star, same underlying entity. DCDuring (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
0 GBooks hits for "a beard bug". But should properly be RFVed, I suppose. The "beard louse" entry is so silly that I can only assume this one is also a joke. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3047:5F1F:BE0D:3B50 21:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I think we should RfV it. Polomo47 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Move to RfV per above—I am the fourth editor to suggest this but I want to obtain a higher edit count. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: Am open to decent crypto offers for my old account. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E554:283:652D:79BD 23:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Heh, I think those 893,801 edits might be non-negotiable. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

nonstandard method

"(mathematics, sciences) A method that is beyond the range of standard or traditional approaches, often involving introducing new concepts like infinitesimals or hyperreal numbers in order to solve difficult problems."

From the citations, this seems to be just non-standard + method used in a mathematical context. DCDuring (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It can be argued that nonstandard is a non-standard spelling in Br. Eng. There is no entry for non-standard method, nor for standard method. I am not offering a lifeline to this, but I note that it was sent to RfV first. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
nonstandard variety might need a look too. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3047:5F1F:BE0D:3B50 21:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. I've RFDed it below. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
(We also have nonstandard number, which is also a related concept) Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. In general, a nonstandard method can be any method that is not one of the standard methods of addressing some problem. As such it is SOP. In the book Nonstandard Methods in Ramsey Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory it is used as a mathematical term of art, in a non-{{&lit}} sense, derived from the term of art nonstandard analysis, and then means, “A method based on nonstandard analysis”. This abuse of terminology is probably due to nonstandard-analysis method being a bit too much of a mouthful.
 ​‑‑Lambiam 09:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

nonstandard variety

SOP? Cf. #nonstandard method by the same user. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is an excellently phrased definition but yeah smells very SoP to me. One only has to know what a variety is, and given a linguistics context, the sense marked linguistics would be a safe bet. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3047:5F1F:BE0D:3B50 22:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why do we have standard language, standard dialect, standard variety? Let's answer this first, for the creator could not omit one while upholding the other, without being left with cognitive dissonance; I can't tell since due to field independence I always situate myself in schizoglossia; for average readers, having these linguistic terms does not cast bad light upon the dictionary, at least. Fay Freak (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
In that respect, @Hftf’s helpful keywording of my above post has raised my attention about us man missing bare standards and averages supported by lemmings. In a marketing dictionary, wholly downloadable for our permanent editors, indeed we have average reader, average costs defined as “the total cost divided by the related quantity” (whatever that means), average discount, average circulation, etc., in sum surprisingly sundry terms that are only divisible into parts by consumer atomism but not business administration, often seemingly requiring definition in spite of being superficially SOP. It’s like the difference as between prime costs and marginal costs. Fay Freak (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello Fay Freak, thank you for the feedback. I added several cites to indicate its concrete usage, antonymous to standard variety. mysteryroom (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

June 2025

FD&C Red No. 3,FD&C Red No. 40

My deletionist tendencies are on overdrive here... Phacromallus (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have no inclinations for these to be deleted. Fay Freak (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep: I think these can be kept because, even though they are code designations, they have entered the general lexicon and are used like regular words, e.g. “Color additive mixtures for food use (including dietary supplements) made with FD&C Red No. 40 may contain only those diluents that are suitable and that are listed in part 73 of this chapter as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring foods”. We include European food additive numbers (like E422, E926, E150b etc.) for this same reason. I would certainly be against including any ISBNs, but these are fine IMO. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I would definitely want an entry for red 40, and that appears to be an ellipsis of this, so I want this by proxy. This nomination is, of course, not questioning idiomaticity, but rather lexicality. Polomo (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Having an entry for red 40 (which I agree we should have) does not necessarily imply that FD&C Red No. 40 is a part of the language's lexicon nor that it should have an entry. Many of our (indeed lexical) shortened form entries, in a definition, do simply link to the associated encyclopedia article with the canonical name, which seems like an appropriate status quo. Delete. Hftf (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Forbidden City

I would think there is probably some metonymic sense with China's government or similar, but I don't know of it and don't immediately see it. Since the only sense is a "manmade structure" and Merriam Webster and Lexico do not have the metonymic sense I'm looking for, I'm putting this here. Alternately, this might be an "area" in some sense, like a district or county or town- it is called a "city" after all. Or parallel to Taj Mahal? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative I am slightly confused; what is your rationale for deletion? Is it for this type of entry (a palace or building)? Does Wikt have a policy that says whether we exclude buildings from our dictionary? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep without a valid deletion rationale. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep, and it's not even the only "Forbidden City" – Lhasa was commonly referred to as such. Hftf (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Holocast

