WORD BY LETTER : English CROSSWORD SOLVER and others things ...
Words starting with : 
Words ending  with : 
Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet
Find a definition : 
Home

definition of the word Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion

by the Wiktionnary

IC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Wiktionary:Requests for deletion - Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | Archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | Index

Verification and GENERAL DELETION nominations and discussion.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Deletion for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Special page deletion requests, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfcc}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{rfr}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5
This is for pages in the main namespace. For all other pages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.

This page is where users can propose and discuss the deletion of pages in the main namespace (see the nomination category). Requests are archived when a decision has been reached (be it deleted, kept, or transwikied); the deleting administrator should remember to sign.

Notes
  • Terms that failed a request for verification are presumed invalid. They should not be resubmitted as the same term without adequate verification (see verification archives) and do not need duplicate listings here.
  • Terms should be listed on Requests for verification if their attestation is being called into question.
  • Section title should be exactly the wikified entry title, only. The entry should have the tag {{rfd}} at the top.
  • Very blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed (here, nor elsewhere).
  • 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 (not necessarily an administrator) may act on the discussion.
  • Entries and senses should not be deleted in less than seven days, except for speedy deletion candidates. When there is no consensus, add the template {{look}} to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry maybe kept as a 'no consensus'.

Good nomination guidelines - Page deletion guidelines - Overview of the deletion process - List of deletion templates, categories, etc.
Start a new deletion nomination
Oldest tagged {{rfd}}s

new
Focke-Wulf 190
Messerschmitt 109
adiabatic lapse rate
-nomics
cooperation
application domain
in front of
work on
Uncle Scrooge
damn and blast
there
ou
Force
laten ontsporen
careerist
neerkijken op
dark green
Philly cheesesteak
take time
free variable
all one's eggs in one basket
BOMDAS
Vespasian
supposed to
毛主席
to that end
island chain
harsh one's mellow
queer one's pitch
wind up one's bottoms
blow one's chances
be able to
not a zack
good job
deaf and dumb
bent as a two bob
take a shot
organ transplant
forearm bone
munjosprem
degree of glory
home side
in back of
two-wheeled
Republican Party
Democratic Party
Labour Party
Conservative party
Liberal Democrats


Contents


User:Sawbackedeagle added these in good faith before he was aware of the CFI. While we have (and probably should have) the likes of Messerschmitt, I think that these very specific designations are probably no-nos. (Compare Xbox and Xbox 360.) Equinox 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to RfV. It is not very hard to find attributive use of Messerschmitt 109 (with "pilot", "squadron", for example). It would thereby meet our standard for such entries. Focke-Wulf 190 might also. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, CFI requires attributive use “with a widely understood meaning”. A Messerschmitt pilot has no special meaning, he's just the pilot of a Messerchmitt. Michael Z. 2009-08-09 17:37 z
Where are you seeing that in the CFI? Seems to me at first glance at least that these are not idiomatic, nevermind whether they're attested (in attributive use or otherwise).—msh210 19:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I has thinking that these are product/brand names, like Concorde. Mind you, I am not sure that the collocations do qualify. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend that we delete these, but keeping (or creating) the individual parts such as Messerschmitt and 109,, and Focke-Wulf and 190. There is a tendency for the company name to indicate these models if no other context is mentioned. The numbers were commonly used on their own. A more likely method is to use the common abbreviation such as ME 109 etc.--Dmol 05:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, delete (or move to ME 109/FW 190). Not idiomatic regardless of whether they can be attested, much like Xbox 360. DAVilla 06:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Move to the abbreviated forms per DAVilla. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All uses shown are blends, not stem+suffix. Perhaps another def.? DCDuring TALK 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that for Reaganomics, Clintonomics and Nixonomics; but Thatchernomics, Obamanomics, and Rogernomics seem more plausibly affix-like (though they are also plausible as blends). OED has this sense and an older one from -nomy with derivations like pyronomics. Color me neutral on the economics sense; it seems bogus, but on the other hand the morphology of these compounds is rather imponderable and this can be found in multiple reputable dictionaries (at least the OED and Webster's New International). -- Visviva 04:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"Standardized" blends (you'll never see a blend of economics that goes -onomics unless the master word ends in -on or a similar syllable) tend to evolve toward a very strong suffixlike quality. Compare eco-, which one could argue actually evolved from blends with ecology, not the actual Greek root (I'm dubious about that purported French etymology... In any case, my Robert marks it as "extracted from écologie"). Circeus 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you know its competing with -omics for derived terms right now? I think -nomics may be a joinder of two adjectives -an + -omics. Such as Obama-an-omics. Goldenrowley 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
These uses seem to be vernacular constructions, not formal. There is no reason that both can not exist (wouldn't be the first time a prefix varied based on the last letter of the root to which it was joined). bd2412 T 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just be at nibs with usage examples or redirects for "his/her/my/your/their((/our?) nibs"? DCDuring TALK 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it is an awkward way to refer to someone, kinda like Your Majesty. It should probably be redirected, to nibs or where else I'm not certain. DAVilla 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep as a set phrase. It's quite common in speech, but as it's informal it might be hard to cite in print. I don't think I have ever heard anything other than his, and would challenge her/my/your/their etc.--Dmol 04:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not RfV. It is easy enough to cite, just as one could cite "his holiness" or "his car". One could also cite "her nibs", "my nibs", "your nibs", and "their nibs" (but probably not "our nibs"}. All might warrant a redirect to nibs, which has the appropriate sense. I don't think an entry at [[one's nibs]] has much value. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a world of difference between "his holiness" and "his car". You don't talk to your car, much less address it with a proper title. I'm sure Dmol means he's never heard anything other than "his nibs" as a form of address. 72.177.113.91 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant. I have never heard "her nibs", "my nibs", "your nibs", and "their nibs" or "our nibs". But "his nibs" is common, and means exactly what it says in the definition.--Dmol 11:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That you haven't heard of them is a useful datapoint. Perhaps "nibs" is no longer productive, like "word" in my word.
But my preliminary research seemed to show "her nibs" to be almost as common as his nibs. The other forms also would probably be attestable, if not common. Dictionaries don't seem to choose to waste their users' time (clicks) showing any of such phrases as "Your Majesty", "His Majesty", "Her Majesty", "Their Majesty", "Our Majesty", "My Majesty" and some attestable plurals and capitalisations thereof, instead drawing the user to "majesty". The analog seems possible here as well. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure nibs should be defined that way if it's only in the two very specific phrases his nibs and her nibs; perhaps instead it should include =See also= links to those two phrases? But if nibs is to be defined that way, then I suppose we should redirect the phrases to it.​—msh210 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"His nibs" appeared in Webster 1913. More recent dictionaries not copying Webster mostly have "nibs", "usually 'his nibs' or 'her nibs'". Some say that one would never refer to someone as "nibs" to their face, but "your nibs" is attestable. Late 19th century slang dictionaries had it as meaning "self" and included "my nibs". I have added some citations at nibs, which could still benefit from a usage note. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih 03:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It speaks or itself. DCDuring TALK 09:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited, but I think it should not be capitalised — at the very least plastic shouldn't. Equinox 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Moved. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Attestation isn't the primary issue. "Plastic" is used to mean "ersatz", "second-rate", "wannabe" all the time. This seems just another instance of the miracle of logocombination. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does plastic mean this of people as well? DAVilla 12:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It certainly has had the meaning. That meaning was part of the resonance for the career advice given to Dustin Hoffman's character in w:The Graduate. I note that our definition doesn't have that sense. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This work discusses the meanings I have in mind. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I had wondered whether the sense was dated. It doesn't seem to be. The application to people may have been somewhat out of fashion. I have in-line cites at plastic which should mostly be moved to citations:plastic when the discussion is done. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, delete. DAVilla 11:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, I agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

def seems wrong. But also probably SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can’t guess the meaning, so it isn’t SoP. It it’s really a term, it should be defined by somebody who knows what it is. —Stephen 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Confusingly, WP has two separate articles that don't link to each other: w:Application Domain (the Microsoft .NET software concept, which is what this entry was defining) and w:Application domain (unrelated broader term where a "domain" is a sub-discipline). I have rewritten the def (in the given Microsoft sense) to try to make it a bit clearer. Equinox 15:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, in programming, an "application domain" is the (virtual) space in which the application rules as reserved by its liege, the .NET framework. This does make us into a bit of a shill for Microsoft. How does it work in other realms? Would this be a good use of {{only in}}, pointing at Wikipedia? DCDuring TALK 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this term exists only in the .NET world. Mind you, I think the same thing applies to delegate, and I'd be sorry to lose that. Equinox 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The closest in IBM mainframe programming is the "problem state" - the state in which application programs run, as opposed to "supervisor state" in which the operating system runs and can execute more powerful op-codes. SemperBlotto 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's entirely the same. The "application domain" isn't a restricted domain for applications only, like userland: it is per application, so you might have Excel, Word and Notepad all running in separate application domains (supposing they were .NET applications). Equinox 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. This really just seems like a metaphor to an outsider, but it must have a life of its own. Can the use of a metaphor by a single vendor and its minions be deemed independent use? Is Microsoft like IUPAC for chemical names and the French Academy for French, the authority on language within its domain? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Microsoft dictates the language of its own technologies, yes — not only because you must use their terms to be easily understood by other .NETters, but also because the languages tend to enforce the terminology. (For example, if you want to do something to an application domain in your source code, you are likely to have to instantiate the AppDomain class: that's its built-in name.) IMO, the real question is whether we consider the technology (.NET generally, and app domains specifically) broad and important enough for inclusion in a dictionary. I would say this is a relatively obscure term and I expect some proportion of professional .NET programmers haven't had to care about them. Equinox 21:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sense "facing (someone)": I'm not convinced that this sense is any different from "in the presence of" — at least, the examples suggest they are identical in meaning. If I am in front of a large group of people, I needn't actually be facing them — I could have my back to them — but I am still in their presence. — Paul G 15:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the definition was no good, but I changed it because I think "in the presence of" doesn't cover the implication of being the antonym of behind (as regards the 3rd def, I may be wrong but I was taught before can't be used in expressions like "in front of the house"). --Duncan 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. good rewrite, except the example sentence should be moved - consider "in front of the hotel/theatre/cinema" (the hotel/theatre/cinema doesn't really have a presence). A front door/back door--Jackofclubs 19:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right. I changed the example sentence as well. --Duncan 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good fix, but now how is the third sense any different from the first one? — Paul G 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I was saying, I may be wrong, but according to what I was taught the "before" in the third def implies a queue, a sequence of events etc, so that you couldn't say "Both parties met before the castle [...]". But I admit that (even if I'm right) I'm not certain whether this would warrant the third def, or whether it's covered by the first one. --Duncan 10:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have found a total of four senses: "ahead of" (queue), "outside the entrance of" (pace Jackofclubs), "in the presence of", and "facing" (a crowd, a mirror, a piece of equipment, a desk) from MWOnline and RHU. If you are "sitting in front of the window", does that mean you are not looking out the window? I'm not sure that even these four senses cover everything common. DCDuring TALK 01:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: "If you are "sitting in front of the window", does that mean you are not looking out the window?": I don't think it means that, no. At least, not always. google books:"sitting in front of the window looking" gives context for six hits (out of seven), and in all of them, the person is in fact looking out. —RuakhTALK 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Disney character; unlike Mickey Mouse, very unlikely to have any generic sense. Equinox 14:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Found cites and corrected the definition. Michael Z. 2009-05-16 16:43 z
New sense looks fairly promising, despite a couple of citations with quotation marks, but the 1977 cite refers to an "Uncle Scrooge Money Bin" (a specific thing from the cartoon series, not something belonging to a "rich miser"), so perhaps that one should go. Equinox 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Move it to the citations page rather than just deleting. Even if it is not a perfectly qualifying citation for CFI, it may demonstrate how the term is used or contribute to the history of its adoption (or that of another term). You'll notice that in Schraeder 2005, it appears once in quotation marks, but later without, demonstrating that the author introduces it self-consciously, but then just uses it. In the “Money Bin” citation I would argue that Uncle Scrooge is used to introduce the Money Bin, so readers who don't understand the direct reference to the second term would still get the gist of it from the mention of the first. Also notable is that the very first citation may be a transcription of speech. Michael Z. 2009-05-16 22:19 z
Well, I won't kick up a fuss about the one citation. Closing my own RFD, because the newly created sense seems dictionary-worthy. Equinox 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Good rewrite--Jackofclubs 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Michael Z. 2009-05-16 22:19 z
Keep as rewritten and cited. --Dmol 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This is good too (okay, excellent), but what's wrong with the original definition? (edit:) Why not keep that as well? DAVilla 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Good question. I don't know if it is possible to find citations which meet CFI's requirement for attributive use and also support a definition of Uncle Scrooge as the cartoon duck. The subject sounds encyclopedic and non-lexicographical to me. In my opinion, the etymology and Wikipedia link already have all the encyclopedic details we need. But only the quotations will tell for sure.
Should we RfV all of the Disney characters for consistency? Michael Z. 2009-05-21 14:47 z
I think they would all pass, that is, the major characters that we already include. I don't know what to make of attributive use, but it is cited according to both that and the proposed criterion of metaphoric use as well. DAVilla 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck after adding back original sense. Keep. DAVilla 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? There are no quotations concerning cartoon ducks. Michael Z. 2009-05-26 04:40 z
What good would that do? Do you really doubt this is what it means when not in metaphor? The only question is if it's "noteworthy" enough to keep, in the sense that it has entered the lexicon. Clearly it has. DAVilla 04:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Noteworthiness doesn't enter into WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. It says “attributively, with a widely understood meaning,” which describes sense 2, not 1. Barack Obama is noteworthy too, but the person and and the duck don't belong in the dictionary. Michael Z. 2009-05-27 03:27 z
Thank you for stating the complete obvious. I though that a term entering the lexicon would be a compelling reason to include it, but you've just forged a rock solid rationale on what must be the most contested, ambiguous, and outdated section of CFI. I feel it almost a complete waste to make arguments that aren't taken into consideration in the slightest, other than to be dismissed out of hand. You position I will grant you is totally consistent with itelf, but not consistent with the fact that there are a great number of specific people, characters, and the like on Wiktionary already. If you disagree with this then please vote against my proposal and be done with it. Oh, and you might have to ignore Google Book hits like "Barack Obama supporter" and "Uncle Scrooge comic book". I'm not sure why you might find those sorts of quotations the least bit interesting, but they do meet the holy criterion of CFI section 32 verse 1. DAVilla 07:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The last two are direct references to the specific entities. An Uncle Scrooge comic book is a comic book about Uncle Scrooge. It is a mention of the actual (fictional) duck, not the use of a word stemming from the duck's name; it's as useful for CFI as “Uncle Scrooge said ‘quack.’” A person being mentioned, even a lot, is not the same as their name “entering the lexicon,” that is becoming a word in the language. Michael Z. 2009-05-30 02:31 z
I agree completely (and not being sarcastic as I partly was above). Although I believe Uncle Scrooge has entered the lexicon, the quotation of "Uncle Scrooge comic book" does not support that assertion. It does however illustrate the literal sense that you disputed, and attributively so, where by attributive I mean in the grammatical sense of modifying a noun. I don't think this is a very good way to judge terms, hence the vote. If you can exemplify another use of attributive then by all means suggest that instead. The examples we have though are not applicable to the types of information we do include. As noted elsewhere, Empire State Building was given as an example of what we do not include until we voted to keep it after all, and you should also know that there are many types of fictional characters included besides just Disney. DAVilla 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I certainly do know. That guideline needs clarification, but perhaps not any substantial change (at least if we can agree on what it means). Also, the examples aren't helping with this.
“A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning.” I believe this means something like “with a widely understood meaning, independent of its referent.” I think it is often applied this way. Does that sum it up? Is that an improved wording? Michael Z. 2009-05-31 04:19 z
No mention of Charles Dickens?

rfd-sense: (in conjunction with verb be) In existence or in this world; mention of unspecified location, somewhere.

there is something amiss.

This doesn't seem right. Other dictionaries call this kind of usage a pronoun, which seems better to me. See there#Pronoun. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really a pronoun, either. I'd lean towards calling it a preposed adverb. Consider:
There is something I'd like to say.
In the letter is something I'd like to say.
This helps (a little) to show that there is not functioning as the subject in the first example. It's merely a sentence order inversion from:
Something I'd like to say is there.
--EncycloPetey 18:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It definitely originates as a preposed adverb, as you say, but its current usage seems to me to have spread out a bit. Firstly, there's certainly been semantic bleaching (consider e.g. "There's something odd here" — or for that matter, "In the letter there's something I'd like to say"); secondly, it's used in cases where I think any other preposed adverb would sound odd (consider e.g. "I expected there to be a problem", "He demanded there be an inquiry"); thirdly, many speakers have granted it singular status regardless of its complement (e.g., "there was an apple and a clock on the table"), and in AAVE it can sometimes (always?) be replaced with "it" (e.g., "people tell me it ain't no way", which I heard on the street last night). —RuakhTALK 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
And all of that can be explained by adverbial status, yes? The additional sentences you've given are still inversion of normal sentence order ("I expected there to be a problem." vs "I expected a problem to be there.") Contraction with the verb is not limited to one part of speech: "The boy's insane!" (noun); "Larry's gone home." (proper noun); "He's not here." (pronoun); "Now's the time to act." (adverb); "Clean's better than dirty" (adjective); "Never again's my motto." (phrase).
The question of "always singular" can be interpreted as "invariant because it's an adverb". Incorrect verb agreement is not limited to this expression, as I often hear manglings such as "We was late," or "None of you walk away now!" Using a singular verb when a plural form is traditionally used is a general phenomenon independent of the use of there. --EncycloPetey 23:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So you would argue that in each of the following pairs, both versions are equally acceptable (or equally unacceptable, in the case of the last one)? :
  • There's something odd here. vs. Here's something odd there.
  • I expected there to be a problem. vs. I expected here to be a problem.
  • He demanded there be an inquiry. vs. He demanded here be an inquiry.
  • [pointing at a photograph] There's us. vs. We's right there.
If so, I suspect that you and I must spend time with very different sorts of people. (Note: I'm not specifically saying that it's not an adverb; I don't know for sure. It seems almost meaningless to apply terms like "adverb" and "pronoun" to a single use of a given grammatical word, when no other word shares its grammar. What I am saying is that I think that for many speakers of Standard American English, this usage is simply an expletive subject with delayed semantic subject, just like "it" in "It's well known that the sky is blue." This makes it very tempting to label it a pronoun, since English's only other expletive subject is a pronoun, and it definitely feels more natural to classify a subject as a pronoun than as an adverb.)
RuakhTALK 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If we permitted English words to be classified as "Particle", then that's where I'd prefer to see this go. Failing that, I prefer "adverb" (which is a very nebulous category) because it is so closely tied to the verb, and because the label of "Adverb" permits a broader range of functions than does "Pronoun". Oh, and yes, I have indeed heard people say "We's right there," or "There's us," although fortunately not so often now that I live in a different area. --EncycloPetey 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "particle" would be best. And yes, I've also heard both "we's right there" and "there's us", but I really don't see how you can view them as equally (un)acceptable. To me "there's us" is semi-acceptable in some instances and completely acceptable, albeit informal, in others ("Who all is coming?" "Well, let's see … there's the Smiths … there's the Joneses … there's us, of course … and … um, I'm not sure who else."), whereas "we's right there" is always quite unacceptable. (If I were a prescriptivist, I think I'd call "there's us" something like "O.K. in colloquial speech", and "we's right there" something like "please retake kindergarten".) —RuakhTALK 01:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So I've thought about it further, and I think you may be right that insofar as we can't use "particle", "adverb" is more accurate than "pronoun"; there's not a clear line between usages like "there you are", where "there" is clearly adverb-like (specifically, I think it's an intransitive preposition), and usages like "there's many books there", where it seems to have ventured off the worn path of any POS. I mean, these two uses are very different from each other, but you can devise a fairly continuous walk from "there you are" to "there’s the book I was reading" to "there's the book I was reading" to "there's a book I was reading" to "there's a book there" to "there's many books there", and it's really impossible to say where on this path it stopped being an adverb and started being a pronoun. Or rather, it's too possible: any step seems reasonable, but none seems convincing. —RuakhTALK 18:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is "it" also a "preposed adverb" by this logic? Somehow the etymology seems more important than usage in this classification decision. And we seem to be in disagreement with prevailing lexicographic practice. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really referring to the etymology, but rather to the entire range of current uses, which includes everything from original and obviously-adverbial (or whatever) uses to ???!!!-ial uses that, according to your comment below, cispondian dictionaries call pronominal and transpondian ones adverbial.
As I said above, usage doesn't really support any POS very well. There is no POS that exhibits this sort of behavior. AFAIK English has exactly two expletive subjects: it (otherwise a personal pronoun), and there (otherwise an adverb/adjective/preposition/something). Neither one's expletive use is really predictable from its non-expletive use; and this would hardly be the first time that words of two different parts of speech have overlapping grammar (cf. adjectives and attributive nouns).
Overall, I really hate our need to discretely identify a word's languages, parts of speech, etymologies, etc. These things are not always discrete.
I'm happy to follow cispondian dictionaries in including a pronoun sense — that's certainly more convenient, as it gives us more room in which to explain the range of uses — but I don't see why we can't also follow transpondian dictionaries in listing it as an adverb. ("In existence; see pronoun section below.")
RuakhTALK 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be fine. I see that some "there [copula]" usage can have more than a hint of adverbial "placeness". Longmans DCE strikes me as a leader in grammar and usage presentation in a dictionary. That they choose to have the pronoun PoS is meaningful and makes it less of a cis-/trans- thing. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Longman's also has an "in existence" sense under adverb, with these three clearly-non-pronoun example sentences:
The chance was there, but I didn't take it.
The countryside is there for everyone to enjoy.
Three months after the operation, the pain was still there.
These share the semantic bleaching, but not the grammar, of the "there is ___" uses.
RuakhTALK 20:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't have occurred to me to try to call those usages pronominal, related though they are semantically. They seem to me to behave more like most normal, boring adverbs. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe you've mis-read Ruakh's comments. Those instances are marked as "adverb" in Longman. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Longmans is a leader, yes, but that does not mean that they always make the best choices. I've been trying to decide why the "semantic coloring" argument does sit well with me, and have finally figured out why. Consider the reversibility / non-reversibility of the following parallel constructions:
* "There is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is there."
* "It is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is it."
* "Green Gables is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is Green Gables."
* "Decaying is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is decaying."
* "Scary is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is scary."
The first of each pair only sounds right for the first three. The fourth pair's first half sounds odd, and in the fifth pair, the first half of that pair has grammar that would only be found in a fortune cookie. So, an adjective or participle doesn't work for reversibility. In similar fashion, the latter half of the second and third pairs sound wrong. Neither a pronoun nor adjective works properly in the predicate position.
The question, then, is whether the first pair is a reversal in which the meaning is truly preserved, or whether there truly is a shift in the meaning and/or emphasis. I haven't fully decided how I come down on that issue. I can see both as having the same meaning, but perhaps not. Sometimes the second half of the first pair sounds normal, but it can also come out like Yoda-speak. It does seem a bit of an archaic form to me. --EncycloPetey 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand, but I'd like to. I think I agree with your readings of the naturalness of all of the sentences above. As to "there": to me the "place" senses could be considered adverbial in all cases. The usages that don't seem to fit are most clearly seen in: "There is a certain something about him that I really like." There_(!!!) could be pointing involved, but not plausibly. "Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
In some of the real cases involving what I consider the quasi-pronominal usage of "there", ambiguity remains because the sentences can be read with a "place" sense. But many cases have left behind even the most virtual kind of spatiality.
In "There is an old house on the hill.", "there" could be about "place", but it is more likely about existence. For it to be about place, it would need extra stress on "there". Then it might be equivalent to "An old house on the hill is there.", which doesn't seem very natural unless "there" is accompanied by physical pointing or is read as equivalent to "An old house-on-the-hill is there." (or "An old-house-on-the-hill is there.") DCDuring TALK 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Could there have been a pondian cleavage in labeling this. Tellingly, Cambridge American calls it a pronoun; Cambridge Advanced Learners shows the same usage as adverb. Oxford shows adverb. Longmans shows pronoun, as does Collins. Webster's 1913 shows both, but is reticent about calling it a pronoun as was Webster's 1828. Webster's 1828 expresses a somewhat reluctant acceptance of this "meaningless" usage. The other American dictionaries show pronoun, if they cover it (as WNW does not). I suppose that the label doesn't much matter, but keeping it an adverb gives more weight to etymology and Chaucerian usage than to the nature of current usage. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know what a firm is and you know about "lever" or leverage, you would know this. Main sense of firm#Noun. Main business sense of lever#Verb. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what a firm is and I know lever and leverage. Let me guess: a company that has special controls (handles, levers)? Or a company that has special powers, such as a department for lobbying Washington (to exercise leverage)? It’s hard to think of a reasonable definition, and impossible to know if one of my wild guesses is right without looking at the proper definition. —Stephen 16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Logically, "levered firm" does not seem to fit our definition for "lever"; it seems to mean basically "levering firm". I'm guessing that the correct action is to delete [[levered firm]] and add the correct adjective sense to [[levered]] — unlike Stephen, I think it's quite likely that "levered firm" means "firm that is levered", for some sense of "levered" that we don't have — but as I'm not familiar with any of these, I can't say for sure. —RuakhTALK 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In the US the verb leverage#Verb has exactly the meaning in the form I am familiar with. I think that lever#Verb has a synonymous sense, perhaps more non-US, but I haven't put in the time to confirm. Both "leveraged firm" and "levered firm" have more than 400 raw b.g.c. hits, "leveraged" being a bit more common. With other appropriate financial terms "leveraged" is much more common. We are the only OneLook dictionary with this term, but they also don't have the right sense of "lever", except for one invisible specialized investor glossary. About 20 OneLook glossaries have the right sense of "leverage" (usually as a noun). Some regular dictionaries, too (sometimes the verb). DCDuring TALK 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If we’re the only one, that makes us superior. I can’t figure out what it means unless I look it up somewhere, which is something that I have not done yet. —Stephen 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. google books:"firm is|was levered" suggests that this is SOP; but until we've actually defined the Ps, I don't feel comfortable deleting their S. I guess my vote is to merge into [[levered]]. No deletion of "levered firm" without representation at "levered"! :-P   —RuakhTALK 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the most productive things about compound entries and the RfD process is that they compel us SoPers to validate our assertions by improving the definitions of the components, whatever the outcome of the RfD. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and to me it's not obvious that the firm is levering itself. Maybe it's just unfamiliarity with the topic, but it feels to me like this may be worth keeping. DAVilla 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems idiomatic (but not very) because levered + firm doesn't tell you whpo is doing the levering. So kept as no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Defined as "A mine from which coal is mined." Classic sum-of-parts entry. --EncycloPetey 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete and move definition to coalmine, I suppose. Unlike gold mine and (apparently) salt mine, this has no figurative sense. Equinox 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Improve the definition and keep. Not all coal mines are mines. Good dictionaries (including as the Random House) have it and so should we. My Random House has coal mine, but not coalmine. I don’t think coalmine is a common American spelling. —Stephen 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Which coal mines aren't mines? --EncycloPetey 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
coal mine is 50 times more common than coalmine on COCA, but the 5 appearances of "coalmine" would make it attestable in the US.
  • Move to RfV. I'd be interested to find any attestable figurative use of "coal mine".
There's an extra complication in the word "mine". When most people say "mine", they mean an underground mine. An open-pit mine requires the extra qualification (except where there is a specific referent individual or class). DCDuring TALK 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that relevant here? All coal mines I've ever seen (even in film) are underground mines. Both the Welsh and Appalachian coal mines are subterranean. Even if some of them are above ground, wouldn't it still be a mine for coal, and thus sum of parts? --EncycloPetey 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Many (most?) of the big coal mines in Australia are open cut, which means that the synonyms colliery, meaning only an underground mine, is incorrect in this instance. --Dmol 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That just means the synonym is wrong. An open-cut mine is still a mine. It's not a reason to keep, is it? Equinox 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No. I didn't mean to introduce a red herring. I have added an "especially" clause at mine: "especially underground" that addresses the complication at the appropriate place, I think.
The reason to move this to RfV is to allow for the possibility that there is a sense of "coal mine" that is analogous to the figurative senses of gold mine and salt mine that justify their inclusion. It seems to me that it might exist even though I can't recollect it now and may never have been exposed to it. It might be worth 30+ days in RfV to determine it. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The first line of WT:CFI says "all words in all languages]], and coalmine is definitely a word, but since it's the alternative spelling of coal mine then that would become a red link, rendering coalmine useless. Also, it seems silly to delete the one that's 50 times more common the the other one just because it has a space in the middle. Weird logic, I know, but I can't seem to pick a hole in the argument. Mglovesfun 21:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The entry for [[coalmine]] could say "Alternative spelling of [[coal]] [[mine]]". DCDuring TALK 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It isn't current practice, but I could definitely support it. DAVilla 16:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I think that's a fine idea. Equinox 15:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That little thing is now done. I'd been doing similar things on Ullman's "Missing" pages, to prevent entries that probably wouldn't meet CFI. Non-English entries often have wikilinks for terms the translators wish were entries in English to support translation back into their language. Some seem to me to be non-starters under WT:CFI, some more debatable. I try to leave the debatable ones alone.
Do such things benefit from a "+" or similar indication that the components are separate wikilinks? I think so. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Kept, majority or no consensus. Take your pick. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

These are nothing more than their components, but might be good to illustrate in usage examples or quotes at damn, blast, and/or ass. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think damn and blast (and perhaps a couple of others, like bugger and blast) is idiomatic. AFAIK, nobody would say "blast and damn" nor "damn and shit". Equinox 19:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
damn and blast is about 50% more frequent at b.g.c. than blast and damn. "blast and bugger" is about as frequent as "bugger and blast". DCDuring TALK 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete, not idiomatic, not difficult to guess the meaning, and for damn your ass surely at the very least this should be damn someone's ass - you can damn anyone's ass, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The entry is of what is claimed to be an Interjection, but would possibly better belong under a Phrase header and categorized grammatically as Category:English imperatives with others that form independent sentences. We have several of these imperative forms, "go to hell" but not "go home". We treat shut up (be quiet) in a usage notes. The only PoS header at [[shut up]] is Verb. All invective has a grammar, mostly identical to normal grammar, with a few remarkable exceptions, like -fucking- and -bloody-. I am torn as to how to present these. If they are deleted, users will reinsert them. Blocking the entry might be an option, but makes us seem prudish. One or more appendices on invective, oaths, euphemisms, and similar subjects with lists of common non-idiomatic collocations and a lot of entries using {{only in}} would be my long-term preference.
Redirects seem the best alternative at the moment. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
But to what? damn? Probably, but why not blast for the second one. A page can't redirect to multiple pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Keep damn and blast as a strongly set phrase (yes, I would keep hell and damnation too). Delete or conceivably redirect damn your ass. Adequately covered by your ass. Er, so to speak. -- Visviva 13:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If it were really "set", why so many "blast and damn"s. There is clearly a productive grammar of invective by which terms like this are formed. I'm not sure that such grammar is well covered in CGEL (Damn their eyes!), but a grammar it is. I'll have to see if I can get a hint of that grammar from The "F" Word, 3rd edition. 2009. Delete. DCDuring TALK 17:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is odd. But something peculiar is going on with the b.g.c. counts. The hits for "blast and damn" run out at 388. The hits for "damn and blast" run out at 400. "That's odd", said I, so I tested "damn"; the hits ran out at 341. :-/
For a second opinion, I turned to the BNC; it gives 14 hits for "damn and blast" vs. 1 chance collocation for "blast and damn". (COCA yields 1 and 0, confirming Britishness). Absent further evidence, it seems setphraseish. If our invective coverage ever gets up to snuff, I daresay we can find some useful things to say about it.
Per the lemming test, I note that Partridge has an entry for this. Actually three entries; one for the interjection and one each for a noun and a verb that bear further investigation. -- Visviva 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Doing the search from the US gives me 19 hits for "damn and blast" and more than a hundred for "blast and damn". Not a single one in the damn/blast order is after 1922. On News the ratio is 10:1, so perhaps the order is becoming set. Is 5:1 an adequate threshold of setness of order? DCDuring TALK 12:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I had done the bgc search with "full text only". I can reproduce my earlier results on relative frequency on US bgc. Subtracting the Partridge/Oxford mentions and "God damn and blast" makes it even more nearly equal. DCDuring TALK 12:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted damn your ass. Less of a consensus for the former. Keep going. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(aviation) prefix for De Havilland manufactured aircraft model numbers--Jackofclubs 08:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not an independent term, and only part of proper names of models. Michael Z. 2009-06-06 14:25 z
No prefix or suffix is an independent term, but we include them. I don't think we need this, but is the rationale in the fact that it is for a commercial product, that it is a brand prefix and needs to meet stricter standards? Not that I understand the logic of attesting attributive use of a prefix. This needs Talmudic, Jesuitical, or Austinian analysis. DCDuring TALK 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Deleted. The aviation model may be better in Wikipedia disambiguation page.--Jusjih 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

SoP: and + shit (defn 4 - Stuff, things). As SoP as and stuff, and whatver, and crap, and whatnot. --Jackofclubs 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The example in the article is Oh no! All this seaweed and shit is getting all over me! - well obviously you need the 'and' in there to make it grammatical in the same way that you'd say I have a cat and a dog, that doesn't mean that and a dog is an idiomatic phrase, does it? Delete, Mglovesfun 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not so fast. What about "to get hectic and shit"? (Taken from COCA, which has 278 hits for "and shit"). It seems a bit weird grammatically, being a noun ending a sequence of adjectives. It is a construction into which the others would fit. This is not an isolated example. How does that fit into our entry at shit?
It seems strange that "shit" and "crap" can fit in the same grammatical slot as "whatever" and "whatnot".
Relatedly, what is the analysis of and all in "Sure they have a million entries and all, but they aren't a real dictionary."? DCDuring TALK 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps relatedly, how come we have and so on but not so on? (And I've heard people mocking the yoof appending "'n' shit" to things. Never a properly pronounced and.) Equinox 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see and shit, and stuff, and crap created, just like et cetera and and so on. You can't say "and miscellaneous items", can you? Even now I am not sure what they mean exactly; they do not seem to be exactly synonymous to "et cetera". It seems they are sometimes used as a generic intensifier without necessarily referring to any cetera. --Dan Polansky 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You could say "and miscellaneous items", but it would sound bureaucratic. Indeed there is often no referent. I'm not sure it's exactly an intensifier, though. "Whatnot", "stuff", "whatever", "all", "so on", and even "crap" convey various speaker attitudes different from "shit", possibly about the item(s) before the "and", but possibly about the situation or life in general. (Yoofs are notorious for the varied 'tudes they cop.) DCDuring TALK 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong delete, crap and shit can both mean (slang) unnamed items, objects or other things. et and cetera aren't English words on their own, and as Equinox points out, so on is never used without and to mean the same thing. Or if it is, I can't think of a single example. Ergo and shit + and crap are unidiomatic (conjunction + noun) and should go. Still, is there a consensus here that anyone can make out? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I dispute that this is SoP without some major extensions of the meanings of shit. This is used to end sequences of a few kinds of parts of speech, not just of nouns (and pronouns and proper nouns?). I have seen it end sequences of adjectives and pure verbs (not just gerundial nouns or infinitives). (I have not yet seen in end sequences of adverbs.} I would not normally expect a noun to be used to end such a sequence. So shit#Adjective, shit#Verb, and possibly shit#Adverb should all have senses corresponding to sense 4 of shit#Noun so that we can safely delete this as SoP. I have noted that other dictionaries explicitly define their sequence-enders to include verbs and attributes.
Other sequence-enders such as "and whatnot" and "and stuff" might merit an entry if they also are used to end sequences that are not nominal.
We join other (mostly US) dictionaries in having idiomatic sequence-enders such as and all, and all that, and so on, and so forth, et cetera, et alii, and et alia. We also have other "and" terms such as and then some; and terms of questionable but unchallenged idiomaticity, such as and change, and and counting; and shit, premature deletion of this gives the appearance of bowdlerizing our selection of sequence-ender headwords.
IOW, keep. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DCDuring's POS analysis.​—msh210 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice we've just deleted the Japanese entry for ojo which acted as a mini index to ojō, ōjo, and ōjō. The Chinese entry for ou acts as a mini index to ōu, óu, ǒu, and òu.

All of the arguments for and against seem to apply equally to both languages.

The specific arguments which resulted in deletion in that case were:

  • romanization with no indication of vowel length seems to be what you might call a "common misromanization".
  • This is what {{also}} was designed for.

See Talk:ojo

The only linguistic difference is that the diacritics for Japanese indicate vowel length whereas the diacritics for Chinese indicate tone.

If we have no policy that "mini indexes" are suitable for languages whose romanization indicates tone but not vowel length then the existing policies must be applied equally to all languages.

The only other difference I could identify in the Japanese page from the Chinese page is the format. If the issue is the format then this should be clearly stated rather than the arguments in the previous RFD. — hippietrail 07:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that Fantizi is also currently under RFD for being a Chinese romanization without dicritics. — hippietrail 07:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep. We have several thousand of these entries, one for every Chinese language. While that alone is not a basis for keeping them, they are not indexes, but definitions. It is easy enough to come across texts containing transliterated Chinese phrases where the diacritics are left out altogether, meaning that the reader looking up the term will not know which tone to use (or even which tones can be used for a particular word, or that the Chinese language has tones). We have two alternatives - have a short definition indicating that ou is a Chinese word which is missing a necessary accent (akin to a common misspelling), or to list all the Chinese words for which this error can be made in each unaccented form (which, in some cases, would yield a list of hundreds). I suggest that it would not be worth the labor of removing these thousands of entries to the end of making our dictionary less informative. bd2412 T 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
All of these points apply equally well to Japanese other than the "status quo" argument. We have of course made much more sweeping changes in the past so I'm sure we have any real basis for keeping status quo as a basis for policy, de facto or otherwise. Changing the first-letter capitalization of the entire Wiktionary a few years ago was a much bigger change for instance. — hippietrail 08:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well then let me reiterate what is really my primary point: these entries properly define the words as they are actually used in print. We would fail as a reference if a person reading a Chinese transliteration with missing diacritics could get no sense from this dictionary how the words in the text before him are actually defined. bd2412 T 17:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't this logic apply to every romanization scheme for every language? At some point, our users have to learn to use the Google. It's one thing to have all common romanization schemes represented in the real entry (which we can and should do); it's another thing to treat them all like they were words in their own right. That said, my objections would evaporate at once if there were three citations of this being used to convey meaning (that is, not merely being quoted for pedagogical or analytic purposes). Maybe some of those Mandarin children's books that have allegedly been written in Pinyin omit diacritics? I would try to find out, but funny thing -- after years of intermittent debate, no one has yet provided so much as the title of a single Pinyin book. -- Visviva 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
On that note, I've just discovered the Pinyin Bible. Why didn't anyone mention this before? It certainly forces me to moderate my attitude (though not with regard to this particular class of entry). -- Visviva
Delete, ridiculous. And I'd love to RFV ōu, óu, ǒu, and òu, for that matter. It has never been satisfactorily explained why transliterated Chinese and Japanese should get a free pass around here. -- Visviva 02:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Literally with intention and without intention. We do the same thing in French to avoid really long, awkward sounding adverbs (avec intention, sans intention). Not idiomatic whatsoever, AFAICT. Mglovesfun 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think these are set phrases, unlike "with intention". Keep. —Stephen 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
They were created by Barmar (talkcontribs), who's a native Italian speaker and a prolific contributor here, and I'd be wary of deleting them just because they seem SOP to us. I'd consider the corresponding Hebrew בכוונה \ בְּכַוָּנָה (b'khavaná), with intent) to be idiomatic (and in fact, I created an entry for it a while back) for reasons that wouldn't necessarily be obvious to a non–Hebrew speaker. (This is canceled out by the fact that it's also not necessarily obvious to a non–Hebrew speaker that it's a two-word phrase, בְּ־ (b'-), with) + כוונה \ כַּוָּנָה (kavaná), intent), so it's not likely to get RFD'd.) At the very least, we should ask Barmar for her thoughts. —RuakhTALK 00:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No opinion about Italian. In French, I feel that we don't use avec intention (we rather use intentionnellement or volontairement). We don't use sans intention either (we rather use sans le vouloir or involontairement), except in sans intention de ... (especially in legal terminology). Lmaltier 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
In French, both terms are actually used, especially -but not exclusively- in the legal domain. The meaning may then differ from the synonyms you give. For example, "aider sans intention" (= with no particular purpose) has not the same meaning as "aider involontairement" (= involuntarily). OTOH, "avec intention" is indeed similar to intentionnellement, but it exists on its own. I'd ask a native Italian speaker before deleting this entry. — Xavier, 23:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As much as I dislike it, kept as no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This and some alternative spellings (hyphen, periods) doesn't seem like a single unit to me. It just seems like attributive use of US with American. If we keep it, it needs usage notes.

It's the demonym associated to USA, isn't it? It's a good reason to keep it. Lmaltier 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It might be a demonym, but is not used by residents or citizens of the US in reference to themselves. Such folks refer to themselves as "Americans", as in: "I'm proud to be an American." I don't believe that any other country has "America" as part of its name, so the fact that citizens of the US have appropriated this term as preferred demonym doesn't put them in dispute with citizens of another country. But, because there are other uses for the term "American", "American" is modified by "US" to contrast citizens of the US (Or is that non-Latin citizens of the US?) with others who use "American", ie "Latin Americans". "Latin American" seems to have more of a claim as an entry because Latin America is a proper noun for which "Latin American" is a derived noun and adjective. "US America" is not a term that I have heard or read and is not plausibly an etymon of "US American".
To me an analogous case is "Northern Italian". "Northern" is just a contrastive adjective modifying Italian. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete if DCDuring is right about the use cases, which I think is likely. To me it's "an American from the US" (contrasting with a [North or South] American from elsewhere). Equinox 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason this came up was a heated argument on Wikipedia that "US American" is not a legitimate English term. That in of itself demonstrates that it is not a simple phrase like "northern Italian", which no-one would even think to take issue with. Also, the argument from ignorance above is hardly convincing: that's what all the citations are for, to show the breadth of usage, though, granted, it is certainly an uncommon term. Equinox at least finds the phrase intuitive, as I do. However, several editors on Wikipedia (at the w:names for U.S. citizens article) said that it is grammatically incorrect, because "US" cannot be used attributively. They even cited the use of the phrase by that Miss America contestant to claim that only someone who was incoherent would use it. If it were not for their insistence that "US Americans" is not proper English, when it's something I use myself, I would not have bothered to create these pages. —kwami 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously perfectly acceptable English. It clearly has good use in the contrastive situation. It is also likely to annoy some people who view themselves as and prefer to be called Americans. Sometimes it might even be used for the purpose of annoying them. There may be an argument that I can't see at the moment that it should be included. [[See WT:IDIOM. Controversy alone is not sufficient reason for inclusion, though it is good reason to carefully consider whether the term should be included and to make sure the usage note is well crafted.
If the Northern Italian analogy doesn't speak to you, what about "GDR German"/"DDR German" and "FRG German"/"BRD German? All are prima facie attestable collocations. I don't think we'd include them. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
US can't be used attributively? what about US Army or US Navy? Anyway, delete as it's either sum of parts or not used, quite possibly both. Mglovesfun (t) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Even if this is deleted, I think we might consider:
  1. Organizing and formatting the citations in their proper location (exact spelling) in Citation space.
  2. Having an Appendix on approximately the same subject as the above-mentioned WP article, w:Names for U.S. citizens.
I have no idea how the WP article will turn out, but the NOR policy as applied there seems very limiting with respect to the use of terms as quoted terms. The limited type of OR that we do here is almost certainly essential for us to avoid copyright violations while having a comprehensive resource. The descriptivist lexicographic stance seems a great fit with NPOV. The combination seems to put us at an advantage relative to WP in accommodating certain language subject matter. Should we Transwiki the article? I would favor getting the version most inclusive of terms and do so now. Should we? Or should we wait until the article is more complete? DCDuring TALK 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"It is obviously perfectly acceptable English." Well, it is to me, which is why I was at a loss when people argued that it was ungrammatical. (I expect they would argue that "DDR German" is also not a legitimate term, and for the same reasons.) As for "US Army", that came up, and the answer was that it's valid because it's an abbreviation of "United States Army", whereas "US American" is not an abbreviation of *"United States American". The impassioned debate there shows that, as obviously acceptable as this is to you and me, it is just as obviously unacceptable to others. That's why I think it needs a place in Wiktionary. As for Mglovesfun saying it should be deleted because it's not used, again, that's what the citations are for! kwami 07:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Acceptability as English is one thing. Suitability for any specific purpose is another. I remain uncertain that the term is includable as an entry at Wiktionary. I really have no opinion about what role, if any, the term would have at WP.
But I was much more impressed with the vehemence with which the term "US American" was opposed at WP than with the logic. I was also surprised that they actually believe that they have special insight into linguistic correctness, so that they knew what was correct without any need to justify their position or indeed recognition (or acknowledgment, anyway) that it was a position. It isn't that we don't have conflicts. See WT:RFD#patriotism for an example. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Acceptability as English is one thing. Suitability for any specific purpose is another. —This comment was unsigned.

And neither has anything to do with whether it should be in an English dictionary. No one here is/should be setting themselves as some authority to decide what is acceptable, what is suitable. Wiktionary should only be concerned with what is and is not used. If you want to decide what is acceptable or suitable use, or "Linguisitically Correct" you should go join the French Academy (or similar). The role of Wiktionary is not to decide any such thing. Is it used? Is there reasonable evidence of its use? There is. End of argument. Your request to delete is misguided, at best. Keep. --Richardb 09:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We routinely keep many things that are not acceptable in any major form of English, that are erroneous, obscene, offensive, inflammatory, and reminders of bad times for humanity. If this item is to be deleted, it will be because it is a sum-of-the-parts use of "US" and "American". We don't have an entry for "maroon red" though we have entries for maroon and red. "It wasn't a vermillion red. It was more a maroon red." is good English, but would not justify creating the entry. In my opinion, "US American" is closely analogous to "maroon red". DCDuring TALK 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The term US American is used outside the USA clearly to distinguish the group of Americans from USA from the more general group of Americans. Whilst looked at simply the term may be viewed as only Sum-of-Parts, it's use, instead of the more common American, is often a case of implied objection to the presumption that American applies only to those citizens of the USA who have presumed to take for themselves the term American. In this way US American is more than SoP, to some extent, intended or not, carrying this implicit objection, and thus should not be deleted. No doubt we will have many US Americans who really don't understand or accept this implied meaning, and will try to reject it on the SoP grounds. But that only continues and compounds the presumption that they own the word American. Unlike Wikipedia, we should be able to happily and easily accommodate this idiom. --Richardb 15:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC), UK & Australia. It's used, it's attested. KEEP.

Kept Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"in a" can be followed by a vast number of formal, informal, and slang terms (and creative vulgarities) indicating periods of time. Very few seem idiomatic to me. There is some value to having them in an alternative format, whether or not they are kept as entries in their own right.

Accordingly, I am beginning Appendix:Collocations of in which has nearly 500 collocations of [[in]] with nouns (sing/pl; bare, with "a", with "the"), but in an extremely crude form. See also Talk:in#Collocations. I would like to make it ultimately look like the multiply sortable ISO language code tables at Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes to carefully collecting collocations, but delete this sum-of-parts phrase. In a bit, after a bit, for a bit, just a bit are just like in a minute, in a second, or in a while. A bit n. (6) is a period of time, but even without this, in prep. (5) refers to a period of time, so it can be used with any amount: in a little, in a smidge(on), in a whit, in an iota, etc. Michael Z. 2009-06-28 22:24 z

Delete for the exact same reasons I voted to delete "in a jiffy" (which was ultimately kept). Equinox 13:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete and deleted. Consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Separated from the propositions above. My argument is:

On the air can only be figurative. The only plausible SoP use for on the air I can find is "the ozone layer is on the air", and I think in reality you'd say on top of to avoid confusion. Also, you can't replace on the with anything and still have it mean "in the act of broadcasting", so in other words, strong keep as idiomatic and figurative. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Re: "you can't replace on the with anything": That's not true. If nothing else, "on air" alone is quite well attested; google books:"go on air" has many relevant hits. Likewise "off (the) air", which is the opposite of "on (the) air". Nonetheless, you can probably make a case that "on the air" is the primary use of this sense of the noun "air", and that the other uses are derived from it, in which case it might make sense to include it. (Most monolingual dictionaries cover phrases inside the entry for their most salient word, e.g. defining on the air inside the entry for air, so they don't have to worry too much about how idiomatic it is and how rigid its phrasing is. Perhaps the proposed "collocations" header will help address this issue somewhat.) —RuakhTALK 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That the sense of air is figurative is not relevant to whether the term meets WT:CFI. If we don't have the sense of "air" that goes with "over the air", "on the air", "off the air", that is a weakness of air#Noun. Interestingly though, I'm not sure that that sense of "air" appears as a subject, though it may be used attributively ("air time"). DCDuring TALK 02:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept as no consensus. It was never actually tagged for deletion, it just got mentioned above (now archived) as a candidate to be tagged. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

rfd-sense Adverb "With respect to". The usage example shows it as a conjunction. Other dictionaries show it as a conjunction. I have added alt spelling of insofar as. It predates the other spelling which is dominant at least in the US.

I can't read this as an adverb, but perhaps a better grammarian could see it as one in some use. [[insofar]] is shown as an adverb. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jusjih 22:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant Sense 2, "used in expressing ratios of units" is just a specific case of sense 1, "for each". For example "miles per gallon" is just "miles for each gallon". Examples of this usage should be given with sense1, but I don't think it is a separate sense. Thryduulf 12:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same as "for each", is it? You can go "sixty miles per hour" even if you're only driving for a few minutes. In other words, I agree with you that they seem to be the same sense, but I don't agree that the current definition of sense 1 is sufficient to cover the examples under sense 2. I'm not sure if they should be merged. —RuakhTALK 12:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Ruakh (nice work). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per above. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

rfd-sense: "complete, finished" as in "The doctor told him to put/get his affairs in order." Seems to mean "organized", "tidy". IMO, to "put/get one's affairs in order" (to prepare for the end of life as one has known it) is an idiom whose presence here would eliminate any need for this as a separate sense. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As I already commented on DC's talk page: delete unless somebody can find another sense for it beyond this single idiom. Equinox 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The idiom is at get one's affairs in order and put one's affairs in order. Forms of each get around 20 hits at COCA. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
well there is "all in order", "everything's in order", meaning "correct", "as it should be", "acceptable". Thryduulf 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think one can say "It may be untidy, but at least it's in order." (meaning "complete"}
MWOnline seems to believe that the only idiomatic sense is "appropriate". That would be because all the others flow directly from the sense of "in" as in in a row, in a circle, in line (also possibly "in ruins", "in disarray", "in a shambles"). So we should look at our senses at order to make sure that both they and this entry are complete.
There seems to be a sense about parliamentary (meeting) procedure that AHD and RHU have. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't either of those dictionaries at hand, but I assume that it's the opposite of out of order, which is at least a phrase I know (with this sense)?​—msh210 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think they are antonyms. But is certainly the same sense of "order". I don't think that alone would make it non-idiomatic. I don't think it is as common as some other collocations of "order" in a deliberative-body-procedure sense, "point of order" etc. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep, well-known term and entirely valid. Stifle 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No one is saying that it is not "valid". The question is whether its meanings include a specific narrow sense of "complete", "finished" that is distinguishable from "neat", "tidy" (which should probably be extended in the direction of "correct", as Thryduulf suggests). And, further, if there is such a sense, does it occur anywhere except in the "[get/put] one's affairs in order" idiom. We don't want to waste users' time by having repetitive or overlapping definitions.
One cannot use "in order" indiscriminately as a synonym for "complete". When one tells a person about to die to "put his affairs in order" one does not mean that he has to obtain and file his own death certificate. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring's & Equinox's analysis.​—msh210 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the right sense is more like "ready, prepared"? Check out google books:"getting everything in order for"; I don't think it always means just "tidy, neat; organized" (though that does seem to be part of it). —RuakhTALK 18:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. That certainly fits the "put one's affairs in order" sense much better! DCDuring TALK 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added the parliamentary sense and inserted idiomatic tags there and at the "appropriate" sense. Also added "ready", "prepared" at the "neat", "tidy" sense. Please feel free to split that one. DCDuring TALK 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete and deleted. Seems redundant (or plain inaccurate) given the meaning directly above anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

rfd-sense: defined strictly in a fictional universe sense. Doesn't have citations that support any other sense. COCA has plenty of hits for may the Force be with you. I would expect that there is some definition that could be written and attested using no more than one cite of "may the Force be with you" that did not seem like it was written by a LucasFilm publicist or Starwars fanchild. DCDuring TALK 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

At the local book store, in the men's room there is a note on the garbage can that says "do not compress by hand" under this a joker has written "use the force instead". This is a use of the term force in colloquial English. RJFJR 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. All we need are:
  1. a definition and
  2. evidence consistent with our attestation standards (with the term capitalized).
We already have the term in lower case. I'll be happy to insert an rfdef to get some in our crack corps of definers to compete to provide some good definitions. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
google books:"god or the force" pulls up many irrelevant hits, but also a fair number that seem potentially relevant. Some explicitly mention Star Wars — I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the sense — and some seem to be using "the Force" unhumorously and unselfconsciously (much as one might write "the Holy One" or "the Father") — but a few, such as this one, seem to fall in the narrow but perfect band where they probably mean the Star Wars Force, but don't say so explicitly. But I don't know how to make certain of that. (There are probably other such searches we can try; "god or the force" was just my first thought.) —RuakhTALK 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That one actually does mention Star Wars as a source of scenarios for use in therapy, twice, but not close to the particular quotation. Michael Z. 2009-09-12 06:58 z
Are you saying that the quote is
  1. broad-sense attributive use of "the Force" to support the fictional universe Proper noun;
  2. evidence of its use as a synonym for an abstract deity; or
  3. evidence of something else?
I'm not expecting to be up to this one. It's just not as much worth the effort as some other causes in which I've been taking an interest. I'm not finding this as much in my current range of interests as collocations and prepositions. DCDuring TALK 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying I think it's your option #1, but I'm not sure how to make certain of that. (Some of the other hits do fall into your option #2, though.) Re: being up to it: Totally understandable. No pressure. :-)   —RuakhTALK 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