This seems like too rare of a misspelling to include...? (By the same user as the verb mothe, and various dubious pronunciations of Chicanx et al which I have now removed. The lowercase form holocast seems to be somewhat less rare, per Ngrams. - -sche (discuss) 16:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are these two misspellings or typos? Polomo47 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as typographical errors, which I suspect to be the case; surely if this term had a misspelling it would be, based on its pronunciation, Holocost / holocost (which both incidentally exist as misspellings for this term). Where does cast come from? However, if there is an accent that pronounces it this was, rendering this a misspelling and not a typographical error, I might vote keep because this term (perhaps depressingly) actually has quite a lot of hits (47K) on Google. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not a specific type of cookie. Just any cookie at a campfire. SoP. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BCAE:C553:6E63:139D 12:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The definition as written is impressively stupid (one would almost think it was WF-style trolling), so delete that, but googling around, it does seem like this might actually be the name of a specific (chocolate-chip-s'mores-y?) type of cookie you could make in your oven with no campfire involved, if anyone wants to attest and define that, a la birthday cake sometimes being a very specific flavour. - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@-sche That def can be technically deleted but the page can be repurposed into a new entry (technically a different sense) for a cookie that has the ingredients of a s'more. I found some recipes for a campfire cookie that is a type of cookie that tastes like/imitates the ingredients of a s'more: graham crackers, marshmallows and chocolate (most common foodstuffs to put inside). The campfire would make this word idiomatic (unlike, say, chocolate cookie, s'more cookie and others), so we can keep it. Here are some attests from those Wordpress-esque “momblog” recipe websites (which I proudly browse from time to time):
4 Dec 2014, Cookies and Cups
Campfire Cookies are my new favorite cookie recipe! These have all the flavors of s’mores cookies made with marshmallows, chocolate, honey, and graham crackers, these cookies are the essence of a summer campfire!
22 Jun 2015, Glorified Hobby
There was a time when graham crackers were a mandatory part of s’mores. Since replacing them with freshly-baked chocolate chip cookies, there is no turning back. I made Campfire Cookies as a surprise-treat for my sweethearts.
26 Sep 2016, Creole Contessa
The Campfire Cookie is the ultimate Smores turned into a cookie with Peanut Butter folks!
30 Jan 2024, Some Kinda Good
These campfire cookies are reminiscent of a warm fire, roasting marshmallows and eating sticky s’mores but without all the mess! With crushed graham crackers, toasted mini-marshmallows, and slightly melted chocolate, this may be my new favorite cookie of all time.
17 Apr 2025, Seriously Eats
These chunky campfire cookies include all your summer s'mores ingredients: chopped up Hershey's bars, graham crackers, and marshmallows.
Now I am insanely hungry. Might make these at some point, take a pic and upload it to Commons for use on this entry. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thinking about how blatantly SOP (and dissimilar to the actual, idiomatic definition) the definition Mysteryroom entered was, and how plainly the first cite he added doesn't use the term—he even quoted the preceding sentence, "A meeting of all Campfire guardians will be held at the "Y" at 7 o'clock on Monday evening, March 24.", to make clear that in "Final arrangements for the Campfire cookie sale will be made at this time.", "Campfire" was the name of the group hosting the "cookie sale", the sentence was not using a term "Campfire cookie"—I cannot help but think: c'mon, Mysteryroom, are you trolling (or, depending on how people want to view it, earnestly using judgement this poor and sloppy) again already after you were just blocked? (Compare some of the cites offered for ace bare, discussed at WT:RFVE#ace_bare.) Another admin assessed back in April 2024, and it has also seemed to me, that this user learned Wiktionary's rules to waste people's time because they have to follow him around if they want to catch the (depending on how one wants to view it) trolling or problematic entries a competent editor would know better by now than to create, and put them through time-consuming RFDs and RFVs. I know a few editors have opined that the not-incorrect edits the user intermixes the trolling / bad edits into are worth it, but my inclination is to block and be done with it, given the number of times the user has been warned and even blocked already. In line with the block summary of the last block, I am blocking Mysteryroom for 3 months. To be clear, this block is not for this one entry, it is for a long history of such conduct as noted in prior blocks' summaries and discussed in prior RFVs, RFDs, and elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
The definition is impressive as you say, but less so than the community’s commerce with the author is disappointing. His competence is demonstrated in the very locating problematic entries and putting them up for further input, even though this talent appears to entail unsatisfyingly explicit communication of the same, since it is driven by procedural memory more than declarative logics, which shows slow bettering only because of collective failure in psychoeducation. You are unacceptably stretching the definition of trolling. The procedure sanctifies the above entry, which is not going to be deleted on the whole anymore, and this was the point, not the – overtly – imperfect definition. If one writes a type of … it is told that the editor did not understand to describe the concept further, in so far as not described further, but the existence of an idiom is indicated. Fay Freak (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

bird

Rfd-sense: "A chicken or turkey used as food."

Feels overly specific (I can find lots and lots of uses of "stuff the bird" used to refer to duck, quail, pigeon, partridge, grouse, pheasant, etc and frankly I suspect every single bird that we eat is in fact a bird) and redundant to sense 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete as redundant to sense 1. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
As written, so narrowly scoped to just chicken and turkey, it's wrong, yes. I could see generalizing this to "The meat of such an animal , used as food" and keeping that, in line with how we have the bird and the meat as separate senses at chicken and turkey and pig and cow; the senses (in all these entries) are labelled as differing in countability. (I see the counter-argument that this is a general phenomenon—any edible animal's meat can be referred to: I saw an alligator but ate some alligator—but the translations may differ.) - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did consider that, but I couldn't find any evidence of uncountable "bird" (no sign of people eating "bird sandwiches", and all the hits for "ate bird" seem to be part of noun phrases like "ate bird seed" or bad hyphenations like "frig-ate bird"). I don't think we'd have a sense at hamster for "a hamster used as food", even though there are lots of hits for "ate a hamster" (the classic being "Freddie Starr ate my hamster"), because I couldn't find any "ate hamster". If you think it's salvageable, I could broaden the sense and move to RFV Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Three uses of uncountable bird:
  • We almost had bird for dinner that night.
  • While this is a rather revolting thought, it still fails to convey the hideous disgust one feels upon biting into undercooked bird.
  • She served “bird and a bottle....”
 ​‑‑Lambiam 15:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Smurrayinchester's appreciatively thorough explanation; I also did some of my own searches but mostly found stuff like “I forget what we ate,” Bird said in an interview. There are some attests for “ate bird” (as a food) on Twitter but very few, e.g. , not enough to justify its own entry in my view. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