These seem to be instances of the form [determiner] + [temporal noun] = adverbial phrase. Why have it? Can't translators live with black links? DCDuring TALK 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

...or links like "this morning"?​—msh210 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I should have said. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete; I think the "sum of parts" argument is overused, but in this case it's about right. Putting "this" in front of any old noun, even a temporal one, does not make a new "adverb". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Imo we can't delete this without adding the relevant sense s.v. [[this]]. I'm not sure what that would be: "of the present day"?​—msh210 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't we have a sense like "near"? Whether the meaning is "the preceding morning" "the morning about to or now occurring", it is a proximate one. The transfer from space to time seems to work for lots of words (like prepositions). Alternatively, how many of "this + [time word]" expressions would you like to include: this epoch? this Brumaire? I could understand a phrasebook inclusion rationale, though I have never understood the limits of this nor that there was much indication that it is used. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(If that was addressed to me specifically, then please note that I never said I think this should be kept, and I don't. I merely think we should add to [[this]].) True, this evening can I think mean "the preceding evening": "He helped me fix my car this evening", spoken in the morning, I think is fine in some dialects, though not in mine. (Do those BYU corpora allow for searching by presence in a clause containing a verb in a specific tense?) To me, it means "this coming or present evening". Certainly we have a "near" sense: "The (thing) here (used in indicating something or someone nearby)". But I think we should have a separate sense for this, as it's temporal rather than spatial: I was even looking for it there and didn't find it! (Of course, I may be dumber than the average reader.)​—msh210 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what you were suggesting. Yes, I agree. At first I thought that it was always "the next", then I thought "nearest", but it defines something more like what you say. The contrastive phrases like "this coming month" and "this past month" indicate some of the ambiguity in how "this month" is used around the "turn of the month".
  • Keep, idiomatic and potentially difficult to translate. Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. -- Visviva 15:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Good resolution for now. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Phrasebookified Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is in order#Adverb (thanks, Ruakh) + to#Particle. I propose that it be replaced with a redirect to in order#Adverb, which already contains a corresponding usage example. If search worked better the redirect would not be necessary. Please note the numerous translations. (I am also doing the same thing for in order for, which does require any deletion.) DCDuring TALK 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The writers of other dictionaries seem to see some lexical merit in in order to. It is normally listed and explained as a separate line under order. As we do not have that practice, but favor separate entries where other dictionaries have these "sub-entries", we should keep this. Keeping would also be a favor to translators, as the translations are normally not as easy as in+order+to. If not convinced, check the translations-table of in order to.--Hekaheka 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The following OneLook dictonaries have a line for "in order to" at their entry for "order", where it appears next to "in order" or "in order that": Websters 1913, RHU, AHD, MWOnline, The ones that apparently do not are Collins, Compact Oxford, Cambridge, WNW. Longmans DCE also has in order to.
If this were deleted, the redirect would seem essential to make sure that users found the right entry. The section redirect would take them to the correct part of the right entry. At that entry a translator could consider that the collocation "in order for" was related to "in order to", based on the usage examples. If this were deleted, I would think it highly desirable to move the translations at "in order to" to the correct sense of "in order (adverb)", but as TTBCs.
The entry at "in order to" now has various links to other terms like "in order that", which also provide some reference to translators. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
One of the odd things about the term is that the "in order" is inessential. It emphasizes an idea to purpose that is already in "to#Particle". It also has some value in reducing ambiguity in connection with phrasal verbs with "for" and "to". DCDuring TALK 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Why make it so complicated, when we can simply keep in order to? We have entries for all kinds of terms derived from the word order, like just what the doctor ordered, get one's affairs in order, put one's affairs in order, which are much more easily both understood and translated by their parts! --Hekaheka 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)`
It is a question of of which complication influenced by consideration of change vs no change. We put idioms in because there are aspects of the meaning that might be unexpected. Why have a monolingual dictionary at all? It's usually easier to figure out the meaning from context. The point is that, once someone has stumbled over some odd term, we need to give them good help. It is important that the user find an entry that gives help so we should support that need. If search were better we wouldn't even need a redirect, the reader would find "in order to" in related or derived terms at "order" and/or "in order" as well as in idioms using it and even quotations using it.
I think that it is somewhat misleading to translators and others to have a full entry at in order to because it is to easy for them to miss the underlying grammar. I don't know how many languages have:
  1. a particle just like "to" used in many infinitive constructions including those indicating purpose
  2. a particle only used for infinitives, no particle for purpose
  3. a particle for purpose, no particle for infinitives
  4. two different particles
Of course, there are more basic questions of whether the language has something like an infinitive used for this purpose.
Is it important for the translator to realize that "in order" is inessential to the meaning but useful to reduce ambiguity? Should that be part of one of the translations the translators offer?
This gets to the question of how many different purposes Wiktionary can serve well. One person's nuance is another person's complication. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
One more point of view to consider, and then I give up: given the thousands of SoP's we have - what harm does it do, if we keep this damn thing? --Hekaheka 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Only that it might be misleading. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It might be equally as misleading to delete it, because the grammatical analysis isn't as simple as it seems to the modern eye. See the tea room. Uncle G 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep In many languages it's translated as a single word. Anatoli 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And grammatically this is a particle, like to, emphasized ? DCDuring TALK 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I see now. I missed the in order entry. I will abstain for the moment. Anatoli 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to in order but this smells like a no consensus to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No consensus, kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

tell lies and tell a lie both got deleted. I can only see [[tell]] [[the]] [[truth]] to mean "tell the truth". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

At OneLook, we are the only dictionary with an entry. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I can't make up my mind. I'm not sure there isn't an idiom here, though I don't think as a fully conjugating form. If it is an idiom, it would be like to make a long story short/long story short. We have entries that are conversational directives. I'm just not sure that this one needs an entry. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
"To tell you the truth" seems less in need of an entry than tell you the truth (like long story short) DCDuring TALK 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
To tell the truth, I know this phrase from Czech and it strikes me as a non-SOP, meaning "to be frank", "to be honest", or "frankly", being placed at the first position in the sentence like last but not least. But the headword should possibly better be "to tell the truth", as "to " here means "in order to", rather than just showing an infinitive, or that is at least how I read it. Czech translation: "Popravdě řečeno", "Abych řekl pravdu".--Dan Polansky 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think the English usage is very similar. As entered, the phrase is a verb, which seems wrong. I can't quite hear any form except infinitive and, possibly, gerund. I believe that it is more like a synonym of the adverb frankly, but only used appositively, bracketed by punctuation. It is some kind of comment on the following statement or the entire following conversation. At COCA, there are 990 uses of to tell the truth. Most of them seemed very literal SoP. But of that group, 206 were bracketed by punctuation. They seem to represent the widespread usage in question. Even more common is to tell you the truth (416). Bracketed by punctuation, tell the truth gets 97 hits, tell you the truth gets 28, tell ya the truth gets 2.
I am not at all sure that these terms all meet WT:CFI. The forms with "to" seem SoP to me. Moreover, there are numerous other forms of equivalent conversational use: "to be frank", "speaking frankly", "to be honest", etc. All seem SoP, non-idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Forms without the "to", they seem more likely to be non-SoP.
I am going to convert the RfD to rfd-sense at the verb. I think I will enter under the idiom PoS, a non-gloss definition. Getting similar treatment will be tell you the truth. I think the presence or absence of "you" makes a difference, though I'm not sure exactly what. In both cases I will include the form with "to" in the sense line as a non-wikilinked defining term. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, provided "to be frank", "to tell you to truth", "to be honest", "speaking frankly", "frankly speaking" are all only set phrases rather than idioms and thus not kept, is there a place at Wiktionary, say an appendix, to which they could be filed? Thus, when I (or any other user) want to know what set phrases are synonymous to "to tell you the truth", I look into that appendix instead of in the main Wiktionary space. What if I create an appendix "Appendix:English set phrases"? --Dan Polansky 10:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that, but I'd like to hear from others about which of these should be in principal namespace. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Rename to to tell you the truth, this seems (somewhat) idiomatic, whereas tell the truth is a verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
After the renaming I would add tell the truth and tell you the truth because each appear as standalone terms. The are readily attestable and are not quite SoP, IMO. In this idiomatic use they are not inflecting verbs. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think people might not have realised that I was only nominating the verb sense, not the "phrase" sense. I've gone ahead and cleaned it up. Take a look, feel free to modify, but kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted this phrase here out of sequence because many of the same arguments apply as with tell the truth. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep, be honest and to be honest aren't interchangeable. Be honest is an imperative and to be honest is used to give emphasis. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In this case, "be honest" is not used in the same bracketed way as to be honest. "To be honest" just seems to be a standard phrasal construction to me. As a native speaker, I am less naturally sensitive to what is or is not idiomatic in the case of some common collocations. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep, sentence adverb is a speech act. DAVilla 06:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness, I like the speech-act argument. But, in all honesty, even if sentence adverbs are truly speech acts, many do not seem worth inclusion. Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems possible to construct an enormous variety of sentence adverbs (or structures of similar force as speech acts) in the form of prepositional phrases as well as infinitives and gerunds. Digging more deeply, I wonder whether it is not true that any English collocation could not be put into a context where it is a speech act. To be brutally honest, sentence adverbs seem like the least meritorious of the speech acts for inclusion, if, indeed, they are best consdiered as speech acts. Quite possibly, there needs to be a line drawn. To add another related point, we are quickly demonstrating that WT:CFI and WT:IDIOM may need a bit more work, at least in this regard. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
to be frank seems okay to me too, and to be (perfectly/totally) honest is just to be honest + adverb, so that is sum of parts. I still think we should keep these. Might as well close this with a keep (more than 30 days without a vote) but I'll close it tomorrow morning as the consensus is a weak one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this not a simple metaphor, rather than an idiom? (The collocation would be attestable. It would have to be moved to flog the land.) DCDuring TALK 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • flog the land doesn't have any special meaning either. It's just a normal English construction, we can't include every utterance by any native speaker that has some sort of meaning. Delete Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(If a metaphor is used often enough, doesn't that make it an idiom? E.g., the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.) This seems to me idiomatic: flogging the land could mean torturing it by any means, such as excessive fertilization or flooding, but seems to include precisely excessive grazing and at least one of the following (but I'm not sure which): excessive planting and/or excessive reaping.​—msh210 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's a set metaphor that people use often. It's more like figurative use of flog, but still, seems to have little or no relevance here. A similar example (from The Beatles) would be to work like a dog. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"To flog the land" may also mean "to sell the land" (sense #2) as in this Australian interview:
JOHN THWAITES: We don't know what the Commonwealth are saying the full commercial value is in precise terms. Certainly that figure of $15 million has been put around but this land should be treated in the same way as the land in NSW around Sydney Harbour. It should be part of a National Park, a park for the people. We're prepared to take on the ongoing maintenance and management of that. We are prepared to negotiate with the Commonwealth for a good outcome but the Commonwealth just want to flog the land off for maximum value. --Hekaheka 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Flog meaning "sell" is not limited to land by any means. See, e.g., google:"flogging a|his car", "flogging a|his computer".​—msh210 16:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
At least in the internet, the sell-sense seems to be more common than exploit-sense. When used in the exploit-sense, "to flog the land" seems to mean "overtaxing the nurturant capacity of the land by any means". --Hekaheka 14:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"Flog" meaning sell gets limited use in the US. "Flog" (as lemma) within five words of "land" doesn't appear in COCA. I conclude this is more UK/Oz.
But I see no dictionary support for the "exploit" sense of "flog" that is here. To me the issue is whether we do users a better service adding a sense to "flog" to cover this or whether we force users to guess that, when they are trying to understand "flog the farm", "flog their land", "flog his land", they should remember to try "flog the land". DCDuring TALK 15:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I think adding a new sense to "flog" is a good solution. --Hekaheka 12:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually think this is clearly not idiomatic, so as Hekaheka says, I'll delete this and add the sense to flog#Verb unless anyone comes up with a better idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an "only in" template for this encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Weakish delete, quite sum of parts but a good list of translations would make the article useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think if you were to simply guess what it meant you could reasonably guess wrong; so it's not simply sum of parts. For example is it about the freedom of a religion to do something or the freedom of somebody to hold a religion, clearly the latter, but you wouldn't necessarily know that.Wolfkeeper 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, unless we're going to delete freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Happy to meet the suggested condition. Adding more freedoms that have no place here. They all seem like WP material. An only-in entry would help reduce the likelihood that we would keep getting entries from well-meaning contributors. I would be happy to see translations on only-ins if that would make translators happy. DCDuring TALK 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see how such translations could work, since there is always the possibility of multiple senses (though perhaps not in the cases currently under discussion). I could see linking these to an Appendix on freedoms where the Translations would be given. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    All the cases so far have been to single articles at WP, not dab pages, AFAICT, but, you are correct: that need not always be true. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep as specialist terms, idiomatic, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept all, consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Green that isn't especially bright. I suppose this was only added by somebody conscientious who wanted to include all of the standard computer colour names. Equinox 18:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say keep on the basis that there is dark green, dark blue, dark red, and dark gray/dark grey, but not dark purple nor dark yellow nor any other color I can think of. --EncycloPetey 20:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think there aren't dark yellow and purple? There's plenty of usage. Equinox 20:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I reverse my position. However, it is my experience that certain colors are never described as "dark", such as magenta, white, black, chartreuse, etc. Only a few of the basic seven colors in the visible spectrum are usually preceded by "dark" or "light", as well as grey and brown. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
1. I contend that most colours can take "dark" (e.g. yellow and purple, as above); "white" and "black" may well be exceptions, because of their extreme nature, but 2. In those cases, it is just that those colours cannot be dark by their very nature; it's like saying we should have big giant simply because there is no big dwarf (they are never big). Isn't it? Equinox 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic of keeping based on "dark" not being a universal modifier of all possible color words or any of an arbitrarily selected list of color words. This would seem to be a principle of broad application yielding extreme results. "Dark" and "light", "pale" and "deep", "fluorescent", "dayglo", "yellowish" and other modifiers can be applied to vast numbers of color words (though not all) without adding one iota to the value of Wiktionary.
The other OneLook references have only redirects to "green". DCDuring TALK 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. @EncycloPetey: "Dark black" and "light black" are rare — so rare that this b.g.c. hit, by a well-respected linguist, gives them the ungrammaticality asterisk — but they are nonetheless attested, as may be seen (for example) in this b.g.c. hit. But even if we trust the former, it doesn't seem to support creating these entries, because it argues that this ungrammaticality follows immediately from the semantics of the component words. —RuakhTALK 23:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no "dark yellow" color, and I don’t know what "dark red" would refer to, but dark green, dark blue, dark gray, and dark brown refer to certain fairly specific colors. Different languages have very different numbers of single-word terms for different colors, from as few as two or three to hundreds. It just happens that English does not have a commonly used or understood single-word term for the colors light blue, dark blue, dark green, and so on. Russian, OTOH, does have, and light blue is голубой, dark blue is синий. Dark yellow is meaningless and can’t be used without graphic examples or detailed explanation. dark green is a very common term and people pretty well agree on the shades that it covers, and it is as specific as just green. There are even more precise terms, such as process green, but they tend to be technical. —Stephen 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There have been scientific studies of the effect of language on color perception; I wonder if any of them might be relevant here? If I recall correctly, speakers of languages that distinguish light blue and dark blue are faster at finding the "odd one out" among a group of dark blue squares with one light blue square and vice versa, but no faster at finding the "odd one out" among a group of blue squares with one green square and vice versa. In other words, even though words like "light blue" and "dark blue" have distinct one-word translations in some languages, that doesn't mean that English-speakers will necessarily have those as distinct concepts. (BTW, I'm not so sure that "dark green" at least is all that specific; playing around with the "Edit Colors" control in MS Paint, I find that I'm quite happy to use "dark green" for everything from a deep, blue-infused forest green all the way to a very muddy yellow-green. Certainly when I hear "dark green", without more information, I picture a specific shade of dark green, but if I then saw the thing described, I'd instantly correct my picture, and I don't think I'd even realize that I'd pictured something different. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of "dark yellow".) —RuakhTALK 02:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per others' comments: SoP.​—msh210 00:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sense: [[too]] + [[much#Determiner]]. (Not the "Phrase" fka "Interjection.) DCDuring TALK 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added too many to the discussion.​—msh210 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Consider also too few, too little, too purple, too wise, and so on. (That some of these are determiners and the others adjectives is a distinction without a difference AFAICT.)​—msh210 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, strong delete. Equinox 11:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. These do seem to be SOP (unlike most determiners, much/many/little/few can be modified by very many adverbs; contrast *too several, *too a lot (of)/*a too lot (of)), but on the other hand, we are also a translating dictionary, and some things do need to be in translating dictionaries. I'm guessing there is at least one other language that expresses this concept in some similar way (maybe Scots? maybe Old English, or at least Middle English? maybe one of the constructed languages?), but for most of the world's languages, how would you figure out how to express this if not by looking it up? (For a number of languages — at least French, Spanish, and Hebrew — I suppose you could find the translation of too, then serendipitously discover from our entry that the same word also means “too much” and “too many”; but that's not exactly a strategy.) —RuakhTALK 02:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's time for the leadership here to change CFI. CFI says this ought be deleted. The translating dictionary argument might be compelling, but the argument needs to be made and the criteria need to be operationalized so as not to waste time, effort, and ,most of all, enthusiasm. One can't sit back and get others to do the bull work without direction unless one is willing to accept the consequences. To have "rules" that are whimsically and time-consumingly overridden is silly. If we actually have a lot of expertise on tap, then it needs to apply itself to organizing the work to be done. If it isn't interested in the English part of wiktionary then perhaps we need an About English section to more efficiently address the issues as they arise. DCDuring TALK 03:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring here. Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

to take one's time is idiomatic. Neither of the senses shown for this term is. DCDuring TALK 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Weakish keep, I don't think [[take]] + [[time]] covers this, so it's better to keep than to delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    What sense of "take" is missing? Is it just a problem of finding the right sense at "take"? Ie, is take just too long to be usable? Is there any evidence that users need entries like "take time"? I certainly don't think that it meets existing WT:CFI#Idiomatic phrases. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a neutral observation: this could be used in a third way not in the entry, where time is being taken away: "I arrived at the old prison a little late, and then walking through the facility took even more time from the visiting schedule" (2006). And take does badly need some cleanup, e.g. (in)transitivity indicators (it hardly means "to have sex"), dodgy senses ("To choose", just because of "I'll take [carry away with me] the blue plates"?). Equinox 14:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There are few of the longer entries that don't resemble the Augean stables. Unfortunately it may take mortals more than a day per entry. Where are our Hercules? DCDuring TALK 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a lingustic article about "take", which I've not yet read. See Talk:take. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To be more explicit:
    Sense 1 (To require a comparatively long period of time) is take (require", "need) + time (a quantity of availability in time)
    Sense 2 (To volunteer to spend one's time (doing something)) is take (appropriate) (from other uses) + time (a quantity of availability in time).
Accordingly, it does not meet WT:CFI.
In contrast, we do not seem to have take someone's time, as opposed to take one's time. I greatly prefer the coverage and wording of "take" in Longman's DCE to ours. A few more senses, more distinctness, much broader range of meanings. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. Doesn't seem to meet our criteria. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WT:RFV#gate crash per consensus

No OneLook reference except us thinks this is an idiom. DCDuring TALK

An important collocation, but could refer to any of six senses of layman and more than one sense of term. Not idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep, idiomatic, difficult to translate, figurative (etc.) Mglovesfun (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Opinion? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What redeeming idiomatic (CFI sense) value? DCDuring TALK 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

None that I can think of. This combination could also be used with other sum-of-part senses, as in:
  • 2002, Yuichi Shionoya Staff, German Historical School: Historical and Ethical Approach to Econmics‎, page 58 (quoting Knies, 1883)
    Therefore, the investigation of the economic development in people's lives becomes the task specific to political economy. It should first identify the historical figure of the national economy that moves stage by stage, and then discern the fundamental cuase of this movement.
This seems to be "figure" in a financial sense, and looking at a historical value for such a figure. --EncycloPetey 01:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Not idiomatic or used as a set phrase, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
waited as long as I could for a keep vote. None came, deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

SoP.​—msh210 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it not a technical term in mathematics? Certainly the current definition is well beyond WT:CFI, so delete unless it can be attested as a specific technical term, not a variable which is free. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It is just a variable which is free, q.v.​—msh210 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep.
With the current definition from programming, the term "free variable" appears to be SoP only because its meaning is explicitly listed in the entry "free" -- "(programming) Of identifiers, not bound". The same applies to "free variable" in logic, which is currently undefined.
If "free variable" gets deleted, other terms may follow. They include algebraic number, per the definition of algebraic -- "(Of a number) which is a root of some polynomial", which makes "algebraic number" technically a sum of parts. Likewise transcendental number and even complex number, as complex has the definition "(mathematics) Of a number, of the form a + bi, where a and b are real numbers and i is the square root of −1."
I fear that these cases provide a method of how to artificially make a lot of two-word technical terms of the form <adjective> <noun> appear sum-of-parts, by providing their definition at the adjective, of the form "Of <noun>, definition". Imagine I get rid of red dwarf by adding to red the definition "Of a dwarf star, small and relatively cool one of the main sequence".
I do not know what WT:CFI says to these cases, but to me all these sum-of-parts seem somehow artificial or odd. I would like to see free variable, algebraic number, transcendetal number and complex number included.
Some of the concerned entries: algebraic number, algebraic integer, bound variable, cardinal number, complex number, free variable, imaginary number, rational number, real number, transcendental number, free software, open set, closed set, complete graph, normal distribution. --Dan Polansky 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
See especially prime number, where this discussion already happened. Equinox 02:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it was time to revisit the issue.  :-)  (The previous discussion is at talk:prime number.)​—msh210 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
But note, Dan (and others), that people speak of a variable's being free, without tying the word free into the phrase free variable: google books:"variable is free".​—msh210 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the adjective and the noun is separable, not glued together, in most of the listed cases.
For informal comparison outside of bounds of WT:CFI, many general dictionaries have "prime number"[4] and "complex number"[5], while only few general dictionaries have "free variable"[6]. --Dan Polansky 22:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt that it's important to include prime number, and I agree with Dan Polansky's reasoning. But, for free variable, I don't know. Lmaltier 18:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am always looking to break phrases down to components, but I don't see the point in the case of well-defined terms like this and many other mathematical and scientific terms. The parallels among, say, logical, mathematical, computing, and linguistic senses seem real, but each use of "free" is quite distinct and doesn't occur except in close proximity and obvious reference to "variable". I would think we could make a CFI argument for this. Frankly, I'd even prefer not to try to do the forced one-collocation, one-context definitions at "free". Wouldn't it make more sense to have some sense at free that accentuated the parallels and directly referred users to the entry at free variable which contained the context-specifics? DCDuring TALK 00:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The math/logic sense of free for variables is used in reference to variables only, of course, but not always with the word variable. E.g., google books:"is free in the statement|predicate|formula" -"variable is free" (some of which do use variable, but many, many of which do not).​—msh210 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps subsenses s.v. free-?​—msh210 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep, I did ask for this entry to be cleaned up into "common English", but since nobody's proposed bound variable as SoP I don't see why this should be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We have entries at put all one's eggs in one basket#Verb and don't put your eggs in one basket (redirect) and don't put all your eggs in one basket#Proverb. I don't think the RfDd entry has value at either end of a redirect or in itself. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, the two examples use have instead of put, so maybe this should be the "lemma form" and the others should be redirects, or whatnot. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I neglected to mention that COCA shows "put" to be by far the most common verb with this. The examples would need to change to reflect that. I was thinking to add redirects for the most common variants. The problem is that we have two variables in the formula for generating redirects: "V and NP's eggs in one basket". "Put" and "your" are the most common even after subtracting the usages of the full proverb. Normally I would strongly favor having the shortest phrase. But these formulas aren't fixed, so with our too-simple search users often wouldn't find the lemma. But in this case I was thinking to simply use all the most common collocated forms and redirecting to the verb phrase unless the collocation had "don't" in which case it would go to the proverb.
We need to find out whether Google et al take our redirects seriously. If they don't we may need to somehow stuff these variants into tags that they take seriously or go to soft redirects. Clearly this is getting to be an example of a common generic problem that requires some research and testing, a BP discussion, data collection from corpora like COCA, and some bot work. Of course if we don't want to bother with "imbecilic" (not my word) users we may be able to dispense with such concerns and rely on users to find lemmas. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

Just checking: do we accept mnemonics? There's a big slippery slope out there. SemperBlotto 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. But an appendix would be a good idea.