nice try, Diddy

See WT:Tea room/2025/June#nice try, Diddy : any name can be used, e.g. google:"nice try, Ramone" to imply Ramone (manager of a certain show) is behind a post (e.g. promoting the show), "nice try, Elon" to imply Elon is behind or attempting something, etc. The connotations come from whatever the person is known for. I am inclined to think the phrase is thus extralexical (not dictionary material) and should be deleted; if there's lexical content, I think it resides in the name itself, because (contra the other possibility suggested in the TR, that this should be redirected as a snowclone) you can invoke someone by name to impute something to them using any phrase that intelligibly suggests they might be behind something, not just "nice try, X", but also e.g. google:"Adolf, is that you?", "Elon, is that you?" / google:"is that you, Elon?"; google:"whoa there, Adolf", google:"whoa there, Stalin"... - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment It's become a kind of a phrase to use in the comment sections of ads, at least on Instagram, regardless of the content, suggesting idiomatic use ScribeYearling (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
As the initial nomination points out, you can find this easily with other names as well, so delete. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do not delete. This should absolutely be kept as legitimate slang. More specifically, "Nice try, Diddy" pertains to sexually explicit content and implies Diddy is trying to solicit sex, not simply "it could mean anyone." It's been used plenty of times, to the point of being cited by mainstream media, and therefore, there is no reason to delete it. Diddy's impact on the world of rap music in light of these allegations and his capturing of the popular imagination meets standards of notability. --2600:1700:45DF:10:A917:B1D:E291:6173 19:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
This should absolutely be kept as legitimate slang. It's been used plenty of times, to the point of being cited by mainstream media, and there is no reason to delete it. Diddy's impact on the world of rap music in light of these allegations and his capturing of the popular imagination meets standards of notability. --2600:1700:45DF:10:A917:B1D:E291:6173 19:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

These Wikipedia expats and their standards of notability! Polomo47 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

hull-loss accident

SOP: hull loss + accident. Imetsia (talk (more)) 09:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Protestant work ethic

SOP, Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. this includes also the synonym Puritan work ethic. Juwan (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comment: The def says that this is a Calvinist thing, and Protestantism is more than just Calvinism. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. The work ethic of the Protestants / Puritans is indeed an SoP construction. The minutia is interesting, of course, but it’s not dictionary material. This reminds me of English whiskey and how w:Brazilian wine definitely deserves a Wikipedia article explaining its characteristics, but the term itself is SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
If there are figurative uses, like “Abby the atheist has a Protestant work ethic when it comes to knitting because she knits for twelve hours a day woah woah aahahdhrirururururururTHE FOG IS COMING THE FOG IS” then I reckon it could be kept. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I found some quotations on Gbooks and Twitter of figurative usage to mean general hard-work regardless of religion. So, delete this sense and replace it with the figurative one I added (technically speaking, a new word). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep - this refers to a phenomenon associated with Calvinism. Theknightwho (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

goofy ahh

SOP, seperate sense for ahh should be made though ScribeYearling (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete as SOP (the ahh sense is at -ahh). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
It’s a funny thing, this -ahh particle. An adverb written with a space... hooray, internet slang. Polomo47 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

say yes

SOP ScribeYearling (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom. Svārtava (tɕ) 18:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ScribeYearling thoughts on say no? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Neither audible nor internal speech is required, nor is the word "yes". Of course, the use of "say" in relation to speech acts muddies things up a bit: if you ask someone to "say hello" when you introduce them to someone else, it's okay if they merely shake hands or say "I'm pleased to meet you". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
This uses yes noun sense 1. The problem, however — and I didn’t expect this — is that we don’t have an adequate sense at say to call this SoP. Are there other examples of saying something that need not be verbal nor written and also not verbatim? Polomo47 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment. We have an entry say no. How is this different in terms of our CFI? I’m leaning towards the includability of say hello and say farewell (= say goodbye) in the figurative senses of “to witness an arrival” or “a departure”. ( 'Sentimental': Residents say hello to new, farewell to old at Hamilton Elementary; Review: Say hello to comedic drama 'The Farewell' ; Say hello to ‘Trolls,’ farewell to ‘Modern Family’ this week.)  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will say yes and vote keep. It's worth noting that Merriam-Webster has it, not that this fact makes any difference to the more doubting users. Some quotes would be welcome though. DonnanZ (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

ol' reliable

Some clown put in a particular spelling of "old reliable" they saw on SpongeBob when they were a kid. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete as SOP; I think the term is from ol' (old)old (a grammatical intensifier, often used in describing something positive, and combined with another adjective) + reliable (something or someone reliable or dependable). good ol' reliable, good old reliable, ol' reliable and old reliable are very common collocations but they are just that; non-idiomatic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also, no need to call this poor Wiktionarian a “clown”. 😭😭 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
You're right, I'm sorry. I took offence to the lack of thought put into the article. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
"Ol'" dates back far, far before "Spongebob Squarepants" and, while it is certainly a reference to the show, it is closely related to "Old Faithful and leads to a natural derivative of "Ol' Faithful," which should be a redirect to the former. Therefore, and due to its cultural significance, I consider it a valid inclusion or, at the least, a redirection to "ol' reliable" or "old reliable." --2600:1700:45DF:10:A917:B1D:E291:6173 19:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was the one who removed the speedy request, but now I do agree with deleting, yes, per Ms. Luna–Tuna’s interpretation. Polomo47 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yautja