See also pemdas (which should probably be moved to PEMDAS) and BODMAS. If we keep this, what about my very excellent mother just served us nine pickles?  :-)  Anyway, isn't this a question for RFD? — I mean, there's certainly attestation of this term; the nominator seems to be asking whether it's idiomatic.—msh210 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was pizzas. But shouldn't it now be something more along the lines of "my very excellent mother just served us nothing"? ; ) L☺g☺maniac chat? 14:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for a speedy delete, but seems to merit a discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The quotes are interesting in as much as they show the possible/probable etymology of the the idiom. Though etymologies of idioms can easily seem to be folk pseudo etymologies, it seems unwikilike to exclude idioms from etymological discussions. Such efforts seem like a good path to recruit new blood, sorely needed. A proper heading on the Citations page and a reference to it under an Etymology heading would probably be useful.
OTOH, The quotations have little to do with current usage and don't belong in usage notes. They don't attest to the current idiomatic meaning.
Keep clean up. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete citations and usage notes. I find it excessively speculative, even over-the-top, to treat these quotations as illuminating an etymology. I moved one quotation from this page to a usage note in the main entry, just to retain a minimal acknowledgment of this early "buffalo hunting" usage (although I never would have added any of this "buffalo hunting" stuff myself). The remaining quotations are almost all inappropriate since they do not intend the idiom being defined and, in addition, the variant forms of the term in these quotations contain extra words (showing that this usage is not even a set phrase). I don't see either the citations page and or the usage note as contributing substantively to the entry. There's nothing to clean up here -- just remove this stuff. -- WikiPedant 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
But the actual idiom allows extra words; see google books:"made a huge killing", for example. —RuakhTALK 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ruakh -- Yes, there may be alternative forms of the actual idiom. But these quotations do not represent the idiom. These quotations are literal assertions, and when you've got variant forms of a literal SoP expression, you've got nothing or at least nothing (no idiom, no set phrase) that belongs in a dictionary. -- WikiPedant 05:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this part of the new pan-inclusionism or does WT:CFI apply? DCDuring TALK 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I can scarcely imagine this meeting the CFI, but it should have its month on RFV.​—msh210 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There are modern people named Vespasian; e.g. one John Vespasian. I don't see why this can't be redefined and kept as an article about a surname with a link to Latin Vespasianus in etymology. --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It could be kept as a name element in Latin, at the very least. I can't think offhand of any attributive use of the emperor's name. The only argument I could imagine for keeping it is if we decided to start keeping all the English "short forms" of ruler's names. However, I'm not happy with where that leads. There are only a very few names of specific people that I can see keeping (e.g. Napoleon). In that case because (1) there are several people in history by that name, but only one is usually meant, but more importantly (2) it is used as an attributive noun (e.g. "Napoleon age"). --EncycloPetey 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this presents better at supposed#Adjective. The to is normally considered part of the mandatory following verb. This should probably be a redirect to supposed. We seem to be the only OneLook dictionary with the entry at supposed to. No OneLook dictionary has an entry at "be supposed to" either. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As often as not, no following verb. It’s colloquial and very idiomatic. I think most people do not see it as being related to suppose or supposed. The case is similar to that of used to. We should keep such a common, idiomatic term. —Stephen 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What are the numbers?
I wonder whether it is used more or less often than other expressions that are sometimes truncated by dropping their referent. Do you think the definition given is adequate? Does the entry provide adequate grammatical information and usage notes?
Should we include all terms that drop the referent? DCDuring TALK 15:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think splitting supposed and supposed to is the best solution, maybe using {{also}} at the top of the pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It appears, it is almost synonymous with should. Definitely idiomatic. --Rising Sun 11:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually prefer my synonyms to be the, 1., same part of speech or, 2., play the same grammatical roles.
  1. What part of speech would "supposed to" be?
  2. supposed to is a past participle followed by a particle. It needs to be preceded by a form of "be" and followed by a bare infinitive. The "be" form could be a present, a simple past, or perhaps some other forms. In this sense "should" is followed by the bare infinitive for a present or "have" and a past participle for a past.
Synonymy is, in any event, irrelevant and, still less, near synonymy. "Did go" is a near synonym for "went", but wouldn't be an idiom in my book. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
By what objective test is it idiomatic? The Rising-Sun opinion test generates a different result than the DCDuring opinion test. The Other-Lexicographers test says it is not idiomatic, Wiktionary being the only OneLook reference work (including translating dictionaries) to have it.
When we say something is an "idiom" we don't just mean that it is "idiomatic" in the sense that it comes trippingly from the tongue. That would describe any common collocation. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I note that [[supposed#Pronunciation]] is currently missing the pronunciation of this usage (with final /-st/ instead of /-zɪd/). Whether this is better addressed by adding that pronunciation there, or by considering supposed to to be an idiom with its own idiomatic pronunciation, I don't know. —RuakhTALK 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Would a pronunciation difference between "I'm supposed to do this." and "I'm doing what I'm supposed to." count as evidence of "supposed to" being an idiom? I would have thought that an absolutely standard transformation, even if a pronunciation change were to accompany it. For that matter, would the existence of "s'possta" as in "It's one of my s'posstas" be serious rather than suggestive evidence that "supposed to" was an idiom? DCDuring TALK 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we might be miscommunicating. The pronunciation I'm referring to is the de-voicing of "supposed"-'s final consonant cluster in these senses. "I'm supposed to do this" can be used literally, with the passive voice of "suppose", to mean "It's supposed [by …] that I do this", in which case the <-sed> is voiced (/-zd/); or, it can be used perhaps-idiomatically, with the expression "supposed to", to mean (e.g.) "I am required to do this", in which case the <-sed> is unvoiced (/-st/), presumably due to anticipatory assimilation from the /t/ of to. You see the same thing, BTW, with used to; cf. "this is what I used to do it" vs. "this is what I used to do". —RuakhTALK 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have intentionally (?) retained my ignorance of IPA so as to remain one of the imbeciles. Consequently, yes, I missed your point, on which I have nothing to add. Notwithstanding the mis- part of the communication, your question reminded me of stress difference as possible evidence supporting the possible idiomaticity of some usage of "supposed to". Any thoughts on that? DCDuring TALK 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what stress difference you mean. In some kinds of compounds, shifting stress can be a sign of idiomaticity (a "black bird" is just a bird that's black, a "high school" is just a school on a mountaintop, etc., whereas a "blackbird" can be albino, a "high school" can be in the valley, etc.), but I don't see how that applies to "supposed to". The only pronunciation difference I see between the "supposed to" in "I'm supposed to do it" and that in "I'm supposed to" is that the former can have /tu/ ("too") or /tə/ ("ta"), whereas the latter strongly prefers /tu/ ("too"); but then, I think you'd get the same effect from a vowel ("I'm supposed /tu/ ask him about it") or a pause ("I'm supposed /tu/, what? Lie?"). Right? —RuakhTALK 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, not only don't I know IPA, I don't listen too well either. I was actually just looking to see if there is any passing for making presenting "supposed to" as an idiom headword in its own right rather than just redirect to supposed. That some contributors want it to be separate is suggestive, but I'd like some Pawleyesque rationales because I don't see it.

From WT:RFV#Strong's concordance

Delete and just link to Wikipedia (that would be in {{Strong's}}). (And do something useful with the user page list.) H. (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete and change template. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you maybe mean this for RFD? Anyway, change template, remove all other inlinks — I'm not sure they're using that template — and delete. —RuakhTALK 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete, encyclopedic, but as a lexical term it refers to Strong + 's + concordance. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, we all agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Restored, you missed a spot. :-)   —RuakhTALK 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
We should really have those switched in an automated fashion (preferably to {{Strong's}}, which has had its link switched). Anyone feel up to that? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Opiaterein Inflectobot may help. --Vahagn Petrosyan 07:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If I've understood, nobody wants to keep this we just need to get rid of all the Internal links with something like {{w|Strong's concordance}}, so I'm striking out the title. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This collocation is only 15% of the total occurrences on COCA of "rhyme or reason". [[No rhyme or reason]] is 51%. Thirteen other collocations constitute the balance. I propose that both "without ..." and "no ..." be made redirects to "rhyme or reason". DCDuring TALK 22:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Done, pity nobody else commented though. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mandarin for "Chairman Mao". As a specific entity/title combination, this fails to meet WT:CFI. --EncycloPetey 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

10,000,000 google hits, a common term and we should have it. While the English translation may seem unnecessary to English-speaking natives, an American trying to read a Chinese text that includes the term 毛主席 needs to be able to look it up in a dictionary just like any other Chinese term. —Stephen 06:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

indeed!![i'dwish mONOLITHIC ENGLISH NATIVSPEAKERS'd'vMOREMPHATY!!!![nCFIneedsVASTLY EXPANDED,we alno thisisaMAMOTHproject fromstartez,ifnolike,WOTHE HEL IS1DOIN'HERE?!?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 02:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So, we should have George W. Bush, because there are a lot of hits and becuase a foreigner trying to read an English text that includes the term "needs to be able to look it up in a dictionary just like any other term"? Sorry, but those arguments have never been part of our criteria for inclusion. --EncycloPetey 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

VERYMUCHSO,INDEED!!CULTURAL REFmakeSTUDYIN'THE TARGETLANGUAG HARD,even4me [w/engl]as basicalyA DIALECT SPEAKER,flemish--hel,even w/DUTCHtexts i'd'v thisprob[asNOTmy culture,idontno their actreses undundund>1.line linguistic resours=dict here need2say"W-u.s.-pres.2000-8,bro of+ref2wp",easy,nice,clean'n'HELPFL2USER--urCFIwereDEAD-WRONG SINCE INCEPTION,n its OVERDUE[sinsu guys like2interpret'emALA LETTRE[dc's arbitrary side-takin'apart]like abunch oflil'kids inkindy{"the cfi-teacher said"},orbrainwashed"this is a{trad.} dict.{cryinvois}"-adults] 2THOROUGHLY REWRIT'EM,or atleastREALIZE THT ALL PROPERNAMES [N SOPs asoon as a/1SINGL USER'D BENIFIT fromit]needINCLUSION instedev usin'wt as ur PRIVATPLAYGROUND[cantu erect ur ownclub4/2thatpurpose?-imhere2help get wt2itsGOAL=UNIVERSAL RESOURS4theLANGUAG-QUERYIN'partevHUMANITY,most ofwhich'DNOT CARE LES'bout althe"howmany angels dancin'ona needltip"scholastic 'n'obstructin'altercations here,laced w/an overdose evsophistry'n'falacious reasonin'just4"goodmeasure"soitseems.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 03:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be treated eaqually without discrimination whether Máo zhǔxí, Confucius, Mencius, Lenin, Stalin, etc.
And Shakespeare, this seems to be a policy issue rather than a single deletion request. Probably requires some sort of vote, rather than just keeping or deleting this entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

indeed!!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 03:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare is at least claiming attirbutive use, which for me makes it meet WT:CFI. I'd happily delete the others as "names of specific entries with no other lexical merit. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd at least keep Confucius out of that list, since the corpus of his works is also referred to by that name. I think the principle there is that works of certain authors come to be so well known, that they are referred to by the name (or part of the name) of that author. "I was reading Ovid last night." "I couldn't understand the language of the original Chaucer." "My copy of Sophocles is falling apart." We've had that particular conversation before, although I don't recall which particular author's name was under discussion. --EncycloPetey 04:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Oppose If it were simply "a chairman named Mao", then I would agree. While that is surely the etymology, it also more specifically means Mao Zedong. Thus it is not simply a sum of parts and has a specific lexical meaning that is not necessarily apparent without a definition. 118.103.10.2 02:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Should have Bush, with a definition that refers to George W., but not George W. Bush specifically. Should have Jefferson, referring to the historically important Jeffersons such as Thomas, and Washington referring to the important Washingtons. But those are English names and not at all the same sort of term as 毛主席. For a Chinese term such as 毛主席, we need a definition of the full term, not just part of it the way we can do with many similar English terms. You are trying to judge Chinese terms by their definition rather than the term itself, which is an elementary error. It’s the reason that we cannot look up a common Chinese term such as 成龙 (Chéng Lóng]] here. —Stephen 03:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

requester has NO idea bout chin.[onliLIMITEDview of CFI<presumably short4CHRIST!F*INTRIES!]yet demands DEL-am i the only1 who thinks such is INCONGRUOUS, HILARIOUS n PLAINLY WEIRD?!?as they say in flemish:"schoenmaker,blijft bij uw leest". ps names/woteva USERSneed oughtbeINCLUDED!npl,FAKattr-use,good4nuttin wishwash,if onli such"contributors" 'dHoudini-away'emselvs[beterstil:'dput inaPOSITIVefet:)='dbe a GIANT LEAP4wt,but'elas, justnILUSIONmonvieux..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 07:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Allow me (despite the fact that I don't speak any variety of Chinese) to put this into perspective for people who know nothing about Chinese (yes, I know that me saying that seems kind of odd since I know almost nothing either but I digress). Let's say that one day in one country in which some antagonistic group were oppressing people. One day a "hero" arose and put a stop to their antics. Let's just call this hero "Kiyoshi Tsukasamoto"(random idea there; no special reason why I chose that aside from the fact that I just felt like stringing together a Japanese name). It doesn't stop there though; the antagonists still trouble the people but the hero still continues to guard the people and drive away the opposing forces until they finally give up (or are decimated; whichever you prefer ;).
Now jump forward many, many years to when he dies. Even when after death the people who he saved still remember him. Perhaps during his lifetime people came to refer to him by a special name as a term of the deep respect they held (and still hold) for him. Something like "Kiyoshi the Pure/True/Just/etc. or Guardian Kiyoshi. This "Chairman Mao" is a term like the ones I used in my story, especially the second one. Finally, the last thing I'll say is IMO real terms like these should be included in Wiktionary. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Palk-ta![darn input-prob ofmine..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 02:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To have a good time. Is this just a dated sense of "scream"? DCDuring TALK 11:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a missing sense of "scream" as used in many expressions of the form "a scream of a". The sense of "That Eddie Murphy is a real scream" is not the same. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Is have a blast much better? Anyway delete as scream covers this already. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
We should eventually take a look at all of the "have ....", "take ....", "get ...." and similar entries and determine whether they warrant special treatment. I know we have an Appendix on "have"/"take". For decoding they are SoP, but the translators among us often seem to prefer having these. I wish I understood why. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Needs more input, please comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Relatively novel uses of harsh#Verb as verb and mellow#Noun as noun, but not a fixed phrase. Many substitutes for both are possible. DCDuring TALK 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel obliged to not vote as I've never heard of it, and the definition makes very little sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
weak keep - <has kids who used to use it> - Amgine/talk 22:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Needs more input, please comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

queer (spoil) one's [sic] pitch (sales presentation). Non-idiomatic combination. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel obliged to not vote as I've never heard of it, and the definition makes very little sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I've never heard queer as a verb outside this phrase, which makes it idiomatic as far as my experience goes. Equinox 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That's why we need to rely on corpora. Following are objects of the verb queer (spoil", "ruin) found in COCA: friendship, things (3), deal, offer, paradigm, that (what I had to do), project, status, runs (football plays), collar (arrest), him ("queered him good by living"), re-election, assignment. This sense of queer#Verb seems more common outside academic (cultural studies, gay studies, social sciences) and gay activist writing, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Needs more input, please comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I'm not sure that there are any current idiomatic senses of this. Of the four given, the three that bothered me most were the following:

  1. (transitive) To move towards: Go to bed!
  2. (intransitive) To advance, be positive or make a decision" Go to!
  3. To attend an event or a sight.: We went to a concert for my birthday.
The second might just need an archaic tag.
I could understand giving verbs like "go", "have", "get", "take" and a few others some kind of special treatment, but this doesn't seem right to me. It seems misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see anything that this article offers right now that isn't go (verb) + to (preposition). Having said that, without an example, I don't know what #2 means. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The first one needs to be deleted, but we could start a separate entry for "go to bed" which is an idiomatic expression for "put yourself to sleep". The second one needs an example, because I have never heard it used in that way. We could delete it until someone finds an example. The third sense should stay. It is idiomatic; not literal. The whole page could be delted, but I think it is useful because some languages, such as Arabic, make a distinction between "to go to" and "to go" (to go away, to travel). Gregcaletta 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The only one that is dictionary material to me is the archaic imperative or interjection: "go to!" - it's totally opque to me whenever I run across it. All of the other senses require an entry exactly as much as go into, go beneath, go up etc etc. — hippietrail 02:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm, medicine which is regenerative? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a second vote on this? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Farcically, kept as a no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

To wind up one's (?) bottoms. Datedly SoP. (Possible misuse of reflexive "one's" for "someone's") DCDuring TALK 12:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like WT:RFV material to me, I've never heard of it, since surely it's not just wind + up + one's + bottom is it? I cant guess the meaning from that, and I'm a native speaker. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It is just wind up (complete", "finish) + one's + bottoms (affairs). The difficulty is mostly in the archaic nautical figurative use of "bottom". It seems the nautical equivalent of "tidying up one's affairs" as before a long trip. Why would anyone xpect to be able to read an 18th century seaman's diary without looking up individual words? Understanding this use of "bottom" would help one decipher the decentralized financial management approach epitomized in "every tub in its own bottom". DCDuring TALK 16:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, delete. More votes please, Mglovesfun (talk) (sorry, I forgot to sign this) Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this phrase less obsolete than bottom generally is, though? I have no idea, myself, but if so, I'd say keep this as non-SoP. Otherwise, yeah, delete.​—msh210 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Needs more input, please comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

[[not]] [[a]] [[zack]] ("an Australian coin, $A 0.05"). ~"not a dime", "not a farthing", "not a nickel". DCDuring TALK 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, not idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Zack in this sense (and another similar) is listed as rare and has another sense not so marked. The phrase not a zack is not so marked. Perhaps it's worth a keep then: someone looking up the constituents wouldn't know what it means. Not sure, though.​—msh210 00:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Needs more input, please comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Two senses seem non-idiomatic. "A job with good prospects" and "a task well done". DCDuring TALK 03:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete or remplace with "literal, see good, job". Mglovesfun (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: Wiktionary:Milestones. --EncycloPetey 04:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As entered then it was OK. It was just the interjection.
I don't think that the "literal" tag is right. The right tag is something like "compositional", but more intelligible to normal people. No tag at all might be better. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Either needs some sort of figurative use, or just throwing in the dustbin. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is idiomatic, as those people are virtually always physically capable of speaking, they just don't know how. Dumbness is when one is physically incapable of speaking. Boobie 12:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You're saying that one who is deaf and physically incapable of speaking is not called deaf and dumb? Michael Z. 2009-08-13 13:59 z
This collocation may be worth keeping in order to note that it was once widely used but is now considered offensive because of the pejorative sense of dumb. —Rod (A. Smith) 15:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Several current dictionaries have it, some to suggest that it is not current or is offensive. Also Cockney rhyming slang for bum (buttocks), according to Partridge's. Keep. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Restored to allow for a debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kept, needs some cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. (1) It is the semantic infinitive of "can", since "can" is defective and doesn't have a morphological infinitive. (2) It has many translations to infinitive of "can" in other languages. —AugPi 20:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Translations can go s.v. can, no? (In fact , they're there already, it seems.)​—msh210 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Though common in Latin, in English it is unusual for an article on a present tense verb form (non-infinitive) to be used as a lemma, which is what is happening here. The only proper way to say the infinitive of "can" is to "be able to", so some users may want to look up translations under "be able to" instead of "can". So in this case, I don't think some duplication would hurt, as in the case of "color" and "colour", which both have translation sections. —AugPi 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep (now just keep, Mglovesfun (talk)), these already passed rfd in French, plus you can't take away the "be" or the "to" and keep the meaning, so definitely idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't follow. Of course you can't take away any part of the phrase and keep the meaning: that's true of this blue door also. But the phrase means be + able + to precisely the way be unwilling to means be + unwilling + to, and the same for other adjectives (willing, predisposed, inclined, (un)likely, (un)ready, etc.). How do you figure this is idiomatic? On another note, how is frwikt's RFD process relevant? (Do they have CFI of English phrases precisely like our CFI of English phrases?)​—msh210 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to [[able]]. Good to have the phrase is case someone looks it up (since it's the semantic infinitive, as AugPi points out, of can), but not as an entry, since it's just the sum of its parts.​—msh210 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to [[able]], per msh210. —RuakhTALK 20:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to redirect to can, since be able to means (infinitive of) can and not able, and if someone were looking for the translations of be able to, s/he could find them under can? —AugPi (t) 03:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The article for can mentions be able to under its Usage Notes, whereas able does not mention anything about the usage of be able to. —AugPi (t) 03:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You might be right about that being the most useful redirect target. Why else would someone type in the term for a search? The drawback is the utter lack of transparency for someone typing it in who is not looking for the translation. Hitting the "back" button doesn't help because the search box is cleared. Though your recommendation is probably expedient for the most common case, it seems to violate a fundamental principle of how a redirect ought to work. Is there some way around this? The usage note is not an ideal for a normal redirect.
Perhaps a redirect to the Usage note section itself? Still a little confusing but at least the right text is there. DCDuring TALK 04:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have any arguments was to why this meets WT:CFI? The arguments and associated votes for this entry are irrelevant if they do not overcome the basic hurdle of some kind of idiomaticity. That "be able to" is synonymous with a putative missing form of "can" is not a consideration in CFI. If editors would like such a consideration to be a factor or some kind of "utility for translations" consideration to be a factor, we have a Beer Parlor for such conversations. There are senior contributors who support that view. Perhaps someone could formulate a coherent proposal. Perhaps some other wiktionary already has implemented such a standard for inclusion. We could even start an appendix of deleted entries with translations to facilitate their restoration when, as, and if CFI is changed. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If an English phrase translates to single words in most other languages, and if the phrase is unique, in the sense that there is no other substitute for the infinitive of can, then that gives me reason to think that be able to is idiomatic. —AugPi 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      That specific argument has been explicitly and repeatedly rejected as having no bearing on CFI, which contains all the criteria which can support the inclusion discussions on this page. While we are discussing irrelevant considerations, I note that none of the the monolingual OneLook dictionaries include "be able" or "be able to" as idioms. That includes dictionaries of idioms that have little reason to exclude terms that are idiomatic. Idiomaticity in the sense we use it is a monolingual phenomenon. If you would like to make it a multilingual phenomenon please make a coherent argument at the Beer Parlor. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      @AugPi: not at all. English uses the adjective "able" the way many languages — including English — use verbs. By this argument, "be sick" are "be ill" are idiomatic because there's also "ail"; "make angry" and "make mad" are idiomatic because there's also "anger"; and so on. Further, even if we accepted this argument, it would only support an entry for "be able", not for "be able to"; in Spanish, for example, "was able to do" = "podía hacer" = "{was able} {to do}". —RuakhTALK 01:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You might have a point there. Two points, in fact. —AugPi (t) 03:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The "common sense" argument (to me) says that we are talking about deleting one of the most common verbs in English, maybe in the top 100 or even the top 50. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
        Your assertion assumes that it is a verb. The collocation is a verb + adjective + particle. The collocation functions like a verb as to many such collocations as Ruakh pointed out. "Common sense" is not part of WT:CFI and is often a source of error. If you would like "common sense" to be part of WT:CFI, please start a thread on WT:BP.
        Following is a list of a few of the most common (many hundreds of occurrences at COCA) adjectives that fit into the slot occupied by "able" in the challenged headword: good (better, best); easy (easier, easiest); necessary, possible, hard, likely, important, difficult, willing, sure, ready, glad, critical, reluctant, sorry, nice, surprised, great. That "can" is defective does not change the status of this as a candidate headword. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete DCD has it spot-on. Why are these arguments, having nothing to do with our CFI, put forward repeatedly? Why is a group of intelligent people wasting so much cumulative time? Instead of arguing "set phrase" or "direct translation" a 100 times, why don't you guys just once write a proposal to add this to the CFI? Michael Z. 2009-08-14 15:22 z

I’ve been trying to get CFI fixed/improved for years. It is much easier said than done. —Stephen 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete, based on DCDuring's analysis. --EncycloPetey 03:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP! I agree with AugPi, since I just looked it up as a unit and looked at this page to see the debate -- 2 September 2009

Keep, without prejudice against the well-reasoned arguments for deletion above. It seems to me that there is a sufficient basis for reasonable disagreement on whether this is sum of parts or not; as such, I cannot comfortably support deletion. -- Visviva 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added: I would also be OK with a redirect. It does seem that a strong case could be made for an entry at able to, which has an entry in MWDEU -- especially since a full entry for able would already be quite long. -- Visviva 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DeleteRedirect I am finally able to work an exemplification of another argument into my summary: not a set phrase, not a verb phrase, not a verb, not an idiom of any kind. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Redirect is nicer to users. Perhaps also at least the positive forms could be redirects also to able per SGB below. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep, at the very least as a redirect. Counting the various cardinal forms such as "am able to", "is able to", "am not able to", "won’t be able to", "were able to", and so on, it surely must be one of the commonest phrases in the English language. If nothing else, it should have a hard or soft redirected to able. —Stephen 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • IMO the strongest case for this to have an entry is the simple fact that millions -- perhaps billions -- of ELLs worldwide have learned it as a unit, the non-defective equivalent of "can". It seems to me that the same rationale that we have used for including various non-lexical bits of Unicode would apply: it may be worthwhile simply to have an entry explaining what this is, why it is not technically a word, and where further information can be found. -- Visviva 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I might not mind if this one is deleted, otherwise just redirect to able and be able to. —AugPi 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Redirect to be able to, unless that itself later becomes a redirect. 20:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Done, that previous comment was me anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

bent (crooked) as a two bob (cheap) watch/note/etc. The fuller forms (bent as a two-bob watch and bent as a two-bob note may be valuable as redirects to two bob or even bob. Also nine bob. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To try. It doesn't seem to be a non-SoP idiom. Certainly not a set phrase. One can "give it", "have" a shot. One can take a "run", "stab", etc. And there are more meaningful combinations of [[take]] and [[shot]] than there are meanings of either constituent word alone, none with any less claim to be idiomatic, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards 'keep and adding additional senses. One can "take a shot" (to the body) in boxing, or "take a shot" (of tequila). This seems highly idiomatic to me. --EncycloPetey 05:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Once we go that way we can easily have as many attestable senses at take a shot as at take or even more. If we were trying to show our independence of conventional lexicographic thinking it would be a bold way to do so. I also believe that every single sense would violate WT:CFI. For example: boxing: take (accept", "undergo", "endure) a shot (punch", "blow) (previously missing, not in many dictionaries!, common in sports etc.) (Does "take" also mean "receive", "suffer"?) Also: for drinking: take#Verb could be senses 1-4; 7-10; 12, 21; 15, 23-4 (in groups of decreasing likelihood) with shot#Noun (measure of alcohol). Though I cannot imagine these collocations being rapidly attested, I think that most of them are attestable. I don't know who would be helped by such a cumbersome presentation. Further, I find it impossible to believe that we should depend solely on the subjective opinions of the few editors and fewer native speakers who are welcome to participate in these discussions to determine which of the various collocations are to be included and which not. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Needs more input, please comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

SoP.​—msh210 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not SoP, since the term would never be used to describe the transfer of a pipe organ from one cathedral to another. Applies only to a single sense of organ and is a set phrase, never "organ transfer". --EncycloPetey 05:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem ambiguous to me, so I'd say delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you want to keep or delete organ donor? --EncycloPetey 03:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind (in the least) keeping both, but I don't think there's anything in WT:CFI that justifies it. It's not one iota idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I see a difference between the terms in idiomaticity.
The "organ donor" entry includes the common US slang sense of motorcyclist, especially one riding without an effective helmet. An organ donor in the US and probably elsewhere refers to someone who has formally given permission for his organs to be harvested for the benefit of organ recipients. Properly defined in that sense it would seem to fall under the Pawley legal/institutional term criterion.
delete "Organ transplant" doesn't seem to make it on either basis, judging from what I read. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Set phrase, and it is idiomatic with reference to the surgery. One could conceivably refer to the transplanted organ itself as the organ transplant ("my left kidney is an organ transplant") but common usage of the phrase is in referring to the procedure. bd2412 T 03:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

forearm (attributive) + bone. Compare leg bone, although hip bone and shoulder bone do exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know medicine, and perhaps to someone trained in that field hip bone and shoulder bone are SoP, but to me (and, I suspect, most laymen), they're not, since hip and shoulder are joints, not bones, and hip/shoulder bone does not merely mean "any bone that adjoins the hip/shoulder". But delete forearm bone as SoP.​—msh210 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have:

A few of these are clear deletes IMO (calf bone, e.g.).​—msh210 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If fibula is actually also called calf bone (which it is according to dictionary.com) it should be kept. How else would we poor non-natives know which of the two bones of the lower leg it is? --Hekaheka 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
True. Actually, I didn't realize we have two bones down there, which is why I said to delete calf bone. Again, though, that entry has not had deletion requested.​—msh210 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think most of the above list should be kept. Of the forearm bone itself I'm not so sure. If the use of the term is commonplace, it might be considered a set phrase referring to both ulna and radius, and neither of them specifically. --Hekaheka 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
elbow bone might merit inclusion due to multiple senses, one of which only refers to a part of a bone. If that is typical, these might need to be addressed one at a time, especially the ones that use a common word (like "long", "calf", nasal") before "bone". DCDuring TALK 18:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I do think they need to be addressed singly, and did not mean to imply otherwise. The only one we're discussing so far, AFAICT, is forearm bone (and, below, its plural).​—msh210 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And we also had forearm bones, just added by 史凡, speedily deleted by SB as SoP. 史凡 raised, in the TR, whether it ought have been deleted, so I'm bringing that issue here, too. Delete, I say.​—msh210 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I shoulda said what its content was. It was just the {{plural of}} template (and appropriate headers and inflection line).​—msh210 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

mye,itgoes w/the sg forearm bone entry[savd onlyafterwards,asstruglin'w/etyl fmt :).ihadmy ownconcerns:

  1. bones of f-a.
  2. sop

butfrom educationalpoint[=uln+rad,saykids mitewonder"wotr f-a bones actualy]+/prafrasd:morethanjustsop[wotisa fa bone->TWOthings,NOTdeducible fromjustheadparts ofentry(tho most asults kno as=comn kno-ldg]>ithought/deemd itworthwhile[tho tad encyclopedic praps]+incl.realife ex.--ta4movin btw:)

ps i1.thought ofputin info i/plentry,but changdmymind i/daproces,c vasa deferentia[nkept/savdboth]:)--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the education point, in some animals there seems to be
  1. a single forearm bone, usually called the ulna and sometimes the forearm bone;
  2. a partial fusion of the ulna and radius forming a unit sometimes called the forearm bonel
  3. two separate bones of which the ulna seems to be sometimes called the forearm bone.
And, of course, the forearm of many animals is more readily understood as a forelimb, whether foreleg or wing or flipper.
Also, there are many uses on fiction that refer to "the" forearm bone as if it were a single unit, even in a human. If we gave an anatomy quiz to admins here, would they all know that our upper limbs had one bone and our lower ones two, without recourse to cheating by palpation? I don't think it is just the children who may have a fuzzy understanding, it may be authors and readers and even us. We can dismiss all of this as error, of course, but that does seem just a mite prescriptive.
I am not sure that I understand this correctly, but it seems rash to delete it. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

nope-asperbelo:rad+uln notdeduciblfromparts[same4legbons:[meta]tarsus incl?,toe bons?2me=al legs,but2anativ layman??-furthermor, my languagedozntv theword legbons,howdoikno???.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) We also ha

If fibula is actually also called calf bone (which it is according to dictionary.com) it should be kept. How else would we poor non-natives know which of the two bones of the lower leg it is? --Hekaheka 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

agree--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) eh-singly=?here

soneedsexpansionlol--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as sum of parts. Yes, the specific bones will be variable between species, and so will "wrist bones", "skull bones", "leg bones", etc. Consider that "wrist bone" can mean any of the bones in the wrist. Each of these bones has a name and a distinctive shape. Do we therefore have an entry that lists each possible wrist bone for every species (in some there are more bones)? No. This is content for an encyclopedia. The lexical content of the term "forearm bone" is "bone in the forearm". --EncycloPetey 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

i'dgo4wt tobe abroaddict>a.bit of grammar[ala Swan,whichsome entrys ractualy~dict.styl],gazeteer/geo,bitencycl.,phrasebooki/SHORTish entrysREFERING2wp,wm-books,etc>userFRIENDLY,klik-efficient[here:guidance2find wotevastuf:)[thoputinboundaryshard,irealiz

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and they deal with topics in their articles. We are a dictionary, and deal with words in our entries. The principles of organizing an encyclopedia do not apply here because our goals are quite different. --EncycloPetey 14:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

there isOVERLAP--likalthose discusions here'bout saytheDEF OFA WORD[lexicografik1]-itookmejust2weeks dealin intesivly w/apliedlinguistics waybak i/oz2c thatMOSTofthose holy/bigwordHOTOPICS/TECHN.TERMSrpoorly defind>wotsthepoint inalthefiting??encycl do alilbitof linguistiks[ipa,etyl],weneed2HELP'EMw/that[styloid-ipa?spica-etyl?let alone spica splint--have funsearchin i/wp..]>INCLUDING WP entrys [w/justLILdef-flesh,that indeed4wp],doinOURJOB w/etyl,ipa etc andsoHELPourusers.[imtrulyfedupw/althese mostlynarowsens def getinpalmdofasTHEdef[ex.:WOT IS A DICTIONARY,answerREALYNOTASTRAIGHT4WARDasu regulars'dlik2makebeliv,ncomin downw/big[policy usay?perdef>{punintended ;)}ALWAYS IN FLUX]stiks isntv.RESPECTFULeither],aweaknes esp.ofalthoseSOFTsciences as sociology,psychology etc imo[lookatsuch wp-entrys,howlers!!],nlet alonethe impresion itmaks uponanewby]

  • nmostofthose"dict.constraints"had2do w/SPACElimits["so we'lmakesomARBITRARYCRITERIAup"]-why esp.here onaproject ofsuchunprecedenteddimensionppl rso"closed"2wotburgeonin'technologys cando4them-itleavesmebafled,butrealy..:(
  • nthisimhoPERVERS/DESTRUCTIVfocus on"shalwe deletethisentry,yea?!{hyper-tone intended.}"[mywatchp.isnowINUNDATEDbythem--isCREATINstuf realysoborin??]-rwe here2BUILDUPor2smashea others efortsunderthepretensofGARDIN'THEGRAIL--itsaWORKINPROGRES,4krist'sake..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unused neologism, unsuccessfully coined in the 1990s. --Ivan Štambuk 00:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like and RFV case to me. Since I can't understand the language, I'm unlikely to be able to cite it or confirm that it can't be cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I nominate this entry for deletion because it is sum of parts (degree of glory). For example kingdom of glory and degree of heaven (see here for usage example) all mean the same thing. 98.166.138.172 14:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the Wikipedia article, (well its introduction) and I tend to think this is a proper noun and should be spelt either Degree of glory or Degree of Glory. I certainly can't guess or work out what it means from degree + of + glory, I think we should treat it as a proper noun and decide if it meets CFI that way. I think it does. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
More input please... Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do this and away side (home team, away team) meet CFI? Probably not, but let's hear some more opinions. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • languagelearnersNEEDthis[SKINFROMWHOSENOSE2'vthem ay?!?
  • urbeluvdCFIneedCOMPLETOVERHAUL.
  • nowgo'ndosthCONSTRUCTIV!

[iwasofree2coRECTurpost asursuchaDESTRUCTIVPURIST-itakafairbit,butherzLIMITS!]--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 14:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please make a proposal to amend WT:CFI so that we can apply our resources to more entries. I know that we have already made all of our existing entries as good as we know how to. We need most especially to add entries that other dictionaries omit. It is particularly important that we make sure that language learners never have to work through the meaning of a phrase using entries for the constituent words. Better we should lexicalize everything. Let a billion collocations bloom. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Please make a proposal WHENI CANINPUTto amend WT:CFI so that we can apply our resources to more entries. I know that we have already made all of our existing entries as good as we know how to.UR2BUSY'DELETIN'4THAT2HAPEN We need most especially to add entries that other dictionaries omit.INDEED-MYSTREETNAME:IWANT ETYL,OBSCURSPORTSTERM-IWANT PLAINENGLIS EXPL ETC. It is particularly important that we make sure that language learners never have to work through DICT=GOLDSTANDED,NEEDS ENTRYSthe meaning of a phrase UHAVNO DEEPLEARN/TEACHING OF2NDLANGUAGE EXPERIENS,N'HENCE LAKPERSPECTIV ,AOTH BOUTHE 'CONSTANTGUESIN'N'WORKIN'OUTREQUIRD INTHATTPROCES.using entries for the constituent words.LIKE GOIN'THRU THE28SENSESOF'OFF' JUST COS SB POSTEDAN INCOMPEHENSIBLTECHN.DEF-NOTX. Better we should lexicalize everything.YES!! Let a billion collocations=NOTORIOUSTUMBLIN'BLOK4LEARNERS bloom. MYCAPS---史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 02:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Needs more input, please comment! Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

This functions as a preposition to make adjectival and adverbial phrases. It can't be an adverb (taking no object), can it? DCDuring TALK 19:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be right, but for those of us not so hot on English grammar, can you explain this? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It is like WT:TR#circles around. It cannot be used grammatically without a true noun as complement. (BTW, not a gerund or something that can sometimes serve as if a noun) Most dictionaries would not call this a preposition, but I think it is indistinguishable in its grammatical function from normal one-word prepositions. I will take a closer look to make sure of this last point. In contrast, in back functions as an adverb. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NISOP. Equinox 23:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete as pointless; one–sixteen-wheeled (as well as many greater even numbers) are all easily attestable viâ Google Book Search.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It's a word. Would you propose to delete understandable? It's easily understandable too: understand + -able. Never forget that the definition is not the only part in the pages (you seem to forget examples, translations, anagrams, etc.) Lmaltier 12:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, what we really need is to look again at wheeled and check that it is perfectly clear. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that two-wheeled = two + wheeled. It's more two wheels + -ed. But, anyway, it's a word (with, possibly, anagrams, translations, etc.). Lmaltier 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

asianlearnersNEEDsuch entrys+tr-hanger.NI=?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 02:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it means "having two wheels". There is no reason to have five-or-more-wheeled, but the common terms two-wheeled, three-wheeled and four-wheeled should be kept. —Stephen 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
but this word is considered as comparable in the page, which seems absurd to me. Lmaltier 20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, two-wheeled is an absolute. It cannot be more two-wheeled. —Stephen 06:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

one-wheeled744 BGC hits;
two-wheeled3,300 BGC hits;
three-wheeled1,551 BGC hits;
four-wheeled3,140 BGC hits;
five-wheeled553 BGC hits;
six-wheeled1,089 BGC hits;
seven-wheeled419 BGC hits;
eight-wheeled926 BGC hits;
nine-wheeled68 BGC hits;
ten-wheeled687 BGC hits;
eleven-wheeled21 BGC hits;
twelve-wheeled624 BGC hits;
thirteen-wheeled10 BGC hits;
fourteen-wheeled146 BGC hits;
fifteen-wheeled26 BGC hits;
sixteen-wheeled162 BGC hits;
eighteen-wheeled198 BGC hits;
twenty-wheeled52 BGC hits;
twenty-one-wheeled2 BGC hits;
twenty-two-wheeled13 BGC hits;
twenty-three-wheeled4 BGC hits (though only one seems to be in the right sense);
twenty-four-wheeled125 BGC hits;
twenty-five-wheeled105 BGC hits (e.g., [7]);
twenty-six-wheeled8 BGC hits (e.g., [8]);
…and so on. All semantically transparent, all unidiomatic. I see no qualitative difference between two-, three-, or four-wheeled and the other n-wheeled. Delete them all or keep them all.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the missing sense "(in combination) Having the specified number or type of wheels" to [[wheeled]], and say to delete this SOP.​—msh210 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked up one of your so-called transparent unidiomatic attestable examples, fifteen-wheeled26 BGC hits;
, and the ones I saw where about "fifteen ‘wheeled vehicles’" (fifteen vehicles with wheels). We only need one through four, and no need at all for five or more. —Stephen 03:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
[9], [10].  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're going after these, the equivalently formed nouns two-wheeler, three-wheeler, four-wheeler, ..., eighteen-wheeler, ... would seem to be as deletable/keepable as these adjectives. That said, because of its common use to designate the standard tractor-trailer combo rather than any generic vehicle with eighteen wheels, entries for eighteen-wheeler and eighteen-wheeled are in my opinion warranted, but since the other combos aren't normally evocative of one particular combination, delete them. — Carolina wren discussió 16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

These entries may be a rich source of RfV candidates. But I don't see how we can delete any one of them that has a sense other than "having N wheels".
The "-wheeler" entries are more likely to have more meaningful definitions. I'd vouch for two-wheeler, three-wheeler, and four-wheeler and also bet on some truck "-wheelers": ten-wheeler, fourteen-wheeler. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree on the "-wheeler" entries, but isn't "two-wheeled" just two words joined by a hyphen to make a two-word adjective? How does it differ from "red-coloured" (for example)? Dbfirs 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be willing to argue that two-wheeled is a special case, since the wheels may be side-by-side and joined by an axle or one in front of the other with no axle. A "two-heeled vehicle" may be a chariot or a Vespa. Both are two-wheeled, but what that means is very different between the two vehicles. --EncycloPetey 02:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Political parties

I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI#Names of specific entries). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one.​—msh210 00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I sent Liberal Democrats to RFV before I discovered the others, and nobody looked so I moved them all here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Adding two Canadian parties. Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

Cf. New Democrat, New Democratic, NDPMichael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

  • Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cf. Progressive Conservative, PC.. Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:39 z

  • Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois

  • Not dictionary material, delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquisteMichael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
I'd just put {{w|Bloc Québécois}} instead of [[Bloc Québécois]] Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And Parti Quebecois. Cf. PQ, péquisteMichael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z

Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

rfd-sense: Noun. The act of abandoning. Sense included in participle form. Usexes for participle include one for such use. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Isn't the second example sentence a use of the gerund rather than the present participle. I thought that the present participle could only act as an adjective, not a noun - but maybe I'm too old-fashioned. SemperBlotto 07:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I had labeled it as "gerund" on the right of the usex. Perhaps I should insert the tag on the left, but we don't normally have any tags for usage examples.
    I am trying to get at how this ought to be presented. CGEL insists that there is no reason in current English to make a lexical distinction between gerund and participle and they make a pretty good case. But calling it a "gerund-participle" seems ugly. Quirk et al in the other grammar also seem to not find merit in a lexical distinction, but I don't own that one so I can't check. I am not sure how long before Quirk et al. (1985) the gerund/participle terms started to diminish in favor. I do not think that the vocabulary of gerund and participle is as deeply ingrained among users as the parts of speech vocabulary so I am inclined not to take it too seriously. I am open to discussion on this and don't see why wiktionary should be on the bleeding edge of terminology change. This just doesn't seem like the bleeding edge to me. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Noun. Act of sexual intercourse. This seems to be a gerundive use of the participle-gerund/-ing form rather than a separate PoS. I have already borrowed the usage example and inserted it with two others under the participle. What should be done with the translations and synonyms if this is deleted? DCDuring TALK 16:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction before researching is keep and mark as countable - how attestable is fuckings? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Google Books gets 436 hits for fuckings in English, ergo keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Very many gerund-participles/-ing forms form plurals. It is not really a mark of anything distinctive, though we have taken it as such in the past. I would be perfectly happy if the gerund usage example under the verb had a plural to illustrate this. It is somewhat analogous to the situation with attributive use of nouns. Almost all (all?) nouns are sometimes used attributively. We only have an adjective sense if there is a change in meaning or it used predicatively, gradably, or with a change of meaning. In the case of participles, I think we serve users better by indicating that any of the verb meanings can be used as participial adjectives, as gerunds, or to form progressive verb constructions.
This is a departure from our past practice. This and remaining and #abandoning are test cases for the development of a new approach to -ing forms more consistent with the treatment in modern grammars.
My understanding is that each gerund is also a noun denoting an activity, hence a hyponym of "activity". Examples include "swimming" in "I like swimming" and "climbing" in "Climbing can be dangerous". What I like in "I like swimming" is an object, so "swimming" as occurring in this phrase is a noun.
Having a noun section in each gerund may seem redundant, but so may seem having an adjective section in each of the past participle entries, such as defiled. Formally, it seems correct to proceed in this way. The noun sections of gerunds are valid targets for translations, unlike the verb form sections for part participles. --Dan Polansky 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It is unfortunately not quite as simple as that. In "The several royal fuckings we got were memorable", we have a noun as evidence by modification by determiner and adjective and the plural. In "their royally fucking us will long be remembered" it is more verbal, being modified by an adverb and having an objective complement. Both serve as subjects.
If every verb can also function as a noun, then why do we need a separate lexical entry? It is not different from the situation with attributive use of nouns. I see no reason to favor any one of these uses.
The translation target problem gets us into the problem of polysemy as well. In my experience most discussion about "fucking" was not about the sexual act, but rather some kind of adverse experience administered by someone or something. Would we need a translation table for each of the three uses of the participle-gerund form and the noun in each of the verb senses that existed? That would seem to be 4 times the number of base senses of the verb. Do all languages use fuck in ways that structurally parallel English to generate these four uses of ing forms? Do they have the same number of literal and figurative senses. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying that every verb ("swim") can function as a noun; I am saying that most gerund forms ("swimming") are also nouns. In "I have been swimming", "swimming" is a verb form, while in "I like swimming", "swimming" is a noun.
As regards the replication of verb senses in noun entries, we have it anyway with those terms for actions and activities that are not formed using "-ing", such as "replicate"-"replication", "donate"-"donation", "analyse"-"analysis", etc; duplication also arises in "analogy"-"analogous", "homology"-"homologous", and also in pairs resulting from the addition of "-able".
Consider swimming at OneLook® Dictionary Search: most dictionaries feature "swimming" also as a noun.
I am here concerned not with "fucking" in particular but with the class of all gerunds, including "swimming" and "climbing".
Do I understand correctly that you propose that we remove noun senses from most gerunds? --Dan Polansky 08:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
After some research: from what I now hope to understand, "gerund" does not refer to any form ending in "-ing" but rather only to those occurrences in a sentence that act as a noun. So an occurrence of "swimming" that acts as a present participle is not a gerund. What distinguishes gerunds from pure nouns denoting activities such as "analysis" is the ability of gerunds to be modified using adverbs, as you have pointed out.
If we remove noun sections from "-ing" entries, gerunds remain unrepresented. Currently, gerunds are usually represented as nouns in Wiktionary. Gerunds should not be represeted as present particles; they are gramatically distinct from them. --Dan Polansky 09:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
A problem with placing them under Nouns headers is that they are arguably misrepresented there as they cannot be treated as normal nouns in some regards in many circumstances. The two leading modern English grammars don't seem to find the traditional Latinate grammatical categories satisfactory. I would be intrigued to find out how the most popular modern advanced ESL texts handle the divergence of traditional and modern grammatical treatment. If this is still somewhat in flux, as I suspect it is in ESL texts, then a good treatment might be to have a grammar appendix, a one- or two-sentence usage note, and/or a See also directing users to an "Appendix:English uses of of the participial form of verbs".
Other dictionaries have finessed this presentation issue by not having a full entry for inflected forms of English verbs. If they have a separate entry for a verb-derived noun ending in -ing, it is not a gerund or participle AFAICT. Our having separate entries for the participle has created the issue by tempting contributors to add -ing Noun sections where normal dictionaries (print or online) would not have a separate entry. We would need to actively discourage users from adding such sections by providing them with a rationale for not doing so. (The same sort of problem arises for common noun uses of Proper nouns and attributive-only adjective use of nouns.)
If we accept that a gerund is a verb form (and some Google books that I have seen do that), we can place a gerund line next to present participle line, to render in the "climbing" entry:
  1. Present participle of climb.
  2. Gerund of climb.
or
  1. Gerund and present participle of climb.
That should make gerund explicitly represented without the need of having a misleading noun section. I accept your point that a noun section is an imperfect represenation of a gerund.
As regards the tentative noun "fucking", I have no comment on that; I was only concerned with gerunds in general and with tentative verb-derived nouns ending in "-ing". --Dan Polansky 21:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The general case is of more interest to me as well. Your suggestion is very constructive. It is not unlike what CGEL does. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And fuckings will quite easily meet CFI, so if we delete the noun fucking that's gonna cause a problem, isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this would need to be handled. But we already don't have plurals for a large number of gerundial uses of participle forms. (It is my belief that almost all participle forms have attestable gerunds ending in -s, though it may be tedious to separate the plural gerunds from the plurals of derived true nouns.) I can imagine some technical approaches that I cannot implement but could possibly specify, but I don't think we are deep enough in technical skills to count on that. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I would feel happier about DCD's approach if we recognized "Participle" and/or "Gerund" as a PoS, but I don't see that as likely to happen for English (and that approach isn't without problems of its own). We've already agreed in previous discussion that participles can be given an Adjective section, under certain circumstances, so why not a Noun?
One big concern I have about the proposed solution is the handling of subsections like Quotations. Consider: If we define quoting as "gerund and present participle", then how do we sort the quotations when some will be a gerund use and some will be a participle use? Whatever we choose to do, we need to keep these two items separated for the sake of quotations, synonyms, translations, etc., because the grammar and meaning as a participle and as a gerund are distinct.
Also, what happens to gerunds like being that have become nouns to a higher degree? A being refers to a concrete noun, and is seldom used to mean an abstraction or action as most present participles do when they become gerunds. Likewise, some gerunds are regularly modified by adjectives, which is not possible for a verb. Consider racewalking, competitive eating, offset printing. Are we to have these listed as nouns, but have walking, eating, and printing merely as "verb forms"? This sets us up for inconsistent treatment and much confusion among our users.
The underlying problem is that a gerund is neither wholly a verb nor wholly a noun. I have the same (or a similar) problem in Latin with participles, gerundives, gerunds, and infinitives. Latin has the additional problem that such forms also have a set of inflected forms beyond the ones for the verb. English does not have the degree of inflection that Latin has, but the question of "plural" gerunds is similar. You can see how I've handled Latin participles at entries like amāns, amātus, and amandus. The relation to the verb is indicated in two ways: by the PoS Participle, and by the Etymology from the verb.
For gerunds in Latin, I've had to use the PoS Gerund, because of grammatical complications (see laborāndum). These complications include the fact that the Latin gerund has a fixed gender (neuter) and lacks a nominative form. Neither of these points can be inferred from a verb, which lacks entirely both gender and case. That is, Latin gerunds have attributes not found in verbs, inflect like nouns and adjectives, and function grammatically like those nouns and adjectives. The only things that tie them to a verb are the stem and base meaning, but that is true of all nouns and adjectives in Latin that derive from verbs, and there are many such nouns and adjectives that are not gerunds but have been formed from verbs by means of a suffix. So, these nouns and adjectives share with their root verb a suffix and base meaning, even if they aren't gerunds. I can therefore find no internaly consistent justification in Latin for treating Gerund as a "verb form". --EncycloPetey 20:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Departure from the old PoS terms in English seems inadvisable to me because it drives a wedge between us and normal users. For languages approached more formally, like Latin, any terminology that is used in instruction seems acceptable by the same standard, though some monolingual English users who might be looking up a Latin word will be flummoxed by terms like gerund.
Just to clarify one point while I try to digest the rest: In English there definitely are cases where there is a pure adjective (gradable, etc) or a pure noun (usually a shift in meaning or derivation from a noun, possibly in ME or OE). These always need to treated separately.
The general question of what points should be not be handled lexically but rather by grammar notes summarizing descriptive rules of broad applicability (within the language) and how we should help users find such notes must exist in almost all languages whose grammars have been documented. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you about summarizing descriptive rules, etc. And, as you can see, I've phrased much of my preceding comments as questions, partly to stimulate discussion and raise points but partly because I have no solution that wouldn't retain significant problems. If I thought I had a solution that would work, and which would satisfy the various needs and concerns in this discussion, I'd present it. For now, the best I have are some issues and methods not previously mentioned.
Latin gerunds will flummox most users of Wiktionary no matter what we call them; they're advanced grammar in the language and have many oddities beyond the ones I've noted above. In addition to the other considerations, another reason I went with using Gerund as a Latin PoS (after mulling over the issue for years) was to highlight to the user that something really weird is going on, and that they might need to seek additional information. When I understand Latin gerunds a bit better myself (by that I mean their actual use, and not just the brief mention they usually get in textbooks), I intend to write an Appendix concerning them as a grammatical aid. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like all -ing entries to have two sections. A verb section defined as "present participle of" and a noun section defined as "gerund of". But the grammar police won't let us talk about gerunds these days. SemperBlotto 21:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You're nicked, sunshine. Ƿidsiþ 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've created Appendix:English gerund, to be updated and renamed as we sees fit. --Dan Polansky 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think "fucking" in this sense is a gerund at all, I think it's a real run-of-the-mill noun. For example:
  • 1996, Joe Orton, John Lahr, The Orton Diaries, p. 204:
    • 'Oh I needed that,' he said, 'I needed a good fucking, you certainly know how to fuck.'
  • 2008, Bertrice Small, The Captive Heart, p. 365.
    • She'd pay for her boldness in a few minutes when he put her on her back and gave her a good fucking.
If we were talking about swimming or climbing here, we'd probably say "I need a good swim" or "they had a good climb", not "a good swimming" or "a good climbing". There's no question that a swim or a climb is a noun, and "fucking" is being used in the same way. bd2412 T 19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Which attribute of the usage would you point to in order to establish a distinct noun nature not possessed by -ing forms of other verbs: modification by adjective, modification by a determiner, pluralization? Modification by "a" and pluralization are indications of countability, rather than nounhood per se. "There was much swimming and climbing" suggests that some determiners can modify the -ing forms you chose for contrast, but that they are like uncountable nouns. "There is good swimming and great climbing there, but only in the Summer." establishes adjectival modification.
Or is the criterion a semantic one? That there is a distinct "instance-of" sense?
The long-standing practice here of relying on pluralization to be the necessary and sufficient condition for the noun nature of -ing forms is defensible, but not quick as obviously correct as I had thought for these many months. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the oldest tagged RfD (October 2007). ar#Romanian. I can find no record of it having been posted. Has this now been resolved? DCDuring TALK 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the same person that posted am#Romanian saying "clean up or delete". That is, it definitely exists but it needs cleaning up. I'll try and do it tomorrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It definitely exists but I can't find the meaning given in the article. It is accord to ro:ar a conjugated form of ara#Romanian, but that's not what the Romanian sections says right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I inserted {{attention|ro}}, which I should have two weeks ago. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
We al agree it exists, so kept and requesting cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged long ago. Proper noun: Jackie Chan. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, not dictionary material. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