Alien race, WT:FICTION. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C849:914F:454E:1AEF 22:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this be in RfV? (Irregardless, probably would be deleted anyways, since I can't find any non-predator use.) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-deleted: fails WT:FICTION. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

dog latin

I really doubt Latin would be uncapitalised. Inpacod2 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is for RfV. Polomo47 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

cancer cell

SoP Inpacod2 (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete as SoP. Recently created by none other than mystery Misterroom. Polomo47 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
You also have a nickname - Polomint. DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Aw, that’s a cute, endearing nickname, Donnie! Polomo47 (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Polo mint is a peppermint sweet. I have never been called Donnie, but had the nicknames of Hodgie, Horse and Doc during my life. I call myself Don, short for Donald, from before that awful geezer named Donald moving into the White House. DonnanZ (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom; certainly a super common collocation, but a collocation nonetheless. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I tried to think, the last three days, what could distinguish it as a kind of cell from brain cells, kidney cells and the like on one hand, and monkey cells or human cells and the like on the other hand. But I fancy to assume that we should delete cancer cell like epithelial cell or myocardial cell. epithelial cell existed before, it seriously sneaked through two months before Mysteryroom’s entry. How can we keep blood cell or stromal cell though if not cancer cell?
Without proper cytological comparisons or dogmatic foundations any deletion is not confidence-inspiring. I don’t think the description or classification of biology should be gut-feel driven. Fay Freak (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Actually, what I feel is that these lexicographical decisions should be determined by lexicographers (rather than biologists). A common, colloquial term like cancer cell, blood cell is easily parseable (as cells in cancer, cells in blood, cells in the brain — that too should be deleted), and so any arguments to its merit regarding biological nuances can’t really fix the matter of SoP and border on being encyclopedic. Now, I would be more careful with, e.g., epithelial cell. Polomo47 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a bandwagon fallacy. For me epithelial cell seemed an obvious SOP as containing the expected adjective – did not even need to be expected as pathosis forms pathological – for epithelium, but when I found the entry I began to suspect a system below the surface. Superficial parsing as SOP is easy when you get away with blurring the concepts. I was more interested in the peculiarity of the disordered cell kind cancer cell rather than being impressed by the regularity of the epithelial cell, like most people here know to read and apply IPA but are out of advice concerning the Extensions to the International Phonetic Alphabet transcribing disordered speech. Fay Freak (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I had expected to chime in a Delete; however it turns out that cancer-cell and cancercell do exist. Leasnam (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
what a delight. love me some coalmining... Polomo47 (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-kept per COALMINE: see the newly-created entry cancercell. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

MMR vaccine

SOP Worm spail (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom; we do not need an entry for this nor hepatitis A and B vaccine, COVID-19 vaccine, polio vaccine, DTwP-HepB-Hib vaccine etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
This could well satisfy WT:JIFFY? Polomo47 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

javazon

Just in 1 video-game? TypeO889 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@TypeO889 Do we exclude terms exclusive to a single video game? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
WT:FICTION should apply if coined in the video game. Would kind of be a matter for RfV, though. Polomo47 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Funnily enough, Mr. ’Fool nominated this entry for deletion almost 19 years ago before doing it again today! See the discussion-closing diff. Polomo47 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is easily attestable and the rfd rationale makes no sense. Can we please curb these silly nominations? Hftf (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I get their point. But I will vote keep as slang specific to just one video game should be allowed IMO, as long as said instance of slang (synonym of word) passes the CFI. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is very important to distinguish between in-universe terms (we don't include every alien race from Star Trek, or every weapon from Half-Life) and terms used outside the game universe to describe things in the game (like, say, hall of mirrors sense 3, or ghost piece). I don't know if WF is aware of this. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 21:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep per above (see also previous RfD). J3133 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RfD-kept. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

who's your daddy

Rfd-sense: “BDSM”. I know this is a subsense, but exactly how is this different from the primary sense? Is BDSM usage notable enough to deserve distinction into a subsense? The definition also seems pretty bad. Polomo47 (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Polomo47 The definition is indeed bad. I wonder if we should split the sexual and non-sexual senses and rm the “(often sexual)” line from the first, slightly altering and improving upon the second (currently jarringly worded) sense. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

sum of parts

Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see sum,‎ of,‎ parts.
"sum of parts" is a sum of parts.

Sense added yesterday by 36.85.217.221. This seems to be covered by sense 2 (“sum of its parts”). J3133 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, I never added that insane usex for it. That might have been vandalism or a joke? keep the &lit sense itself but reinstate the old usex, which I'm pretty sure was something like " 'brown leaf' is a sum of parts" or something, idk don't have time to look right now. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
It was
The expression "green leaf" is a sum of parts, since it has no idiomatic meaning: no meaning beyond "green" + "leaf".
I would accept that, bearing in mind usexes are created by users. I have done a few. DonnanZ (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete the sense, yes, as it is perfectly defined as an alternative form. However, the RfD discussion at Talk:sum of its parts really did not convince me of the expression’s idiomaticity — all the keepers were feelskeeping, which reminds me we do not have feelscrafting —, so we could perhaps revive that. Polomo (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

sun-wizened

Is this sum-of-parts? I don’t think it’s in any other dictionaries, nor is it a commonly used idiom (or collocation, for that matter), seeing as Wiktionary is the first result on Google. Polomo47 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be a pedant, it might be a matter for RfV if this could satisfy our contentious COALMINE policy: I only found two cites—The Jerusalem Post, Critical Theory and Dystopia (book)—from a few thorough searches but nothing beyond that; seems quite rare as you mention. Delete per nom as SoP. Nothing on Gscholar, Gbooks, IA, Twitter or Usenet. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think for "X-Yed", then "Yed by X" can be implicit; this is definitely SoP to me as a native speaker (compare "microwave-cooked" or "college-educated"). Of course COALMINE may apply, if that still exists: suntanned. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 21:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