saystheguywhoknowsF*ALboutchin./userfriendlines-cedict hasit[wonderwhy ispendmy timethere?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 04:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Under WT:CFI Proper nouns do not normally belong in Wiktionary with rare exceptions. Please show that this is one of those exceptions or isn't a proper noun or make a proposal to change the rules. I any event try not to be abusive. DCDuring TALK 05:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. pointin'out IGNORANS=ABUSIV,interestin.
  2. 4therecord:half ofur coments r overlySUBLIMINALwhich =RUDE[but since urANGLSAXON,that ok,urPREROGATIV.[engl=WORLDLANGUAG,butwho carz ey.]
  3. ifthisplace'dbe NICER[newbi-bitin,rudenes,blatant'n'arogant ignorance,disrespect4ea oth's eforts,theworks],myTONE'dbe difrent2,simpl.
  4. sotheATHEROSCLEROTIC OLDGUARD[mostly just20-sth's,ironicaly]whorun the wt-show canvote itdown,notx.
  5. im of2greena pasturs4the day,havfun DOIN'THE HABITUAL SQUABLIN here.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to change rules? There is one but no good: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Clarify names of specific entities. I am not so worried about person's names but place names are still restricted to the English "attributive use". Most existing place names would be deleted from Wiktionary if agreed, I don't want to be part of this, hence voted Oppose Anatoli 05:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting. What does this your Oppose on that Vote have to do with Jackie Chan? DCDuring TALK 05:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Very simple. If Jackie Chan is not used attributively in English, it can be deleted. Anatoli 05:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
As for the entry in question, Keep, not as a rule but as an exception. I would allow a limited number of famous people per language/country. If there was a motion to change rules to make more exceptions for people's names, I would support it. Anatoli 06:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete absent evidence of use to refer to something other than the literal person Jackie Chan (not out of the question). Being in Chinese doesn't give proper nouns a special dispensation... certain editors' opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. -- Visviva 06:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GOODdict.=GP,the1.line resource oflearners:seesALpatients,TREATS someENTIRELY,REFERSthe rest[wp,wikibooks etc].til that conceptSINKS INhere,wt istuk in2MEDIOCRITY.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It is a term that cannot be translated or deduced from the pronunciation or meaning of the individual parts without the aid of a dictionary. It occurs in many documents sent for translation. The Chinese term is not the same as the English term that it translates to. It is more like Honest Abe, but not anywhere near as tranparent at that. —Stephen 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If so, then move to RfV for Proper Noun attributive-use attestation, if such a concept is applicable, or perhaps mention in a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Stephen; KEEP. My memory of it is vague but I do remember a discussion taking place here about this before and if I remember correctly someone said that the translation (literally speaking) was _____ dragon, ergo suggests nothing of Jackie Chan to someone who sees the term for the first time ad does not suspect it to be something related to him ergo keep. Oh and before I forget, restore it's simplified form and create a pinyin entry too. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Many people moving from one culture to another change their name or adopt a use name. This does not mean we should have entries for those people. The 14th century English mercenary John Hawkwood was known in Italy as Giovanni Acuto (as a result of Hobson-Jobson). Neither name can be inferred from the other, but that does not mean we should keep it. Alaska is called "Seward's Folly" in some period documents, but that again is not reason for an entry here. We have guidelines for including names of specific entities, and 成龍 does not meet those guidelines. Nor do I see a good reason here for changing those guidelines. --EncycloPetey 16:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OF COURS weNEED ALTHESE--epSEESDALITE onVERB-CONJ.sumhow,yet isSTUBNLY MYOPICbout cfi-IMPEDIMENTS2wt development-asaid be4,prapsuch users needaBREAK2GET REALANGUAG SKILS BYSELFSTUDY[evribody can afordteachers{who'v mostlyNOIDEA/NI anyway]?think gain.]nthen combak here n'relateHOWHELPFL CURNT DICT.were indaquest.[funili enuf mgluv{rel.lingo-french}&visv.{korean}dontc the cfi-lite either{i'v2LIMITMY TYPINtho..}DESPITEparnt/ledgdPROFICIENCY,sgb&others w/RELEVANT L-SKILS rmoreENLITNDw/cfi{n imjustFEDUP ENUFw/theBUL2be mostOUTSPOKENbout it,even i'dPREFERputin myTYPIN'RESERV i/ENTRYS,old&new1s,astheOVERAL LEVListilLAMENTABL,partialCAUS2which ic theMISGUIDEDwhenot plainIMPOSIBL ATITUDE,from dealin'w/NEWBIZoverRESTRICTIV CFI2DISRESPECT2othappl/editors's contributions,displayd by'parent'SEMINALMEMBAZhere-sad ocurens that itook uponmyself DONKWIKSOTIN'gainst[gues sum1 needs2play the combativIDEALIST's role,so herewith.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. 成龍 [-龙] Chéng Lóng /Jackie Chan (1954-), kungfu film and cantopop star/[soursMDBG;NICEdict-def.MOREPRACTICAL imview]
  2. 成龍配套=[bekum]complete,likely[partial]etyl[also:[-]dragon lit.,indeed
  3. cheng[1.hanzi] ALSO is asurname,beit rathe anINfreq.1,long[2.zi]MAINLYis noun;cheng alsofigurz i/GIVENAMES[guo fucheng,other famous canto-actor] and is averb/makes nouns like succes/chenggong]-this chin.nameCONSPICUOUSLYduzNOT behave as awestern1,it'dbe said2be aPUN,LIT.ALUSION [same4my own chin.name>ITMEANS STH THATreflects favorably onits bearer]NMORE-getin'more clearly now whyKNOWLEDGE OFtheTARGET LANGUAGis important asi pointed out sevraltimz[this'dbe likethrustin'in anOPENDOOR,butNOT2sum 'parentli],'n'NOTjust bein aSTIKLE4SUM CFI PASAGES 1HAPND2'V NURSD THRU VOTES?!?[n wikis r aLARGLY ANONYMES EFORT,itduznt mater whoduzwot,ASLONG ASITGETS DONE!]
  4. therOBVIESLY isETYL,PRONCIATION ETC2this,butr users rDENIED it.
  5. untilWEL ADVANSD,an engl.-prof. user hasNOCHANSofknowing wotismeant[shortndproverb-name]
  6. letin'usersINTHECOLD NOTHELPIN'EM BY POINTING OUT WOT IS NOUN/PR.NOUN,we r asuserHOSTIL as st*TRD.CHIN.DICTwhich expect u2KNOWTHE ETYL OFWOT UWANNA LOOKUP INORDER2FINF/LOCATE IT!
  7. w/aREADER,users hav2be capabl2'FINGER' AL WORDS,2get ananswer~mdbg,which redirectsfurther ifmore info islikd.
  8. furthermore,suchrEADER'dshowWORD BOUNDARYs i/lingos that nohav'em,like chin,al2HELP THEi/this case lingo-aquirin'USER.
  9. theDEARTHof chin-entrys getsHELPD byDEL'n'PUTIN'OF POTENTIAL EDITORS,sure.
  10. 4this'n'uther reasons,iproposd i/bp2havAL PROPERNOUNS,which had2be restricted by,fromemory,DC2ONLYrefer2placenames,NOTmy doin'.
  11. WT has ,inovatinly so :),veRB CONJUGATNS,NOTlik trad.dict whopompously'dstate'THAT4DEDICATEDGRAMA BOOKLETS ALA BESCHEREL'
  12. FIRST1getsCONCENSUS,THEN1VOTES,asper conrad--unles meNTALITYCHANGE[imtryingVERYHARDw/sore'n'abroken hand]orMASIV INFLUX ofthosePESKYnHATEDnewbiz,therzNOPOINT[c bcms-debacl],n althose sugestions2me2thecontrary rPLAIN SILYn henceRUDE.[giv'thatA THOUGHT,DC ETAL.]
  13. ontheotherhand,whenpplKEEPSAYIN2KEEP SUCHENTRYS,1mite consider theCFI[NOTset i/stone but PERPETUALY I/FLUX asevrithin'i/liFE]2NOTreflect CONSENSES,soatleast 0-TOLERANS APLICATION ofthat cfi-BS[stributive use',ican hear users sigh,nay swoon i/admiration..]'dbe stOPD[n'dNEVA behandled likethat.
  14. ihav herewith exPENDED MY TYPIN'RESERV4THEDAY,nrest asurd such'l beGREATLY APRECIATED HEREi/al myriad posiblways,asis wt-'comunity's wont.
  15. thisvery entry hasALREDY BEEN DISCUSD ATLENGTHas a.pointedout byPalkia>itsPLAIN SILYnWASTIN'EFORTSof dcd2ONCE AGAIN RAISE ITntryin2hav his henchman mgluvs2execute dapoorword[nthen cuvrin'ur ass dc by acusin'the very mgluvs of"rash deletions" <THATWAS MSH'PARENTLI,'POLOGIZ[5.9.9] nplayin'urbeluvdHI MORAL GROUND GAME,which whenlabeld asPATHETICleads2INSINUATIONS of ABUSIVNES--daPOSITIVFORCE here,no?
  16. ur apointd"CHIN.EXPERT"isCONSPICUOUSby hisABSENCE,RULEi/such discusions-we'al contribute wotwe want ofcourse[tho makin'ofOLDchin.the priority giventheDIRE STATEof zh here..],HELPFLit isNOT,FRACKSHES"COMUNITY here :(
  17. closin BARB:givin'theINtolerans pervadin'rfd,'dthereNOT be an OSTRACIZIN'VOTE onthe OUTLAWINGofthe sily atribufet use of ENCYCLOnthe like,when notILK,i/usernams,imeas,c'mon,we'r aDICT here4christf*ks!!..
  18. ps SARCASM etc aside when2ANOYD[lord,may ibe4forgivn,as/4 iused wt'sname i/vain],ilike'n'tend2DISCUS based onFACTSnREASON,but itTAKES2 2TANGO..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought that this wasn't supposed to be a pure vote. I thought there were supposed to be reasons connected with WT:CFI. CFI would not have us keep any name of a person that was not attestable in attributive use. As no one here has suggested that that is possible, let alone volunteered to do it, let alone done it, I wonder if it is even worth clogging RfV. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

i'l'v adab:wodebout:"dc,theJ.Chan of wt,saw another sily n'criminal sop[also known as"sob"as overlySily Space-consumin'NoN-ENTRYS Bloviatinli so]-entry off w/a due double-bakflip flyin'scissez-chop,impresin'his luv-intrest[alwayz inHISfilms,dontgetme wrong asnothinREALYpe:snl ;)]athe sametime/alalong"?[mytyp-reserv4the day isgun/gone now-sono wuriz4da very restevthe day.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 06:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete until such time as someone can come up with a reasonable system for inclusion of individual full names. Our policy on placenames is so infantile, that I have to imagine it will be a long time off. Presumably there are some interesting ways to translate "Tom Cruise," but we are clearly inequipped to go down that route now. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Each Chinese translator decides for himself how he want to translate Tom Cruise. 成龍 is a set term and not infrequently pops up in translations. A kept entry takes the same amount of storage space as a deleted entry, and nobody has shown how deleting this common term will improve Wiktionary. The whole idea that proper names are not dictionary material stems from English and closely related European names that no longer have any meaning and which general remain unchanged when traslated to and from English and the closely related Western European languages. But Chinese proper nouns are a different breed altogether. For translators, proper names are one of the real difficulties in translation, because in fact many proper names are different from one language to another, and in the case of unrelated languages, they are all different...and because, although English proper names have no gender and usually no number, hence no grammar, in fact in many languages they do have gender and number and they decline. Proper names present with all of the features and difficulties of any regular word, except that they are much harder to find in dictionaries, much, much, much harder to find the grammar that attaches, and, in many languages they actually do have meanings. Paris is Paris in German, English, and French, but Munich is different in virtually every language. Often, when the languages are not related, proper names are completely unrecognizable. For instance, Wisconsin is Wazhashkoons in Ojibwe; Lake Superior is Anishinaabeg-gichigami. Phoenix is Hoozdoh in Navajo, Fiinigis in Apache, Skikik in O'odham. Geronimo is Ma'ii Ashkii in Navajo, and Navajo for Kit Carson is Hastiin bi'éé' łichi'ii'. All proper names have a certain gender in German, as well as in French, Italian, Russian, and so on, and they belong to certain noun classes in Swahili and other Bantu languages. English surnames (including Tom Cruise) are not very useful or needed in a dictionary, and every translator translates or transliterates them on the fly without any need to look in any reference work...but many Chinese proper names (not all, but certainly 成龍) are different, and they cannot be translated as a tranlator might wish, but must be taken from a good dictionary. When these words are entered and properly formated by trusted, experienced editors such as User:A-cai (who is responsible for 成龍), and since they take the same amount of space whether kept or deleted, and since professional translators actually need this kind of data in a dictionary, and since deleting improves the project NOT ONE IOTA, it should be kept, and these endless discussions with editors who have no experience translating foreign languages, and who probably will never have any experience in translation, should cease and the inexperienced should try listening to the experienced for a change. —Stephen 03:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Give me a break. First, A-cai has been around for years, and while he is indeed a trusted and experienced editor, he has been creating thousands of these entries while knowing full well that they are in brazen contravention of settled Wiktionary policy. He must, therefore, know that they are subject to deletion as soon as someone takes proper notice of them.
Second, I don't know how they do things in China, but Korean-English dictionaries -- regardless of audience -- don't normally include pop-culture icons as headwords, no matter how unpredictable the translation of their name might be (and there are some cases where it is quite unpredictable ... to say nothing of the romanization issues). Translators have to rely on their research skills, as they must do for many of the hundreds of other terminology and style issues that are likely to arise in the course of a day.
Third, any Chinese-English translator who works in a relevant field (pop culture, marketing, journalism, sports, etc.) and doesn't know the English and Chinese names of major figures like the back of their hand needs to get out of the game. In fact, any translator in any specialty who -- given a computer with internet access -- can't find the answer to a basic terminology question like this inside of 5 minutes is ... well, not much of a translator. And Wiktionary is not some sort of special tool for unqualified translators. Any ZH-EN translators who are so completely unable to meet the exigencies of the profession need to step aside and stop driving down rates and standards for everyone else. I'm damned if I'm going to spend my limited spare time helping unprofessional translators take work away from people who actually know how to do their jobs. Nor will I support others twisting the goals of this noble project to that end. If there are good lexicographic reasons for including this material, fine; but "some translator might not know what they're doing" is not a good lexicographic reason for doing anything. If somebody really needs help, let them go to KudoZ or TCTerms, where they will at least give some mojo to the clueful (and probably get their answer in less time than it takes this page to load).
I wouldn't have supposed that any professional translator would feel otherwise about this... but apparently, you do. That's fine. But stop using the profession as some kind of get-out-CFI-free card. -- Visviva 09:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

wotaloadevPROTECTIONISTIC bull!![reason wiDECENT MED.INFOso hard2comby onet]

  • wt4EVRIBODY,inclTRANSLATORSgr&smal
  • i4 1AM ABSOLUTLY FEDUP w/havin2doWEB SEARCHES4pretymuchEA SINGL F*KIN THINGiwana find say watchin dachin.news--WOTDAF*R DICTthere4,2fulfil there goalevBEIN UNHELPFL?????[NOBL INDEed]
  • if visv.isuchaCRAK,imsure work'l snowda user under,noworiz[orwork4MENT.CHANG, saveme evBAD ENGLevriwhere here!
  • a"prof[dear!]tr-l"neededME2getda techn.terms rite onmy degre,imsoo impresd.
  • sgb istheONLI OUTSPOKENtr-l. iknowof&GUD ON'IM!!,darest isHIDIN'THEIRBOOKS2"keeptheir edge",BAKWED BUNCH!!![intelctual midl ages i/3.milenium,tsktsk
  • i'v utrd CRITICISMreACAI,butNOTcosev hisENTRYSwhich asuch rV.GOOD[tho 2much ofaTYPIN'SLOG>edit mask plpl conrad..],n igobyMERIT!
  • weneed2STOP HIDIN'behindBAD EXISTIN'DICTas asEXCUSE4doin'aLOUSY JOB here!!!
  • cfi needsCOMPL.OVERHAUL!!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 01:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

sgb-i agre+I'dINCLUDEt.cruis[=ALL PRoPA NAMZ] asNOTevry engl.LEARNER'dbe suposd2no himBUTneeds aBRIEF LOWDOWNon him i/wt2be able2SCAN TEXTS4CONTENT[ex.googl results]!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 08:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil in your posts. If your primary purpose here is to rant and insult, then you will be blocked (again). --EncycloPetey 02:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The right-hand information box of w:Jackie Chan already shows his Chinese stage name in traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese, Mandarin Pinyin, and Cantonese Jyutping.--Jusjih 04:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WT:RFV#floo powder

An "h" that is "aspirated". I'm sure that eventually there will be a referenced WP entry for this. Perhaps it would belong in some appendix or glossary, though I'm not sure why. This seems to be a good exemplar of "encyclopedic". DCDuring TALK 16:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete SoP.​—msh210 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, aspirated has no adjectival sense right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Glad you asked. As with so many past participle forms it has sired an adjective: "To me, his "h"s sound more heavily aspirated than Jan's" (predicate position [not a form of "be" to confirm not passive], gradable, comparable). DCDuring TALK 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I thought the English was aspirate h not aspirated. Maybe an error from a non native speaker? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably that too. I don't here much talk about phonology. That would be [[aspirate#Noun]] + [[h]]. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Added mute h. DCDuring TALK 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Aspirated h's are not "pronounced with an audible breath"! The French words 'hauteur' (aspirated h) and 'auteur' are pronounced identically (/otœʁ/) on their own. You never say, *"ʰotœʁ". Likewise, 'mute h' is not simply an h that has no sound; it's an h that allows liaison or elision. —Internoob (TalkCont.) 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, he's perfectly right about that. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that we often find reasons why anything linguistic has delicate non-SoP nuances that require a separate entry while giving the back of our hand to entries from other fields. And at the same time we make it difficult for newbies who actually are aware of the corresponding distinctions in other fields to participate. We sometimes dismiss their efforts if not punctilliously compliant with our rules, while granting each other latitude. Would we be so careful to ensure the inclusion of terms from, say, hairdressing or roofing?
At the very least, find a couple of reference works that define the term consistently, preferably across languages (unless we really need to define the term for each language where the concept is used). DCDuring TALK 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This would be an argument for taking other fields more seriously (as we should), not for excluding valid words from one of the two fields (linguistics and computing) where the editing community has substantial collective expertise. IMO we need to work on doing a great job of the things we can do well, and not worry so much about the things we have to set aside for later. -- Visviva 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I make the point wherever and whenever I can, even OT. Not to put to find a point on it, what we can do well apparently is create a linguists' workshop, filled with tools, half-finished artifacts, unsalable curiosities, and shiny things generally. I would love to know how to move us along toward something more broadly useful, to motivate others to do so, or to recruit someone who does. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that we have much of a linguists' workshop. Any time that a moderately obscure linguistic concept comes up in discussion, like pertainym a while back or ambiposition the other day, it is pretty much a given that the link will (at least initially) be red. This is pathetic; our dictionary is not even adequate to our own purposes in the field of our specialization. The reasons for this are pretty simple, I think; a mixture of the good old "contempt for the known" and the simple fact that nobody likes their hobby to be too much like their day job. Of course, at this stage of development, our coverage of every field leaves much to be desired. But I scarcely think that strangling our nascent, fragmentary linguistics coverage in its cradle is somehow going to help the rest of our content. -- Visviva 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems like "mute h" is used (almost) exclusively in English discussions of French, and with the meaning given at w:Aspirated h. Both "aspirated h" and "mute h" are certainly not what I would have inferred from the sum of parts. I'm not sure why there would be any question of the presence of a distinct meaning here. Keep. -- Visviva 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
They might actually be misnomers because a mute h is not mute, an aspirated h is not aspirated. For mute h that *might* be deletable, but the only way to delete aspirated h and retain the meaning would be in aspirated (of an h) In the French language, that does not allow liaison with a consonant that precedes it. Keep both Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Do Msh10 and DCDuring want to comment? Seems like an overall keep to me. Mglovesfun (talk)
Move to RfV. If it's really a misnomer (attestation would help establish that), then it might be a keep, unless "mute" has a sense that covers that "misnomer" meaning, making it not a misnomer. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Cited. One can certainly say "the H is mute" in this sense, but that hardly makes this sum of parts, since that sense of "mute" is transparently derived from this phrase. -- Visviva 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is whether any other phonetic entity might also be modified by the word "mute" in the identical sense. Wouldn't that be an indication of SoPitude? (BTW, I am an equal-opportunity SoPitude strangler. See #roof tile). DCDuring TALK 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
(To DCDuring) I don't think so, plus Internoob has handily come up with some cites on WT:RFDO#September 2009. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
What about "mute labial b" which has a representation in the Cyrillic alphabet? DCDuring TALK 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In simple searches I also find "mute e", "mute p". Does the meaning of "mute" change completely with each letter modified? Or does it mean something like not pronounced in all cases? Or are there subtle nuances that linguists alone can see or hear and that there is agreement about in the field or in subfields or in schools of thought or schools of thought within subfields? DCDuring TALK 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing that "mute" cannot also mean "silent", AFAICT. "Mute h" can thus also mean "silent h", a fact that can be readily confirmed on b.g.c. (I'm agnostic as to whether this needs to be mentioned in the entry). Absent further evidence, I'm thus inclined to think that "mute=silent" in the examples you cite. The point here, as I would have thought the citations made clear, is that "mute h" has a more specific meaning that is unique to the study of French. -- Visviva 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
To me that just looks like a context-specific entailment rather than part of a proper dictionary definition. Could I define an "electrical plug" as being "a source of 120-volt alternating current electricity" (as it is in the US) and claim that for that reason it is not SoP? DCDuring TALK 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep. Sigh. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept both, majority. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this just Maske with a definite article? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is. move to RFD Oh, we are already at RFD. Whoops. Anyway, add this meaning to Maske and then delete -- Prince Kassad 04:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
delete--Diuturno 06:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we allow inflected forms of misspellings? Sussuration started off as a noun and got turned into a misspelling later on, hence the plural. Can we delete this now? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(note: I changed it from plural of (of a misspelling) to misspelling of the plural. RJFJR 14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
Keep if it's common enough a misspelling to be kept (not that we have criteria for that). That it's a plural of another misspelling shouldn't hurt its chances IMO.​—msh210 20:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The start of the etymology sums everything up - "Frolak was first used on social networking sites in September of 2009" = protologism. Thryduulf 20:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gone. I've taken the liberty of speedily deleting this (after twice complaining Mglovesfun's too quick to delete things nominated for deletion. Hypocrite).​—msh210 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Marked by Logomaniac as a speedy delete. I dunno, I don't think that any cat that's Siberian is a "Siberian cat" is it? A bit like saying the United Kingdom is just a kingdom that's united. Abstain until I do some research. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(*cough*) Yeah, that's what I was doing before this all blew up. Thank you for noticing. (*sigh*) ... L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    • I still think it was at least worth a debate rather than a speedy delete. No skin off my nose if they get deleted or kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

its aCATisnt it,NOTaDOG,husky etc--how am i2know asaNONspecialist say goin'thru anANIMALcategory??nif its aTEXTboutCATS,ofcours its just'sib-rian'>keepBOTH[althis del-NONSENS here:(--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

See directly above. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that all but this one has been deleted, I've assumed the votes above were also for this one, ergo deleted per majority decision. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

rfd-sense (erm, obviously) the adjective, it actually says that it's the noun as a modifier, and I don't think we keep those. Speaking of, whatever happened to forest#Adjective? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete unless it can be shown to be gradable ("X is more newspaper than Y") or to take an adverb as complement ("a genuinely newspaper style"). Initial search is not promising in this regard. But if we do find evidence of adjectiveness, someone should let Professor Brinton know. [11] :-) -- Visviva 11:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that adjective PoSs for attributive use ought to always go to RfV rather than to RfD. It is an empirical question. DCDuring TALK 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominated by DCDuring but not listed here. I don't understand this nomination just on the ground we've always (AFAICT) accepted countries as words. Ironically as I said above, I suppose United Kingdom is sum of parts because it's just a kingdom that's united (well, it isn't really is it). In other words keep per United Kingdom United States, United States of America, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it but didn't bring it here during the proposal-and-vote process. To me this seems like the quintessential encyclopedic gazetteer entry. "Republic of Ireland" seems to me to be one of the definitions of Ireland, but not a term likely to be looked up. Formal names seem almost inherently encyclopedic. If the formal name were in the body of the entry, Ireland would appear at the top of any search for that term anyway. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure, but just a comment: (Or as they say in another forum, IHNW IJLS:) This seems to be keepable/deletable along with [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea]], [[Republic of Korea]], [[People's Republic of China]], [[Republic of China]], [[Democratic Republic of Vietnam]], [[Republic of Vietnam]], [[Socialist Republic of Vietnam]], and perhaps a few others: each of the terms is sort-of SOP but easily confused with another entity's name, so people might want to look it up to determine which of the two it is.​—msh210 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

IHNW IJLS?==--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a definition like "official name of the country xyz" seems okay, we also have République française thanks to erm, me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
We have many other official country names as well: Republic of Armenia, Republic of Armenia, Republic of Djibouti, Republic of Finland, Suomen tasavalta, Republic of Ghana, Kingdom of Yemen, Kungariket Sverige... I think official names of the countries are worth keeping. Someone might want to use Wikipedia e.g. to search the official name of Malawi in Chinese. --Hekaheka 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. There are lots of meanings of Ireland. --Rising Sun 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
So? What's your point? DCDuring TALK 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the logic behind deleting it? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
My point is: this is how we can distinguish, between Ireland (Eire), Ireland (independent country). I would be happy for entries for Southern Ireland, Irish Free State, Irish Republic, Kingdom of Ireland, Lordship of Ireland, Gaelic Ireland, Confederate Ireland too (although Wikipedia already has them). --Rising Sun 08:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
We can readily distinguish among the words and phrases by whether they have attributive use. An encyclopedia might have to use different criteria of a more - what's the word - encyclopedic nature. There is nothing about Ireland in itself that makes it a better entry than Republic of Ireland. I had some small hope that we could dispense with the RfV process because we would all agree that it was uncitable in attributive use.
I hope that all of these and many more have entries in the Historical Translating Wikigazetteer of Earth's places and governmental entities. I am sure that you can see the possibilities of such a thing and also that it would have needs for entry/article structure that was significantly different from Wiktionary or Wikipedia. I suppose the admins there will have to be concerned about surface-feature bias, not to mention terrestrial bias.
No attributive use. Only in encyclopedic dictionaries. Already in WP. I have seen no one advance a reason to treat official names of countries any differently than official names of other corporate entities. Better case for Ireland and Eire (in English). Perhaps it should go to RfV for attributive use citations while the proper noun proposals are being voted on or are in gestation at BP. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Definitely keep! This is the common name in the UK for the country that (for political reasons) prefers to call itself "Ireland". We even have the common abbreviation ROI linked here. It's rather like the distinction between America and United States of America. Dbfirs 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Judging from the SC vote, I thought we got to ignore things like political realities ;-|)). Frankly, this is an example of why I wish we would avoid proper nouns except those meeting a strict attributive use sense. We end up involved in political disputes for no necessary reason, long before we have brought our basic ordinary-word (+idiom+proverb+inflection) translating dictionary up to a uniform standard of acceptability. I wonder whether United States of America would meet a strict attributive-use standard. If so, the citations would quite possibly not be the most patriotic ones. DCDuring TALK 22:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, I've never really understand why we need any countries here, even England, Germany whatever. But I think the status quo is to accept them. How about New Latin? It's basically Latin which is new. Some of our grammatical terms as well, nominative case; it's a case which is nominative, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway kept per majority. I don't think DCDuring's argument is a WT:CFI one, anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

informal (casual) + border (strip of ground for ornamental plants). Why?DCDuring TALK 03:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete as pointless. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, now give your opinions on #formal garden and the other two below. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we delete this sense?

  1. (Adjective) Of, pertaining to or featuring puppets.