woke supremacy, woke supremacist

SoP Inpacod2 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why is it any more SoP than white supremacy? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 19:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
woke supremacy isn't supremacy that is woke. We also have white supremacy, black supremacy, straight supremacy... Leasnam (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry... im slow. Could you explain to me in further detail? Thanks. Inpacod2 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
No worries...but I'm slower (esp today :) - is there a reason why you haven't applied a similar tag to white supremacy for being SoP ? Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Inpacod2: White supremacy is the supremacy of the white (people). Black supremacy is the supremacy of the black (people). And so on. We have white supremacy and black supremacy; so I don't see why you are only challenging the "woke" one, since it's no better or worse than those (and IMO might even gain a little strength from the fact that it's probably a sort of pun/blend on the pre-existing whole phrase "white supremacy"). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 20:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Because white also refers to a colour, and it's not about that. Theknightwho (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think these all are not SoP because they are circumscriptions for the ideologies people hold, who connect by some critical mass of association. Fay Freak (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I reckon this as well. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Should we, then, formalise this in policy? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 23:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
P.S. If this does "fail" RFD I shall certainly be RFDing white and black supremacies, from beyond the grave. lol. It's difficult in culture-war times but we must be fair. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 23:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete both, along with almost all the other "X supremacy(ist)" entries (except quantum supremacy and air supremacy), per sense 3 of supremacy and 1 of supremacist, from which we can understand all such words. (Sidenote: delete papal supremacy too but per senses 1 and 2.) Sense 3, in particular, talks about "groups", therefore, when paired with it, "black" and "white" are groups, not colors, and "woke" is even more obvious there. Thence comes their unidiomaticity. We need only those two entries and senses alone to understand what such terms mean.
With that said, though, could this turn out to be one of those useful "rare cases" mentioned in the forelast paragraph of the policy? Who knows‽ Consensus would be needed. Bytekast 22:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Bytekast. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

kowtow to

SoP? Meaning already covered at kowtow (sense 2). Inqilābī 17:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Redirect, without question. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 10:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Move the definition of kowtow to onto kowtow's s. 2 (it's clearer and more detailed; I like it), then redirect. Bytekast (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

July 2025

from dawn to dusk

It was argued at WT:RFVE#from dawn to dusk that this seems SOP. Any equivalent set of words has an equivalent meaning (including the definition "all day"), e.g. "they toiled away from dawn till dusk", "they were at it from dawn until dusk", "from sunup to sundown", "from dawn til dark", "from morning till evening", "from morn to even", etc. If there are interesting translations I suggest picking the most common form (of the aforementioned phrases, this one is most common), reducing the definition to {{translation only}} to solve the problem that prompted the RFV, and redirecting the other forms (with "till", "until", etc) to there. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’m thinking it just might be best to list these translations at all day. If the idiomatic translations were at all similar to the English phrase, I’d support a separate THUB, but Catalan, Portuguese and Spanish de sol a sol (literally, “from sun to sun”) has nothing to do with it. I am not convinced any other blue translations (can’t easily verify red ones) are idiomatic either — the French one is definitely SoP. Polomo (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

gora

Adjective: (South Asia) A white person.

The sole citation looks like attributive use of the noun. DCDuring (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete, at least with the current attests. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep and add more quotations (I've just added to it a request for them, and deleted the repeated quot. under Adjective). The entry has enough good references to attest it, now it needs good and reasonable quots. Delete only if those can't be found or used. Bytekast (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

pragma

Sense HTTP header. How would this be used in a sentence? Looks similar to programming keywords, which we don't include. Jberkel 21:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

"There are filters/servlets which support conditional parameters and pragmas." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:99CF:F100:308A:414D 10:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I misunderstood the definition. It's about the directive to clients, and not about the header itself. Jberkel 15:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

hoo man

"(Geordie) An attention grabber." This is redundant to hoo: "(Geordie) Used to attract the attention of others." Similar to "hey, man" or "what's up, man"? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9848:FEF4:B25:3C6E 17:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know cats speak Geordie.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: We have hooman. J3133 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Geordie and cat meows are very similar in that I can understand neither (which is totally on me). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
So for you, Geordie is the cat's meow? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP per nom; this is indeed already defined at hoo (interjection: sense 2) “(Geordie) Used to attract the attention of others.” LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I suspect it's pronounced run together, not as "hoo, man", and to me that merits a separate entry. Quotes or even audio clips would be nice.Lollipop (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dublin Dr Pepper

Not dictionary material — This unsigned comment was added by Riptyçç (talkcontribs) at 21:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC).Reply

Is this a brand name, or is it a generic term like Irish car bomb? Very hard to understand. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A979:4FC4:9959:767E 02:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is the nickname given to the Dr Pepper that was bottled in a factory in Dublin, Texas. The bottle was still branded as Dr Pepper like all Dr Peppers; hence, it is not a brand name. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Checking out the bottle on the Wikipedia page, it has a faint yellow label reading "Dublin". So, it's a brand name, or at least it was a brand name 20-ish years ago. If it wasn't, then I'd vote to keep. CitationsFreak (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I do want to delete this, insofar as it is a Dr Pepper from Dublin. Yes, the ingredients may be different, but it is nevertheless a Dr Pepper — as in, being made with corn syrup is not a characteristic of Dr Pepper as far parsing the compound is concerned. If there were many Dublin manufacturing plants, and only the soda from one of them was called this, there could be a hint of idiomaticity. However, even then, I think this is pretty close to encyclopedic territory. Polomo (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It seems this would fail WT:BRAND so I dont see how we could possibly keep it. When I saw this I assumed it was a kalimotxo-style drink and was named in the manner of Irish coffee. Lollipop (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Note that WT:BRAND doesn’t apply as this is not a(n independent) brand name, though Dr Pepper is. This (as well as Dr Pepper, as I see it) is unquestionably in the lexicon; the problem is its sum of parts formulation. Polomo (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