Is this an attributive use of a noun? --Dan Polansky 04:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so, from what I can tell. The only use I can think of for this "adjective" would be in "puppet show" or the like. so, Delete as attributive ... L☺g☺maniac chat? 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a straightforward sum of parts application. If we're going to list Siberian cat under Siberian, I can't see why this needs a separate entry for it or its synonyms, email epistle, email letter, email missive, email post, .... — Carolina wren discussió 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete, not an idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 17:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Message does not usually refer to a missive, whether in or out of the context of computers. In a computer context, it often refers to an error message or other short informative message from a computer program to a user. Email message sounds like it means something like "500 Error. The following recipient(s) cannot be reached...".​—msh210 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(On further reflection:) But in the context of e-mail (and Usenet) specifically, message does refer to an e-mail message (or Usenet posting). Hence an e-mail client might inform the user "you have three new messages", and a standard e-mail (and Usenet) header is "message-id". So a new sense is needed at [[message]], and email message is SoP. Delete.​—msh210 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This has about 20-25 pages linking to it; I don't want to delete it and create 25 red links. Anyone fancy replacing them? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gone, au revoir Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Was marked as {{delete}}, but since I don't know anything about Japanese... Mglovesfun (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Added an essentially same entry 歩いて to the subject.
In my opinion, it is a combination of two words, a verb form 歩い and a particle て, and should be considered as SoP. Including this kind of combinations can lead to a disastrous situation, exactly like that in other areas where we dare to exclude sum-of-parts entries. --Tohru 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to the entry, this is not an adverb in Japanese. It is the verb 歩く (aruku) conjugated to aruki with the -te suffix. Popularly called the "te-form", the medial -k- drops out in colloquial language.
Japanese verbs (and adjectives) conjugate and various suffixes attach to those conjugations. Listing all of those patterns is not both not practical nor very realistic. Thus the norm found in all dictionaries is to list it in a base form recognized by Japanese speakers. That is 歩く here. But just to give an idea how unpractical it is to list other forms, no matter how useful they may be to learners, here is a basic list of entries that would need to be created just for this one verb:
  • 歩いて
  • 歩いた
  • 歩いたら
  • 歩いたり
  • 歩かぬ
  • 歩かず
  • 歩かない
  • 歩かなかった
  • 歩ければ
  • 歩けれど
  • 歩けれども
  • 歩きます
  • 歩きました
  • 歩きません
  • 歩きませんでした
  • 歩け
  • 歩けよ
  • 歩こう
  • 歩かなくて
  • 歩ける
  • 歩けない
  • 歩けます
  • 歩けなかった
  • 歩けません
  • 歩けませんでした
  • 歩かせる
  • 歩かせない
  • 歩かせます
  • 歩かせません
  • 歩かせませんでした
  • 歩かれる
  • 歩かれない
  • 歩かれなかった
  • 歩かれません
  • 歩かれませんでした
  • 歩かせられる
  • 歩かせられない
  • 歩かせられなかった
  • 歩かせられます
  • 歩かせられました
Also, you will need to create entirely hiragana versions for each as well. And then romanized versions as well. We have now just tripled the list. And this list is hardly even comprehensive; there are many more patterns and variations. Now duplicate for each of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of verbs. This is insane and needs to be avoided. Bendono 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this a problem? We already add conjugated verb forms in Italian, Latin, Spanish, and French. Latin has more than 100 inflected forms for a regular verb, yet the number of inflected forms hasn't been an impediment to creating those entries. Since the forms follow patterns, we use bots to generate the forms. There's no reason I can see for not doing the same in Japanese. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, trying to include all words of all languages is insane, but we try to do it nonetheless. The number of forms you mention is not very large compared to Italian verbs (no usual dictionary would list all Italian forms included here). This is a general comment, because I don't know Japanese. Lmaltier 14:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Then here are my candidates, though this is still far from completion:
I guess the list can be longer than 1,000 entries for sure (I will do so if such a demonstration is actually needed). This is the situation we have to handle per each Japanese verb when accepting such combinations. And I just don't know how to set appropriate criteria for them. --Tohru 14:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh, Tohru. 散歩でも歩きましょう Bendono 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If you can learn to use a bot like the one we use for generating forms of Spanish verbs, then you could successfully create as many Japanese verb forms as you like in a very short time. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If this is a completely regular agglutinative action, then other than a lack of spaces, I don't see a difference between these and potential English entries such as have not been speaking, or the decision to not include the entries for English possessives. As the issue is presented I support deletion. However, if there exist any irregular combinations, I would conclude that including them would be needful, tho all but the irregular cases could easily be handled with bot support as EP points out. — Carolina wren discussió 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You're missing the point: almost all of those, including the entry up for deletion, are not verb forms. They are sum of parts. More specifically, the verb aruk- (walk) has only four distinct forms: aruk-a, aruk-i, aruk-u, and aruk-e. (No, I am not forgetting aruk-o; leave me a message if you are curious.) Every thing above is derived by attaching various suffixes to these forms, occasionally followed by specific phonological changes. What would the POS be? Verb is not appropriate. Perhaps Quasi-Verb Phrase? Partial Predicate? The whole concept of a headword for Japanese is completely screwed up here on Wikipedia. Creating entries for the above would only compound the problem further yet. Bendono 16:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Plus, I should have noted that I omitted variant forms that Bendono mentioned above, from the list. Once counting them, the number will easily reach ten thousand. Please don't forget it is the number of entries belonging to one verb. --Tohru 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I hate to point this out, mainly because I'm against it, but we have lots of Spanish 'contraction' entries like llámame (call me) which I'd quite like to see deleted, but nevertheless they're here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It may seem impractical and terribly difficult to you, but we have exactly the same situation in hundreds of other languages, many much worse. In Arabic a verb can easily have over 20,000 different forms, and each form can be spelled in a multitude of ways. We include these forms, certain the more standard forms such as your -te verbs. The part of speech would be verb form, with an explanation in the definition line that it is the conjunctive of 歩く. Just as we do with Spanish and French, these Japanese verb forms can be handled by a bot. —Stephen 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
RE Bendono: I am not missing the point. The exact situation you describe exists in Hungarian, where the plan is to create the entries, even though we don't (yet) have a bot to handle those. Hungarian uses attached postpositions (like suffixes) instead of prepositions. Words formed by the attachment of a suffix are vaible as entries here. Especially so since a non-native or learner of the language may not recognize the suffix for what it is. --EncycloPetey 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
<joking> Well there's a way to get ahead of French wiktionary, just add hundreds of thousands of verb forms from every language imaginable . . . :) </joking> I don't really have an opinion on whether or not these get added/stay or not, possibly tending toward keep. L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a key distinction between suffixes and particles, certainly for languages such as Korean and Japanese (and, I think, Hungarian). My understanding has been that, while we include root+suffix forms -- that is, true inflections -- regardless of quantity, we do not include word+particle, which are just two words that happen to be written as one, as with the English 's. In the name of sanity and all that is holy, I hope we will continue to maintain this distinction. I don't know how/if this issue applies to the above list . In Korean, at least, some "verb forms" are real forms and some are not -- 하겠어 is a true inflection, but 하겠어요 is inflected form + polite particle. -- Visviva 23:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
How do you define "particle" for this disctinction? Most of my Latin books dealing with the subject indicate there is a very fuzzy line between suffix, particle, and inflectional ending. Would you modify your definition when you consider that many, many Latin verbs are formed by prepending a preposition to a base verb? (See the derived terms under Latin sum (I am), for example). These aren't formed from prefixes in Latin, as similar words are in English, because the prepended item is a word (preposition) in its own right. Likewise, Hungarian adds postpositions to its nouns, and functionally these are inflectional case endings (and the endings are treated as such in grammars). For Spanish, a pronoun (or two) is often added to the end of a verb, and we include these words (e.g. dímelo) even though the added ending is not much different from the "polite particle" you mention. --EncycloPetey 23:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I would define particle as "something that authoritative grammars agree is a particle". :-) That is, I think that any decision on what does and doesn't count as a word in a language needs to be bookended by a serious review of native-language and Western grammatical literature. The less similar a language is to English, the more critically necessary such a review is. The fact that I haven't seen anybody citing even, say, Martin's Reference Grammar of Japanese gives me pause that we would be making any sweeping judgments here. I don't know the first thing about Hungarian, but previous discussions here had suggested that the particle/suffix distinction was fairly strong in Hungarian grammar. If that's true, I hope that we would take this distinction seriously, rather than striking out on our own.
In the case of Korean, the South Korean and Western grammatical traditions, AFAIAA, concur in distinguishing particles from suffixes, which actually create new words/forms. (North Korean grammarians tread a somewhat different path, as one might expect, but the NK grammar texts I have managed to acquire are not really authoritative.) My initial efforts at treating Korean noun-particle combos as declined noun forms were rebuffed, and I have come to believe that this is correct -- both as a matter of grammatical fact and a matter of best Wiktionary practice. Regarding the polite particle , which can glom onto anything, verb, noun, adverb or determiner, with consequences that are pragmatic/discursive rather than semantic or syntactic, I can't imagine what purpose including its compounds would serve. -- Visviva 04:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on the bigger picture here, we're trying to be a useful dictionary, i.e. a resource to which someone can turn when they see an unfamiliar word (or idiom) and need a definition. If inclusion of the above will enable someone to obtain that benefit, and said phrase can not be readily understood by reference to its component parts, then we should include it. Quite frankly, since this is the English Wiktionary, and our readers are less likely to be able to figure out how to put together strings of Asian characters, then we should lean towards being more inclusive of such matters. bd2412 T 03:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But if it can be demonstrated that these are simply collocations -- that is, independent words written together, which would be unsurprising in a spaceless language like JA -- there is an easy solution; include any collocations that are common enough to be plausible searchterms in the entry for the content word. Problem solved: no spurious entries, and users can easily find the information they need -- indeed, more easily than if we had a separate, content-free entry for each such collocation. Again, I would just like to see some authoritative sources on which items from the above list are, in fact, inflected forms. Might be all of them for all I know. -- Visviva 04:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) User:Carolina wren has made a good comment. All of the above forms completely and automatically generated by a regular agglutinative process of attaching various particles and suffixes. So far there have been many comments about comparison with other languages, but beside myself and Tohru, few from anyone who actually speaks Japanese. So to give an idea what some of the above phrases mean, here is a brief selection with English translations:

  • 歩かせられなかった
    was not made to walk
    歩か ― 歩く (aruku), verb, imperfective form
    せ ― せる (seru), auxiliary verb, imperfective form
    られ ― られる (rareru), auxiliary verb, imperfective form
    なかっ ― ない (nai), verb, continuative form
    た ― (ta), auxiliary verb, terminal form
  • 歩いたときでなくても
    even though not the time that (I) walked
    歩い ― 歩く (aruku), verb, continuative form
    た ― (ta), auxiliary verb, attributive form
    とき ― (toki), common noun
    で ― (da), auxiliary verb, continuative form
    なく ― ない (nai), adjective, continuative form
    て ― (te), continuative particle
    も ― (mo), binding particle
  • 歩いたとするならば
    if (one) assumes that (I) walked
    歩い ― 歩く (aruku), verb, continuative form
    た ― (ta), auxiliary verb, terminal form
    と ― (to), case particle
    する ― する (suru), verb, terminal form
    なら ― (da), auxiliary verb, hypothetical form
    ば ― (ba), continuative particle
  • 歩いていただかなければ
    if (I) could not have (you) walk
    歩い ― 歩く (aruku), verb, continuative form
    て ― (te), continuative particle
    いただか ― 頂く (itadaku), verb, imperfective form
    なけれ ― ない (nai), auxiliary verb, hypothetical form
    ば ― (ba), continuative particle
  • 歩きたいかな
    (I) may want to walk
    歩き ― 歩く (aruku), verb, continuative form
    たい ― たい (tai), auxiliary verb, terminal form
    か ― (ka), sentence-final particle
    な ― (na), sentence-final particle
  • 歩きたくないときにも
    even when not wanting to walk
    歩き ― 歩く (aruku), verb, continuative form
    たく ― たい (tai), auxiliary verb, continuative form
    ない ― ない (nai), adjective, attributive form
    とき ― (toki), common noun
    に ― (ni), case particle
    も ― (mo), binding particle

As BD2412 said, we are trying to create a "useful dictionary, i.e. a resource to which someone can turn when they see an unfamiliar word (or idiom) and need a definition." I fully agree. However, a learner of English should not be able to expect to look up non-idiomatic phrases such as even though not the time that I walked and find a definition and translation any more than the reverse situation. Bendono 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I segmented the above phrases based on a practical version of the Japanese school grammar, UniDic [12], which is used by The National Institute for Japanese Language [13] to annotate the biggest Japanese corpus ever built (Modern Written-Japanese Balanced Corpus [14]). You can see something similar is going on here between these Japanese and English constructions. --Tohru 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
he'D>FUZY BOUNDARYw/PHRASEBOOK here--onceUSERhasthatINFO>pushthe buton>wp,books etc,integrated oras isnow,4further elaboration'n'EFICIENTlearnin.
btw,awcanweNOT'v wii as aJ-entry??[i'd2go2wp to c the kana&ipa4engl,grrr..:(--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. First of all, I always try to defer to those informed on the language in question, who all seem to be favoring delete. Additionally, both Carolina wren and Visviva have made some prudent and subtle distinctions. Take the first word of γλαῦκ’ εἰς Ἀθήνας for example, it is an abbreviated form of polytonic {{γλαῦκες}}. The dropping of the last couple letters does not form a distinct word, but it a regular feature of Ancient Greek morphology. As such, we absolutely cannot make an entry for γλαῦκ’, as every single word in Ancient Greek (and every inflection of those words) is subject to the same possible droppings. To be sure, we are not a paper dictionary, and can include a lot more than paper can, like inflected forms, but we need the SOP rule to make the project feasible. We need to expect a minimum of knowledge about the language from our readers, otherwise we'll end up having to have an entry for all possible sentences in the language. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese natives have a very weak sense of what at word is in Japanese. Since the writing contains no spaces, words are not delimited in the spelling. Speakers of Indo-European languages, OTOH, have a strong sense of what a word is. When we transcribe Japanese to Roman script, we invariably spell these forms as a single word, not as a verb plus a particle. We write mite, ite, tabete, kite, shite, hataraite, aruite, itte, hanashite, atte, kaette, notte, sunde, yonde, katte, de. We NEVER write mi te, i te, tabe te, ki te, shi te, and so on. Some call this the conjunctive form, but most grammars that I have seen simply refer to it as the gerund (like English -ing words). In my experience as a linguist, particles are always separate words. The postpositions may be considered particles: ga, wa, o, ni, e, kara. Also the sentence-ending words such as ne, ka, zo, yo are particles. In my definition of particles, inflexions and suffixes, the -te of the gerund (hataraite, shite, sunde, kite) is a suffix, not a particle. —Stephen 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I can go with this. If the people who actually work on Japanese entries consider that this is not a word, then delete, absent some strong evidence that they are mistaken. Now, if people only could have shown that same consideration on some Korean RFDs with hideous results.... -- Visviva 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me explain how, in my opinion, a good online dictionary could handle this. A pop-up dictionary Perapera-kun (Mozilla Firefox Japanese dictionary plug-in) knows that 歩いて is a form of 歩く and translates it as such, ie. -" to walk", NJstar Japanese Word Processor displays the following (like with any verb form): 歩いて【あるいて】 <Verb - Gerund>; (v5k,vi) to walk; (P). It can even generate verb forms from a dictionary form. It would be ideal if we had this here and not just for the Japanese language but the implementation seems complicated. --Anatoli 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This would be an excellent way for a mirror or other reuser to handle it, IMO. And IMO, if we take care of the content that matters, mirroring will take care of itself. Being prisoners of this incarnation (on ill-suited software running on servers administered by an organization that cares little for our needs), there is only so much we can do for the end-user. -- Visviva 10:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If we collectively present this problem to the WMF people, I think they'll try to help us solve it. If I'm understanding you correctly, what we want is something that works like Google Translate-plus-definitions, yes? bd2412 T 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure Google Translate can always handle all forms correctly but there's sure some AI there, which looks not just at the dictionary forms of words. Can you give an example, please? --Anatoli 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Give an example? Not really, no. I'm not a programmer! bd2412 T 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't really seem that different from having bot-created entries for each inflected form. Which is what I assume we would want, long-term. -- Visviva 09:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep, I'm the one who originally made the 歩いて page, and I was always taught that it was a verb form of 歩く. A lot of people post an extreme number of possible verb forms and I suppose it would be absurd to include all of those but I don't agree that those are verb forms! I would possibly call 歩きたい a verb form but 歩きたくなかったときには is not and I find it a misleading reductio ad absurdum. In the previous example 歩きたくなかった is the negative past form of 歩きたい, but とき and には are separate forms. This is my idea: The conjugation table for 歩く is not ridiculous:

The form in question is both included in the conjugation table and it has an equivalent translation in a lot of languages which makes it a good candidate simply for the reason of linking to "by foot". Simply let users create entries for forms in the conjugation table. --BiT 11:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep. As Petey Mentioned above, Latin has quite a considerable number of verb forms. I think Lithuanian has more, if you count the participles and their forms. Lithuanian adjectives can have 150+ forms. Multiply 2 genders x 2 numbers x 7 cases x 3 degrees of comparison. Some of the forms coincide with each other, but not as many as say Slovenian. The issue here is differentiated between a verb form and verb phrase. "Aruite" is a verb form whereas 歩きたくないときにも "arukitakunaitokinimo" is a verb phrase. Verb forms should always be included, verb phrases should not (with conditions). — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Taking my own advice from above, I've taken an uninformed look into Martin's Reference Grammar of Japanese [15]. Martin has a rather lengthy discussion of these V-te forms in section 9.2, beginning on page 475; he uses the term "gerund". There does not seem to be any question that he considers these to be verb forms rather than verb+particle compounds; he calls them verb forms, writes them as a single word (which he does not do for particles), etc. Unless somebody has a better grammar that comes to a different conclusion, this is good enough for me. Keep, as ===Verb===. -- Visviva 09:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really, and you are mischaracterizing Martin. Like grammatical past tense or other such constructions, Martin talks about a grammatical gerund. He writes this very appropriately as V-te (ex: kai-te, kai-de, kasi-te, kat-te, kot-te etc), ie with a dash followed by te. He is very careful about this point because Japanese grammar does not recognize a verbal te-from. If you read the whole discussion, it is nothing more than the adverbial form (which he calls infinitive here) with -te added.
Here is another point: "It is usually assumed the forms of the copula (such as da, na, no, ni ,de etc.) and the various postnominal particles (such as ga, o, kara, made,; gurai, dokoro, etc.) are attached to the noun to make a single phonological word" (page 34). So, shall we now add entries for 犬が, 犬を, 犬の, 犬に , 犬から etc? This is obviously nonsense, but not according to Latin grammar. But this is not Latin grammar.
The above Conjugation chart is ridiculous. Only the stem forms belong, and that could be improved. -te is not part of the verb. V-te is not a lemma and hence inappropriate. "But with do it in language X..." is fine for language X. Leave it to people who actual understand the language and do real work with it. Bendono 14:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Does not belong in Wiktionary. Does not denote anything else than a specific character from a specific series. Unable to find any usage which doesn't refer to Pokemon. Korodzik 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Gesundheit! I mean, delete! bd2412 T 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

KEEP!beginerz/ignoramuses[likeme,idontno althat cultural stuf,2manycuntrys'n'difrent ppls;) dontnothat,so itsPERVERS2asume theydo [n'hens 'dbe so"inteligent"2go2wp>EXPANDcfi so we canhelp here as aPASTHRU.

It doesn't make any sense to claim that our users wouldn't be able to find this on Wikipedia. If you've found Wiktionary, you must surely know how to use a search engine, and if you type in "Pikachu" on Google, the Wikipedia page is the first hit. To get to the Wiktionary page you would probably have to drill down to about page number 19 kajillion. -- Visviva 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Just for reference, Pikachu was previously deleted twice before. Bendono 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about this. This is not associated with any Poketext, though I'm not quite sure what it means; this seems to show out-of-context use in children's speech. This is also out of universe, but I'm not clear on whether it meets other criteria. Oh, and this use of "Pikachu" to refer to MDMA mixed with heroin would be fantastic if we could cite it in use. I think it would not be out the question to cite and define this usefully. RFV? -- Visviva 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't see your first link, but the second does seem to suggest "Pikachu" is moving toward being an all-purpose mythical creature like a unicorn. I'm not so sure about the third link; would the same sentence also count as an attributive use of Mickey Mantle, permitting an entry for him at Wiktionary? In the fourth link, it says MDMA mixed with PCP, not heroin. Angr 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Ack, you're right, of course. I rather doubt if that has even one durably-archived use, anyway. The first link is rather odd; in the middle of a discussion of cat physiology occurs the sentence: "Master of the quick sprint, Pikachu would never make a marathon runner because all that fabulous energy is quickly consumed." My initial thought was that "Pikachu" was being used as a synonym (or nickname?) for a cat, but it may be that the author is just drawing an implicit analogy between cats and the fictional character; in which case this is again out of context, but not out of universe. Man, citing fictional proper names is a pain. (I do think we should have an entry for Mickey Mantle, as there are interesting ways in which his name is used, including in that quote; but I realize this would face an uphill climb.) -- Visviva 05:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete if it refers only to the specific Pokémon beast; otherwise, we might as well include every Pokémon, which encompasses some hundreds of made-up names representing made-up animals. Equinox 04:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete, we're not a Pokédex. –blurpeace (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
We could, however, list them in an appendix of in-universe terms. bd2412 T 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It still doesn't seem a good idea to me. How do we decide which Pokemon species go into such an appendix and which don't? Sooner or later the situation from Wikipedia would repeat.Korodzik 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, almost 100% agreement on this. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is vermicelli made from rice. --EncycloPetey 02:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's similar to corn dog. 24.29.228.33 02:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't. A corn dog is not a dog made from corn; it is a hot dog cooked inside cornbread. --EncycloPetey 02:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A bread crumb is a crumb of bread. 24.29.228.33 03:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
But breadcrumb is the usual spelling, without a space in between the parts. You can't do that with ricevermicelli. --EncycloPetey 03:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"breadcrumb" is not the usual spelling. On packaging, it is usually printed as "bread crumbs" -- crumbs of bread. 24.29.228.33 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have a reason to keep rice vermicelli, please state it. All you are doing so far is trying to find other entries to delete. --EncycloPetey 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above, Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete this SoP.​—msh210 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is noodle made from rice. --EncycloPetey 02:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's similar to corn dog. 24.29.228.33 02:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't. A corn dog is not a dog made from corn; it is a hot dog cooked inside cornbread. --EncycloPetey 02:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

needed4chin.tr-l 米粉which isNOTstreit4wed.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We can use rice noodle for the translation. Note that the individual components are linked. We do not create new English entries solely for the purpose of housing foreign translations; that isn't one of the WT:CFI criteria. --EncycloPetey 05:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

ppl mite wanaGIV'IN da searchmask r.n just/inorder2find say chin.tr-l>cfi needHUGELY EXPANDED!!!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 12:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We had someone come here yesterday and look for "what is a scientist?" That does not mean we should have an entry for what is a scientist? The fact that people might want to look up a particular collocation is not, in itself, reason to have an entry for it. You can always create a Category:Pasta and a Category:zh:Pasta where all the various words for pasta in Chinese can be listed. You could also create an Appendix:Mandarin words for foods. Either of these approaches will allow users to find the translation. However, we should not have an English entry for something just because it can be used as a translation for a word in some other language. --EncycloPetey 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above, Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete this SoP.​—msh210 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is what the thing is called in English. Rice noodles are (to me) a single semantic concept (also an important part of Asian culture). Also consider that they are often contrasted with egg noodles (which are made with wheat as well as egg; just as rice noodles can also contain tapioca and other thickeners). Ƿidsiþ 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think a rice noodle is not the same as a noodle made of rice. I believe it is a special definition of noodle, and not similar to the noodles we are familiar with in American and German cuisine. Also, I am not sure that what part of the rice kernel the noodle would be made of, or how the rice is processed to make the material in question. —Stephen 12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Though lapse#Verb lacks a decent definition, any good dictionary's would show this as SoP. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It's a set phrase and I don't think it's just SOP. In academic circles, "lapsed academic" has the extra connotation of "not remaining current in one's field; not keeping up; taking it a little too easy; goofing off." In the university system, I have heard the term used to refer not simply to former academics but to people currently working as academics who no longer try to publish or to keep their courses up-do-date (probably because, like me, they're spending too much time editing Wiktionary!). -- WikiPedant 15:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. "set phrase" does not appear in CFI.
  2. One can find ready substitutes for "academic": eg "scholar", "academician", or "professor", as well as numerous hyponyms and coordinate terms (ie, almost any profession or calling)
  3. We exclude wikijargon ;)) DCDuring TALK 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In that case, we should add the academia sense of lapse.​—msh210 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
If we can determine what is truly distinctive to its use in academia. Is it a euphemism for becoming out of date? As Angr points out below, the term derives from its use in Christianity, especially those parts that have particular rites that must be followed to remain a communicant. There is a note of irony in applying this to academia, making it out to be like a religion is some way. Has one lost one's faith in the paradigms of one's early career? Citations of this collocation might help make any distinctions clear.
In the case of some professions the idea would seem more like letting one's certifications (and, in the US, malpractice insurance) lapse. DCDuring TALK 10:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per DCDuring. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • ditto L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How odd that we have this phrase, but we don't have the phrase it's almost certainly derived from, lapsed Catholic. —Angr 06:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    No surprise, given the insufficient diversity of our user base. DCDuring TALK 10:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, we seem to mainly agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not idiomatic. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I find I am disagreeing with my earlier RfVing self, but I would take correction on this. This seems somewhat idiomatic in that the meaning seems to change when one introduces synonyms or the definition for either before, in advance of, at an earlier time than or appropriate or particular moment or hour. One cannot introduce a modifier or determiner between ahead of and time without converting it to a literal construction: *"ahead of a particular moment" or a different idiom ("ahead of one's time"). It seems as idiomatic as on time (*"on the time", *"on a time", *"on his time") and more than past time ("past the time", "past a time", "past his time"). DCDuring TALK 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - This seems very idiomatic to me. If I say "We're going to need to set up before everyone else arrives, so we have to get there at least half an hour ahead of time", "ahead of time" is acting as a single unit whose meaning is not actually easily derivable from ahead + of + time (or even ahead of + time). —Angr 06:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - in fairness to myself, I only proposed it here because of the content of the RFV debate. It wasn't particularly "my own" opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Kept, 100% consensus to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An HTML artifact. Not attested from durably archived sources. Not very common at only 2700+ raw Web hits at Google, many of them noise hits from hit-hungry search sites. An excellent exemplar of its kind. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe an example of use-mention distinction. I've always thought a misspelling means exactly that - a common misspelling not just a typo or a scanno or an HTML-related bug. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Reminds me of derver#English. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at that, and then at server, and found something reeeeeeeeeally funny: In the translation table for the definition meaning "unisex term for waiter or waitress", there is both a French male and female translation. XD L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The "General rule" of WT:CFI says a "term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." I ran across faccedilade at http://www.laparks.org/dos/historic/campo.htm and wanted to know what it meant. Readers who run across it elsewhere will probably want to know what it means. —Rod (A. Smith) 17:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep, I suppose: it is appropriately flagged as an erroneous form, and can be properly cited. No, delete: it isn't attestable per CFI, only from a Google Web search. Equinox 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Rodasmith above. Unlike many misspellings (common or otherwise), one can probably not easily determine faccedilade's meaning from just looking at it and its context. Misspellings like cemetary or acomodation are pretty easy to figure out. If we do keep this, though - how's it pronounced? fas-ADE like the original? fak-sed-il-ADE is what it looks like. :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You pronounce the original fas-ADE (fəsˈejd)? Is that common? Ive always heard it as fəˈsɑːd.​—msh210 19:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not common, just one of my quirks. People give me strange looks when I say it that way. I've never seen that pronunciation in any dictionary. Sometimes I switch between fas-ADE and fas-AHD. Not that I usually say the word, just read it in books (that probably accounts for the weird pronunciation). :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
At present it has NO cites from sources we accept as durably archived.
Are we now supposed to accept uncited and incitable rare technical artifacts as misspelllings? Not everything that we find curious that involves letters on a screen or on a page merits inclusion in a dictionary.
Rodasmith: The general principle of someone perhaps wanting to look it up is as vacuous as that of men being entitled to the pursuit of life liberty and property: It is not true without more than a few significant qualifications. Consider also the qualifications that attach to each word of our slogan "All words in all languages".
Are we to accept as "common" anything that generate 2700 raw google Web hits?
Logomaniac: Much of our content is easy to figure out if you are a native speaker with some higher education and you are the kind of person who likes to contribute to an on-line dictionary project.
Finally, I question whether it is a "word" that conveys meaning and whether it can be accurately described as a misspelling. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
But we're not writing a dictionary for "native speakers with some higher education". We're writing for ESL learners who haven't got a good grasp on the language and its quirks yet. We're writing for middle school students (like myself) who don't know what something means and aren't smart enough to quickly figure it out. We're writing for the people out there who just aren't that bright and their minds don't work as fast as some and don't make the connections as easily. We're writing for college students who want to know if the word they used in an essay is appropriate. That's the reason a dictionary is made, for goodness' sake! If we write it just for "the kind of person who likes to contribute to an on-line dictionary project", then there is no reason to go ahead with Wiktionary, and it will become a waste of lots of people's time, money, and hard work, and we'll get scoffed at. That should never be. We should be writing to educate people, not just utterly confuse and frustrate them. I do not think an ESL learner, a middle school student, a not-so-bright person, or a college student will be easily able to look at the word "faccedilade" in a book, scan the context, and go "Bingo! This is an HTML mix-up of "façade"!" I know I wouldn't. (So there. Sometimes I get disgusted with this project.) L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You had introduced the idea that common misspellings were easy to figure out. It seemed to be a criticism of including "easy" misspellings. Of course we keep common misspellings. I am among the last contributors to advocate a high-brow approach to our basic content. I believe that we don't realize enough how much we have to help people because they are at earlier stages in learning, or tired, or experiencing a temporary memory problem, or ....
I just think that HTML glitches that leak onto the screen or printed page are a lot like inkblots or manual-typewriter-era artifacts from adjoining keys striking the page together. It is not a misspelling; it is not an alternate spelling; it is not a word. It is not common. It is not attestable. It fails WT:CFI. It would be perfectly fine in an Appendix of Fascinating Typography or in WikiTypography. DCDuring TALK 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you actually know that there is a website called wikitypography? :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came across wrong. Admittedly, I did get a little worked up about that, it is a topic very close to my heart. However, I was addressing your "Much of our content is easy to figure out if you are a native speaker with some higher education and you are the kind of person who likes to contribute to an on-line dictionary project", which totally rubbed me the wrong way, and I apologize for getting so ... excited I guess I could say. If this is not a term that one would come across somewhere, then fine we can delete it. I have no problems with that. Don't get me wrong, please. (That just confuses everyone.) But part of my frustration with dictionaries in general (and, before I came here, this one especially) was that I couldn't find what I was looking for. I don't want to confuse people who honestly want to know what it means. As to "common misspellings", I did not intend to criticize our having them. I think it's perfectly fine. I was just thinking that if we have those semi-easy-to-figure-out ones, we should have one like this which isn't just off by one letter. L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still not satisfied that this is a misspelling - it's just a glitch, a bug, whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • As pointed out, "misspellings" need to be cited, so if we do keep this (which looks likely) it's very unlikely that I will pass an RFV, ergo it will get deleted a month later anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus, off to WT:RFV#faccedilade. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfd-redundant. The medical term seems to be the same as the genetics term, just written from a physician's point of view. this may need a physician's attention.​—msh210 19:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this transitive or intransitive? Because 'I call that bullshit' just seems to be call + bullshit. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See G.B.S.: "call bullshit on".  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This seems more like an RfD matter. One can call "X" on someone or something where X can be any of several words such as "foul", "time", "penalty", "interference", "dibs", "challenge", and possibly "out", "in", "fair", "point of order", "objection", "exception". In general, if the utterance of X is a brief speech act under some set of rules, then it may be possible to "call X on" someone. If so it would be a productive construction (not fossilized, not set). I need to check to see whether this contains a phrasal verb and whether the phrasal verb does or should appear at call on or call something on someone or whether it is just SoP. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The preceeding is from WT:RFV#call bullshit, please continue the discussion here. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As you point out Doremítzwr, that's call bullshit on, which is not the word we're discussing. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete They're the same. Any construction of “I call bullshit [on that]“ is sum-of-parts. Different from “I call that bullshit”, but we only define terms, not explain basic grammar. Michael Z. 2009-09-11 13:15 z

Here are some quotations:
Do they convince?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Convincing, yes, I don't doubt that it is an attestable phrase, but admittedly SOP. I don't know quite whether to delete it or not. I'm reluctant to quickly delete everything that appears "SOP". L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the etymological derivation from the card game Bullshit shows, I think, that this isn’t just an ordinary grammatical construction wherein the noun bullshit could be substituted with any other. What other constructions are claimed to be synonymous herewith?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To call foul is just like to call bullshit. As is to pledge allegiance. To call foul on someone is just like to call bullshit on someone. The "call bullshit by its name" quote is irrelevant to this, but the others all seem good. That the game gave currency to one collocation wouldn't seem to change the apparent fact that the form preexisted the game, which seems to have borrowed something common in outdoor games and brought it to the word of board games, from which it has spread into broader realms of discourse. One would not have to have ever heard of the game to grasp the likely intended meaning of the speaker who uses the expression.
Is "I call bullshit" includable as a speech act? To include it would mean that almost any sentence of the the form "I hereby declare...." would be a candidate for inclusion. Would we be obliged to enter the entire US w:Pledge of Allegiance (and presumably all the other ones in their applicable languages) as a headword because it is a speech act? I hope not.
Should all player or official "calls" in games become entries? traveling (basketball); fair ball, foul ball, strike one (baseball}; intentional grounding (American football). Maybe, just like bullshit. Should whatever form is used to report the "call" be deemed an idiom? I think not. In individual cases the terms may have acquired some kind of idiomatic status, but they would seem to need to establish it on a case-by-case basis. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I have a feeling there’s a disanalogy somewhere, but since I can’t seem to put my finger on it, I s’pose that I shall concede this case. Hard redirect to call something (on)?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
More like a usage note in call.
But are you guys seriously taking at face value the etymology “reference” quoted above? I call bullshit on anyone who accepts Making Things Happen: Mastering Project Management as an authority on etymology. Michael Z. 2009-09-16 00:16 z

This isn't idiomatic, is it? It's just a [[formal]] [[garden]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Might could be handled via an additional sense to formal, but as is it isn't SoP. The distinguishing feature of a formal garden is its use of symmetry and regular geometric shapes. Asymmetrical gardening styles such as Japanese gardens and Chinese gardens are formal, but they aren't formal gardens. — Carolina wren discussió 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we're missing a gardening specific sense at formal and informal, but this is unidiomatic and should go. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
We seem to agree to add the missing sense to "formal/informal" and delete these as unidiomatic. Any last call to save these? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per this discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See #formal garden above. informal border was deleted earlier today. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, see the discussion above. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See #formal garden above. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, see the discussion above. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Misspelt, according to WT:FEED#striscie.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think asking User:Barmar might be a good first step. If it's a pure error, we can speedy delete it. If it's fine, then it's a speedy keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"An initial incident is the incident at the beginning of a story that starts the rising action"... sigh. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, admittedly I'm the only person to comment, but AFAICT it's such a blatant case I just went with my gut. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a technical term to me. DAVilla 06:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely not idiomatic...? Equinox 22:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

delete. FWIW, the collocation represents about 1/6 of the usages of "stockinged" at COCA; "stocking foot/feet" represents 2/3. How many other things could plausibly be stockinged? you ask. At Books I found "face", "head", "stump", "finger", "shoe", "soldier"! DCDuring TALK 00:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the perennial "stockinged soldier". Nothing gets you sent home quicker than dressing up as a lady. Equinox 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete, pointless. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, zero keep votes. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Means “take a walk in the snow,” according to the non-definition. Michael Z. 2009-09-12 16:19 z

delete Let's be sports about it a make it redirect. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Change to redirect. Right, this should have been a redirect. The fundamental expression here is the Canadian idiom "walk in the snow", but this idiom is usually preceded by the verb "take" so someone might come in searching on "take a walk in the snow". -- WikiPedant 00:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It's now a redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A previous RFV passed without citations being provided (see Talk:pull_my_finger). However, I don't doubt that it can be cited, and this is an RFD. Same rationale, though: "It's a common phrase, but since it doesn't actually convey meaning beyond the strict literal sense, it doesn't seem to belong here." Stephen said "I agree, the meaning cannot be guessed from the words. It implies that the finger is a fart lever"; but that is not the implied meaning, is it? It is just a literal request for the person to pull the finger. If it meant "I am going to fart", it would be a standard idiom, not the joke/prank. This seems like having an entry for "Look into my eyes" (stating that it implies hypnotism) or even "Hand it over" (implying, unguessably!, that money is wanted when a bank robber says it). Equinox 23:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this one, but I did find one attributive use in b.g.c. (for "Pull My Finger" conditional program). --EncycloPetey 23:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep, I think. With respect to meaning, it seems quite clear to me that the expression has a meaning and not a literal one (i.e, it is not simply SOP) and that the meaning is pretty specific. It is a humorous or insulting challenge, inviting the interlocutor to induce a fart in the speaker. Equinox's 2 examples are arguably not in quite the same situation, since "look into my eyes" can have a very wide range of contexts and implied meanings and "hand it over" contains the wide-open pronoun "it". But, what endears me most to this entry is the fact that the first time I encountered it I found it quite useful. I had never known what "Pull my finger" meant, though I'd heard it a few times (the most recent when Michael Caine uttered it, mockingly to the bad guys, in Children of Men). This entry explained it to me, performing precisely the function that a dictionary is intended to perform. So I think it's a valid, helpful entry. -- WikiPedant 00:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is easy to cite in lower case. Most uses are in upper case and seem to derive from novelty dolls. And many are in quotes which makes it more likely that they are mentions. OTOH there might be enough in attributive use to support the upper case version. I found one for lower case. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Weekly World News‎, v. 20, no. 49, Aug 31, 1999, Page 23:
  • Gasbag hubby makes me pull his finger! Dear Dotti: My husband makes a big show of passing gas and actually makes me pull his finger when friends or neighbors drop by.
2007, Andrew B Brandi, The Warrior's Guide to Insanity‎, p. 68:
  • He's not asking you to pull his finger, and he doesn't belch in front of your friends, demonstrating some new form of human speech.
2006, Larry the Cable Guy, Git-R-Done‎, 143:
  • I remember he actually teared up at his father's funeral. Later I realized it was because he had told the deacon to pull his finger at the gravesite and he farted. He was crying so hard from laughing, it looked like he was in mourning.
Based on the foregoing, move to pull one's finger. bd2412 T 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but it should probably be pull someone's finger. Leave pull my finger as a redirect. -- WikiPedant 03:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Or more simply pull a finger, since that has a fair amount of usage as well. A possessive pronoun is not a necessary component of this phrase. — Carolina wren discussió 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are these sops or what: apple juice, fruit juice, orange juice, lemon juice, grape juice, cranberry juice, grapefruit juice, pineapple juice, mango juice et cetera? --Hekaheka 19:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it (sigh). --Hekaheka 18:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I don't think these do meet CFI, but I'd still want to keep them. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged in July 2009 by User:CodeCat who claims to be a native speaker. According to him, it's unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If we had neerkijken that might help. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
(Thanks AugPi) look down + on to mean look down on. If it means to condescend, shouldn't this be kept, in which case we're missing look down on because that's idiomatic. So keep, assuming my analysis is correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

At a local lexigraphy meeting over the weekend, a member pointed out a number of entries from Wiktionary. I will have more to say later, but for now one class of entries in particular were quite troublesome. After investigating the Wiktionary guidelines, I believe the following are invalid:

Generally the same comments for all above words:

  • "Romanization of the cantonese word [fill in blank]". Romanizing a word into Latin characters alone does not make it English.
  • Does not appear to satisfy any of the four criteria given at CFI:Attestation
    • Clearly widespread usage: does not appear in any English dictionary at hand, including several large international editions, nor can I find any such widespread usage in actual English lexicons
    • Usage in a well-known work: none. The single reference is to a Hong Kong legal document under the heading of "Chinese [language?] unit". At best that would make it a legal term limited to Hong Kong, but still not "clearly widespread" or "well-known".
    • Academic journal: apparently none
    • Three independent instances spanning at least a year: again, none
  • Our groups has two Cantonese speakers. They both said that while they knew the word in Cantonese, that they would not expect these words meaningful in an English context and would replace it with a number in metres.
    • In my opinion, a transliteration of a word from another writing system is still a word of the associated language, not an English word. bd2412 T 02:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
catty appears in MWOnline and probably in Websters 1913. t'sun appears in a units of measurement glossary. I didn't find the others, but there may be some other spellings. I haven't done searches for citations, but at least these two would seem to warrant move to RfV. There is nothing about transliterations what would mean that a transliteration that had attained usage in English couldn't be in wiktionary. For example, nyet and troika are arguably transliterations. I would just submit each of these to RfV to see if they are attestable in English. They might appear in some travel books or something commercial about Hong Kong, for example. DCDuring TALK 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Predictable but, why not an RFV? If the meanings given can be attested in English, why not keep them? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree, RFV. One cite for chek is pretty easy to find on b.g.c.; it wouldn't be terribly surprising if there were two more, somewhere amidst all the scannos and typos. There is no a priori reason to assume that these are not words; they should go through the standard verification process.
But regarding this meeting... These people have the time to pore over Wiktionary content, identifying words that they think are out of place -- but they don't have the time to flag the entries for verification or cleanup? Or they just think such things are beneath them? I gotta say, it seems kind of douchey from where I sit. -- Visviva 09:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition is wrong; this is just use of the dative to show purpose. I don't think it merits lexical coverage. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep — this and the other forms of the dative, ablative, genitive, &c. are useful to learners of Latin (like me); moreover, this phrase is idiomatic (e.g., this cannot mean, in Scots law, a “decree dative of purpose”).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There is always some context in which an utterance is interpreted. To start there is the context of what language is being spoken. Then there are culture, realm of discourse, conversation-specific context, and audience-specific context. If one is in a group of English-speaking students of linguistics who know what "dative" means, is this not obvious? Isn't it just the details of how one author of school of thought specify this that may vary in encyclopedic detail, not the one- or two-line definition? DCDuring TALK 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete or improve, it's not claiming to be idiomatic or context-specific, the article says it's a dative used to indicate purpose. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a sense of "of" that means "used to show"? It's a phrasing that has always seemed very odd to me; the Latin dativus finalis seems significantly more SOP than its English calque. -- Visviva 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I had always understood these "X of Y" constructions to be fixed terms of art in classical studies. Certainly "dative of service" and "dative of (the) end" also exist, but looking at the very few b.g.c. hits for "dative of intent" and "dative of intention" is instructive -- all are more or less one-off references to constructs in modern languages (Malayalam in one case, Lithuanian in another, English in a third).
Also, if this is SOP, how is it that the "dative of goal" (or "terminal dative") is apparently not identical with the "dative of purpose"? [16] I'm not seeing the SOPness, so I have to go with keep for now. -- Visviva 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look through one of the little Latin handbooks I own (one from Oxford Univ. Press) to see which "datives" it lists. It includes: "dative of advantage and disadvantage", "dative of separation", "'ethic' dative", "'polite' dative" (both with the single quotes), "dative of the agent", but not "dative of purpose" (although an entire section is devoted to expression of purpose). Another of my little reference books has "dative of advantage and disadvantage", "dative of reference", "ethic dative", "dative of possessiion", "dative of agent", "dative of purpose", "predicative dative". As you can see, only two of these match between the two references, one of them even adds a "the" or single quotes, thus showing that "X of Y" is not a fixed term. There are certain collocations that are more commonly encountered, but their form and nomenclature are not fixed. --EncycloPetey 13:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A course title does not an entry make. DCDuring TALK 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mathematical economics much more than a course title, I would rather call it a science (sense #2). Hekaheka, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Economics might be a science. Mathematical economics is a catch-all warning label for a course in economics that applies relatively sophisticated mathematical methods (whichever have been popular over the past decades) to the subject matter of economics. In many ways this is like "advanced physics" or "theoretical physics". Ie, physics that is more advanced and physics that is more theoretical. Mathematical economics is economics that is more mathematical.
The definition given is complete malarkey. "mathematical aspects of economic systems"? It is of poor quality in part because the contributor couldn't find a dictionary that thought it was worthy of inclusion. The contributor would have hound something adequate at w:Mathematical economics, which shows that it is just a mathematical approach to economics. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, but if it's not "worthy" of inclusion, in what essential way does it differ from applied ethics, applied mathematics, applied statistics, mathematical analysis, mathematical function program, mathematical game, mathematical logic, mathematical model, financial capital, financial instrument, financial investment, statistical analysis, statistical randomness, physical attractiveness, physical constant, physical examination or tomato juice? --Hekaheka 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether it's worthy I don't know. That's a BP question about CFI. I believe that it doesn't meet CFI. As to the others, we'd have to take them one at a time. I think you'd find that few/no other momolingual dictionaries or glossaries have them (OneLook includes specialized glossaries, too). I'd feel most comfortable going after the financial and statistical ones and "mathematical game", but I'm suspicious of most of them. "Tomato juice" would make it as a regulatory term and might make it also because normally it is only from cooked tomatoes and is subsequently processed. physical examination and physical constant, too, seem to me to be more likely to meet CFI than the others. I don't hunt them down, but stumble on them, this one in the course of excising a Hyphenation header. Many multi-word noun phrases that contain adjectives are suspect, IMO, but the review process is tedious. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not fully convinced of the reasoning. Every juice is processed by definition, because the plants do not grow juice but fruit, roots etc of which the juice is made. Also, the fact that a term does not appear in a monolingual dictionary does not automatically prove that it should not appear in a multilingual dictionary as ours. In this case mathematical economics does not translate as mathematical + economics into every language. At least in German and Finnish it's rather economic mathematics (Wirtschaftsmathematik and talousmatematiikka). --Hekaheka 14:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ruakh has made a BP proposal to create translation-target entries. We already have a thread on tomato juice.
I just want to address whether this entry meets CFI as presently written. The economics, finance, business, management, marketing, statistics, and operations categories are some that I follow. I am not prejudiced against the subject area. I studied economics at a place renowned for its quantitative approach. I still pay a little attention to the field. I have a couple of older texts with these words in their titles. I'm not arguing out of complete ignorance of this field, but the situation is similar in many fields. So parallel arguments could be made that might apply. Is corpus linguistics worth a dictionary entry? DCDuring TALK 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would think it is. --Hekaheka 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
And all of managerial communication, soil mechanics, biomedical optics, and business ethics, auto repair, and Italian cooking, too, then? DCDuring TALK 20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
After two years and more than 20,000 edits the line between keep and delete is still a mystery to me. I once crusaded against Chinese cuisine and lost. Among your examples the line seems to be roughly in the right place, i.e. I would keep the blue ones and not add the reds. --Hekaheka 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep, mathematical + economics is a rought description of what it is, in the same way that fish and chips is essentially made up of fish and chips, but it has to be prepared in a certain way; usually cod, battered and awful greasy chips. Okay, weird analogy but keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If this were sum of parts, I would expect that either a) there must be some non-mathematical part of economics, or b) this must be a pleonasm for the entire field of economics. Unless one of those is true, weak keep. I never got past Econ 101, but I do recall there being quite a lot of mathematics involved. But that, presumably, was just economics of a mathematical nature, not mathematical economics. Or no? -- Visviva 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that logic. Mostly the term is used as a course and textbook title. Other titles with indistinguishable content are "Quantitative Methods in Economics". The course covers "advanced" quantitative methods used to study many aspects of economics. Much economics does not use such methods. Other than the course/textbook title the term is used in discussions suggesting that economics has become too mathematical or celebrating the rigor brought by math. The use of algebra and calculus and linear programming and game theory in introductory and intermediate economics courses is the use of basic math for the core of the subject. Various other fields of mathematics have been called on (fixed point theorems from topology, stochastic integrals) for specific problems. w:Mathematical economics is OK on the topic. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to whether the definition is accurate. If this is in fact a sub-discipline or sub-field of economics -- that is, if there is such a thing as a economist who uses math but is not a mathematical economist -- then it seems non-SOP to me.
However, if the first sentence of the Wikipedia article is accurate, then this seems deletable, yea even deleterious and worthy of our deletorious attention: "Mathematical economics refers to the application of mathematical methods to represent economic theories and analyze problems posed in economics." That would seem to describe an aspect of economics rather than a subdiscipline. -- Visviva 11:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikt and WP are the only references at OneLook that carry this. Does the OED have it? DCDuring TALK 15:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It does not, though I wouldn't really have expected it to. Multiword academic terminology is not the OED's strongest area. At any rate, I am finding the lack of any mathematical economics associations (and the relative paucity of journals) very telling. It was easy for me to imagine that "mathematical economics" might have taken on a life of its own in the same way that "applied linguistics" has done... but who ever heard of a subdiscipline without an association? Changing to weak delete, absent some evidence that our definition is correct and the pedia's is wrong or incomplete. -- Visviva 17:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Good analysis Visviva; I based my vote solely on the current definition. If that definition is wrong, obviously I'd have to change my vote. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
At least a Journal of Mathematical Economics [17] exists. BGC search yields a large number of book titles. There are doctoral and major programs in it [18]. SOP or not SOP, it's clearly more than a mere course title. --Hekaheka 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No argument here. From what I've seen so far, it seems that this is an aspect of economics, rather than a distinct discipline. As such, it can be used quite a lot (and clearly is), without really signifying anything more than "economics with kind of a math focus". -- Visviva 09:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept, consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says in the article, it's the bottom of an artichoke. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the bottom of the edible heart or it is the stem? Or some other part? —Stephen 12:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Dunno, it doesn't say. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Recipetips.com [[19]] defines artichoke heart as the fleshy center section of the artichoke and the artichoke bottom as the fleshy base section of the artichoke. Stem it is not. --Hekaheka 07:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This seems to have some value in reducing actual confusion for someone reading a recipe that does not make explicit the distinction in the text. Given that most people have never seen an artichoke "in the wild", they may not even know which end is up. I'm not sure how to put this in CFI terms. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can only nominate articles based on what's in them. Right now it still says the bottom of an artichoke, but if it does have a more precise meaning, let's add it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No consensus? The problem is, right now it still says the bottom of an artichoke. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

SoP.​—msh210 16:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

delete, or move to upper case and RfV for attributive use if he's supposed to be saluted. DCDuring TALK

17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC) sofuny-standupcomedian?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 04:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless it has a specific medical meaning (context specific). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You could be right about that. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

likeso i/med.jargon,meanin'notsame asUNspec.><headache>also m.a[sodo asearch ubunch ofmd's--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now it just describes a [[general]] [[malaise]], we can't speculate about what articles might contain in the future, unless someone directly offers to clean it up. So delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"1/we can't speculate about what articles might contain in the future, 2/unless someone directly offers to clean it up."<wots logical link betw1-2?whotalkd'bout future?

Deleted Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A letter which is lower case. Not one iota idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

True, if we regard this primarily as monolingual dictionary. But if you see the translations, they are all but "lower-case" + "letter". Also, if one wanted to nitpick, a lower-case letter is not a letter written in minuscule. --Hekaheka 08:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
keep There are a few occurances like this, the "adjective" feels like it is an abbreviation of the term, like decimal number. I'm not sure what we should do with them, but I feel they deserve to be entries - even if I can't explain why. He could write that in lower-case => He could write that in lower-case letters. I suppose they come under the header of "set phrase", there are no other adjectives that could replace "lower-case" without changing the meaning; maybe "small letters", but using small as a synonym for lower-case sounds childish to me. Conrad.Irwin 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete as unidiomatic; cf. lower-case character, lower-case text, lower-case version, &c. He could write that in lower-case. is elliptic use, and it would be difficult to justify that it’s a noun (consider Write a lower-case., Change it to lower-cases.); at a pinch, *in lower-case could be construed as an adverb.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this, as an English entry, should be deleted; but the loss of translations might be unfortunate if they are single words in other languages. Equinox 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
minuscule#English ? --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Going on the French, Italian, and Spanish translations (minuscule, minuscolo, and minúscula, respectively), it looks like they’d be perfectly transferable to the translation table for the first nominal sense of the synonym minuscule.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, but translations move, as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can pollute a lot of things; soil, air, water. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep We already have air pollution and water pollution. But other stuff exists isn't a valid argument, so here's a better one: lead pollution is the the pollution of something by lead, mercury pollution is the pollution of something by mercury, but soil pollution is not the pollution of something by soil. In general the phrase <noun> pollution has two possible senses, only one of which will be valid for a given noun. — Carolina wren discussió 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the argument in WT:CFI terms.
On its own terms, "special-interest legislation" and "pollution legislation" similarly use have the attributive nouns in different relations to the head noun of the phrase.
"Air", "water", and "noise pollution" are terms that other dictionaries seem to find worthwhile, while "soil pollution" is not. I suspect that it has something to do with the legal recognition afforded the first three. It may also be that the notion of making dirt "dirty" or soling soil didn't take. Soil contamination isn't in other dictionaries either though. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The cites on b.g.c for air and water each number in the tens of thousands, while for soil it numbers only in the thousands. There's also the slight problem that the synonyms ground pollution and land pollution exist for soil pollution, tho of the three soil is the most common. Attestation clearly is not a problem, and idiomaticity clearly is a common issue for all of these save perhaps light pollution where clarifying that it doesn't refer to a low level of pollution is a second issue. However, that reasoning also applies to soil pollution, as the combination could refer to pollution by soil (excrement) unless one realized it has a particular idiomatic meaning of pollution of the soil (dirt).
I did a closer look at the b.g.c. cite before committing the above as an edit and you know what? It seems that back at the start of the 20th century, soil pollution was not concerned with chemical pollution, but biological. I'll work some on the entry to have it reflect the change in meaning. — Carolina wren discussió 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The Rosenau quotation might simply refer to ordinary soil pollution, specifically by manure or sewage. From the Google snippet views, the book appears to use pollution in the conventional modern sense elsewhere. Michael Z. 2009-09-16 01:28 z
Doesn't change the fact that the quotes there for soil pollution and from other sources of the era, the only concern about soil pollution that was mentioned was biological, and nothing about chemical pollution. In contrast, in this page from a 2004 book about poultry management, [20] it bothers to mention specific types of chemical contamination that might result, but only mentions in passing biological concerns, and it by far is an exception among modern quotes in considering biological problems. Show me any quotes from the pre-1923 (i.e copyright-expired) era mentioning "soil pollution" in a context other than concerns about biological contaminants such as hookworm and I might change my opinion.
There's also this snippet [21] from a 1965 source that suggests that this term would pass the "ground beef" test, though frankly I'm not a fan of that test as I feel that regulatory definitions are encyclopedic in nature.
Finally, I've also come across one 1887 [22] two 1898 [23] [24] and one 1921 [25] cites of the form "soil-pollution", so the hyphenated form can be cited as a rare word, in which case not including the unhyphenated form would be silly. — Carolina wren discussió 04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that by the mid-20th century people and public agencies had become more aware of sewage controls, but w:Love Canal and w:Rachel Carson's Silent Spring were yet to make the papers. But whether we're dealing with shit or PCBs, soil pollution usually refers to “pollution of soil. There are lots of recent examples of organic soil pollution. Michael Z. 2009-09-16 04:50 z
Yup. This and other editions by Rosenau include quotations related to hookworm disease:
“The soil can take care of a large amount of pollution and will often yield ground water free of undesirable substances and bacteria.” [26]
“Prevention mainly depends upon the avoidance of soil pollution near homes. This usually involves the introduction of appropriate latrines combined with discouragement of the habit of promiscuous defecation...”[27]
“Human Habits. Hookworm infection is sharply correlated with those human habits which concentrate feces in moist, shaded places (places that are repeatedly visited). Only nominal attention to proper fecal disposal may be sufficient to prevent the spread of infection.”[28] [p 1189, listed under “soil pollution” in the index]
 Michael Z. 2009-09-16 04:37 z 04:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is also "soil contamination", somewhat less common. These entries certainly have some value as translation hooks, and constitute "set phrases" without much doubt, but I am agnostic