call a spade a bloody shovel

You can infix pretty much any swear word to any idiom without anything lexically interesting happening. Adding a swear word to an phrase is just SOP, even if that swear word appears in the middle of the phrase. I can find variants of this with "damn", "damned", "goddamn", "bleeding" and "blasted", which are all SOP. Similarly, I can find "all the bloody tea in China" (and "all the tea in bloody China"), "all over the bloody place", "about bloody time", "all mouth and no bloody trousers", and that's just from the first page of Category:English idioms! Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete, when lemmatizing idioms, we want to look into what is essential to the idiom, and these intensifiers are not essential. Your examples show this well. Polomo (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment for non-native users: the original is call a spade a spade. I guess you can also call a shovel a shovel. DonnanZ (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as superfluous. I'm not sure whether call a spade a shovel should match call a spade a spade, they are two different tools at the business end. DonnanZ (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete for nominator's reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete and snowball clause this entry. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

N. donaldtrumpi

"abbreviation of Neopalpa donaldtrumpi.

This is almost certainly unlike taxonomic abbreviations like. E. coli and T. rex that can found used without previous nearby use of the full name. The sole citation shows exactly the kind of use one would must expect: use after the full name. Another kind of use would be the use of the abbreviation where N. was established as referring to genus Neopalpa. DCDuring (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the future, if it is almost certainly unlike them, speedy this, so we don't have these discussions over and over again. Fay Freak (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can Trump be likened to a moth, a fly-by-night? So this is non-standard? DonnanZ (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
S. delete. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete: this is a standard format of abbreviation that does not warrant entries in a dictionary. If we did allow them, it would mean adding millions of useless entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per the discussion somewhere else on this page. However, I must say again that Translingual entries go at WT:RFDN (maybe we should change this). Polomo (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Supreme Court of Wiktionary is going to invalidate this whole RfD for this. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

amaranth family

This was tagged for speedy deletion as SOP, but it has translations and we haven't dealt with this sort of entry in well over a decade.

It's borderline: pretty much every family of plants, animals or other organisms has this kind of a vernacular name. It consists of some representative or well known member of the family, or some characteristic the family is known by, modifying the noun "family". More often than not, the first part is taken from the taxonomic name- in the case, the family is the Amaranthaceae, which is named after the genus Amaranthus, which is known in English as the amaranths.

You can't always say the the first part of the name describes everything in it: prunes and almonds (not to mention salad burnet) belong to the rose family, but no one would call them roses. In the same way badgers, otters and polecats are all in the weasel family, Mustelidae, but they aren't weasels. On the other hand, although the first part of the name is not always predictable, the second part definitely is.

As for the translations, those can go at the Amaranthaceae entry, since we allow translations in Translingual entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom: I agree that this is, and other such types of entries would be, SoP. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As the creator of this entry, I thought it best I give my two cents, even if I think it unfair to count my vote as I am biased in this situation.
My primary argument is not necessarily in the SOPness of their construction, but in their common usage. People commonly use the "amaranth family" to refer to the family Amaranthaceae specifically, in the same way that East Asia refers to a specific group of culturally-related countries, not necessarily the coordinately eastern part of Asia. While East Asia could easily be said to be SOP, it is commonly used and has a specific group of subjects to which it refers; and I believe English vernacular botanical family names have the same quality.
However, not all of these terms are mere calques of the modern taxonomic name (which would not necessarily disqualify them even if they were). For example, the legume family is not a calque of the modern Fabaceae, but of the now-obsolete Leguminosae.
It is inarguable that these terms are edge cases, that I shall concede. However, these terms are in common usage in botanical spheres in a manner so frequently that they are, in some sense, set phrases. They are known to mean the specific taxonomic (not genealogical) family of related taxa. As someone who frequents such spheres, I may anecdotally attest to this, and I do hope you reconsider. VGPaleontologist (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wish to further append to this English vernacular species' names calqued from their taxonomic names. The term American bird grasshopper is a direct calque of Schistocerca americana, yet is undoubtedly lemmatic, despite having no particular added meaning other than that it is of the species S. americana and has certain qualities associated therewith. It is my opinion that this term is of a similar situation. VGPaleontologist (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

you break it, you buy it

SOP 174.138.212.166 00:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am a bit confused on the alt form “you break it, you bought it” — why is it (from my interpretation) past tense? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The past tense is slightly rarer and is probably from a w:Hysteron proteron emphasizing " you break it, you bought it". I'm requesting deletion as SOP because it's a simple w:Covariational conditional where the definition doesn't add any additional value. 174.138.212.166 04:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the explanation! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SoP per nom. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete you break it, you buy it as SOP. Keep you break it, you bought it as that one is not so obviously SOP. Fish567 (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Weak delete. While I can certainly sympathise with wanting to include this phrase given how common it is, the meaning is too obvious. I feel like we should demote it to a collocation, but I do not know of a good spot for it either. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 10:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep and add the unidiomatic sense of bearing responsibility for problems caused, even if nothing is literally "broken" or "bought". bd2412 T 15:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • See, e.g., 2006, Michael Anthony Epps, Why Are Parents Always Trippin'?, p. 73: "You Break It - You Buy It! If you break the bond of someone's trust, it can be a very expensive thing to replace".
    • 2009, Brian Chikwava, , p. 114: "...them English say you break it you buy it; you have break this child's life; buy it or fix it; you run around saying you is Mr Big Man shop assistant, so what?"

do a something

Something isn't right with the title here. I doubt anyone would ever even look up "do a something". Add this to do? Hup4442 (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Move the quotations to Citations:do. It looks like a variety of the sense of do used in "do somebody wrong" or "do me a favor." Maybe influenced by do a (linked back to do where the definition is currently number 17). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's too vague, delete. Does it mean do a poo or something like that? Other more specific entries are do a bunk, do a Bradbury, do a bit of stiff, do a number on, do a little trolling, do a power of good, do a lot of work, do a slow burn, and doubtless others. DonnanZ (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete, could be defined at do instead. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moved to do with agreement as creator of the entry. (Note that this should been at RfM.) J3133 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

primrose family

SOP? Hup4442 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom; same reasons as given at amaranth family. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

passport number

Tagged (7 July) but not listed. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I bet they're not always alphanumeric either. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FDB3:C44F:4F50:7012 14:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

totes adorbs

SoP: totes (totally) + adorbs (adorable); a collocation. We recently deleted totes appropes and totes inappropes under this same rationale. I will miss the pronunciation! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

cœliac plexus

I have no idea how this could have been an ‘inflection or subpage of deleted entry’, considering that it is simply an obsolete typographical variant of coeliac plexus. Here is evidence of its usage:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hGEQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1004&dq=“coeliac+plexus”

https://books.google.com/books?id=P9NOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA161&dq=“coeliac+plexus”

https://books.google.com/books?id=aM4vAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA515&dq=“coeliac+plexus”

Undelete. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 10:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Undeleted (procedurally); as Romanophile said, it's an alternative spelling not an 'inflected form of a deleted entry' (and the thing it's an alternative spelling of was not deleted either!), and it seems to be sufficiently attested. - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Baker Street

You might upset Sherlock Holmes fans, better keep the London street. I'm not sure about the Hong Kong street, though. DonnanZ (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Donnanz: that's not an adequate reason for keeping the entry (which currently has no figurative or other sense apart from the road name sense), but I think you are well aware of that. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Another editor thought it quote-worthy (and I don't need to tell you that WOTD thrives on quotes) so there is something idiomatic about the street. I have now added the Underground station in the street, and named after it. Wheels within wheels? DonnanZ (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As far as London is concerned, it's also a ward in the City of London, and I provided a reference to insure against deletion. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As I mentioned below, "Delete the road name senses as these do not comply with WT:CFI". Of course other place name senses that comply with WT:CFI are not being challenged here. However, just because a term has one or more qualifying senses does not mean the non-qualifying sense gets "saved" thereby. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
From what I can gather, the old Bishops Gate came first, followed by the street name, then the ward. Ward boundaries have changed over time, currently it contains about two-thirds of the street. So it's difficult to separate the ward from the street. DonnanZ (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Donnanz: with respect, it's not. We delete the words "street and" from the definition so that it refers only to the ward. The fact that the ward gets its name from the street is already explained in the etymology section. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid you are being more hardline than is necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The entry would remain as it's also a place name. The derived term Bow Street Runner would be left hanging if the street is deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete the road name senses (or the entry, if it only consists of road name senses) as these do not comply with WT:CFI. Any useful information about the origin of the names should be relocated into the "Etymology" sections, where applicable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It concerns me that certain editors are still trying to empty Category:en:Named roads. I have stopped using it as it is far too toxic, and feel it might be better to delete the category itself, as it has proved to be nothing but trouble. DonnanZ (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Donnanz: it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that if you disagree with WT:CFI it is open to you to start a fresh discussion about it. If you opt not to do so, then you can hardly complain if the policy (to me eminently sensible) is enforced. Also, your remark that "I have stopped using it" suggests you are continuing to create street-name entries that do not comply with the CFI and intentionally making them difficult to find. This is not behaviour we would expect of an experienced editor. I hope I'm wrong about this. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete all per nom: there are millions of roads and streets that would easily satisfy the CFI's attestation policy if we were to include these—but we do not. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
That has never happened, probably because of CFI. But some of these may have been created before CFI banned them. Cheapside was created in 2005, and Baker Street in 2007. Both were thought to be includable at the time. DonnanZ (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The relevant change to CFI occurred on 21 March 2021. That was when the rot set in. DonnanZ (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is mixing up quite a few types of entries. Keep Cheapside - it's a neighbourhood and the definition is compliant. Ditto keep Bishopsgate. Merge the senses at Canal Street (so instead we have "A street and surrounding neighbourhood in New York City" and "A street and surrounding neighbourhood in Manchester"). Reformat Bay Street to match Wall Street. Delete Baker Street (unless there's some kind of metaphorical "Sherlock Holmes fandom" sense). Delete Burmah Road. Merge senses at Cable Street. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Smurrayinchester: as mentioned above, no sense which isn't a road name is being challenged here. Thus, for Cheapside, the district definition is fine. However, sense 1 "Any of several streets in English towns and cities that were originally marketplaces" isn't, and I think that in sense 2 the mention of the street in London should be relocated to the etymology section. I don't think the CFI allows any road sense to be retained in a definition simply because the word also applies to some other geographical location such as a neighbourhood or a village. Thus, I don't think the "street and surrounding neighbourhood" formulation is permitted without changing the CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think there is danger of our entries becoming misleading if we're so dogmatic as to forbid the mention of streets even in CFI-compliant definitions. It's why we have the {{&lit}} template after all. Sometimes things are outside the scope of the dictionary, but if not mentioned suggest misleading things about the usage of terms within our scope. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Smurrayinchester: the information is not deleted; it is merely put in the "Etymology" section so I'd say there is no concern about entries being misleading. I don't buy the argument that if there are some qualifying senses in an entry, then non-qualifying senses related to the qualifying senses should be allowed. This would allow the circumvention of the whole of CFI—WT:BRAND, WT:COMPANY, and so on. This is a dangerous path to be on. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to look in every British street atlas for Cheapside, but there are eight in West Yorkshire, and three others in Greater London. As for neighbourhoods named after streets, it is better to omit the street category now following the CFI change, it's not compulsory. DonnanZ (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
From the CFI: "All place names not listed above shall be included if they have three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements. Most manmade structures, including buildings, airports, ports, bridges, canals, dams, tunnels, individual roads and streets, as well as gardens, parks, and beaches may only be attested through figurative use."
I think only streets and roads have been "picked on", nothing else, even though entries for other structures exist. I believe there are manmade beaches, but they must be the exception rather than the rule, and we don't make a habit of including them anyway, unless it's in the name of a settlement. DonnanZ (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

D1 glazer

SoP: D1 (outstanding, extreme, adjective) + glazer (one who.. well, glazes). We recently deleted D1 crashout for this same reason. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alligator Alcatraz

Fails the CFI as the (official) name of an individual building—a detention centre. Note that this is not a nickname/unofficial name, like the entry's categories suggest. Per the CFI: “Most manmade structures, including buildings may only be attested through figurative use,” thus excluding detention centres. Not to mention, there are 39 such centres in the United States with Wikipedia articles that would be eligible for entries here under our attestation requirements if we allowed this entry to remain. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's called a hot word for a start. The WP article was started on 23 June, and Wiktionary hot on its heels. Apparently it is now open, though all and sundry are criticising it, and a certain Mr. Trump has paid a visit. With an area of 39 square miles, it can't be just one building. It could be classified as a populated place - hopefully the inmates outnumber the alligators. DonnanZ (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Would it be keepable if it was a nickname? That seems a bit off. Justin the Just (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Apparently it started as a nickname, which was officially adopted. It can only happen in America... DonnanZ (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Justin the Just: Can't be bothered to check policy (though I believe it is in there, after discussions about Trump) but yes, we do tend to keep nicknames for people and places. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:EC5C:27F2:F52C:93D2 21:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep per WT:JIFFY, since the name was in use before it became official. -- King of ♥ 22:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @King of Hearts I cannot seem to verify this myself; do you have a source/attest for this? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The first public use was in a video published by Uthmeyer on June 19, 2025. In the video he is heard saying, ”The governor tasked state leaders to identify places for new temporary detention facilities. I think this is the best one, as I call it, ‘Alligator Alcatraz’.” Later that day, he explained the name for Fox Business: “If somebody were to get out, there’s nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, only the alligators and pythons are waiting. That’s why I like to call it ‘Alligator Alcatraz’.” At the time, there was no site, only a proposal for a site, so the name can hardly have been official. When The New York Times reported, on June 23, 2025, on the fact that construction had started, they still called it “a detention facility for migrants nicknamed ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ ”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@King of Hearts, Lambiam: It sounds to me like that name was perhaps a proposal for a then-unnamed site, especially due to its use by a involved party. If we require all names to immediately be official upon their coinage, then tens of thousands of buildings (think construction sites) would suddenly become eligible for inclusion. It is not really a 'nickname' if the area had no name and it was put forward (perhaps officially) as a proposed name; he was the one to propose the detention centre and name it, so I fail to see how it could really be a nickname? Also, relatedly, the earliest use of this name by him that I could find is on 17 June. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you haven't read the WP article, I recommend you should do so; especially reference 10. There I found a photo of a road sign lettered "Alligator Alcatraz". The place was built with indecent haste. DonnanZ (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The area had and has a name, Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport. "Alligator Alcatraz" is a prison hastily built in that area. Looking at the names in List of immigrant detention sites in the United States, we see that most, especially the larger ones, have names that end with “Detention” or “Correctional” followed by “Center” or “Facility”. Not a single one has a frivolous fantasy name, as if it were an adventure game or Disney World attraction.
Here is another indicator, from a news article reporting on a press conference on June 25, 2025, in Tampa:
“We had a request from the federal government to (create the facility), and so ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ it is,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said at an earlier news conference, adopting the nickname coined by his attorney general for the Everglades facility.
 ​‑‑Lambiam 07:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was hoping to find an image of an official nameboard but failed. Added an image nevertheless. DonnanZ (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

retinaculum

Rfd-sense connecting band. It seems poorly defined, and/or underspecific --212.219.142.254 07:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rather than deleting this verifiable sense, it should be defined more precisely. In this dissertation, on p. 10, the term is used for ridges that continue a pair of semilunar folds that form the ileocaecal valve.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

teasing

Sense 2: playful vexation. Same as sense 1. The "OneLook" reference is not convincing: OneLook is just a dumping-ground for content scraped from other dictionaries. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:69BC:C45B:A406:5505 16:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Zebco

The page for this not-so-known fishing supplies company is obviously created for advertisement and the creator of the page looks like they have barely any experience judging from how the page looks. KawaiiAngelx (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speedied as not just promotional but useless. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

damage over time

I fail to see how this is anything other than damage + over + time 2A02:8071:5191:AAC0:468A:5BFF:FECC:62BA 14:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually it should be damage + over time. But probably superfluous anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete – not idiomatic nor figurative, nor is it actually restricted to just games. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is indeed easy to find uses in other contexts, so I have broadened the definition accordingly.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Luna. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete, agree with Luna. TranqyPoo (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply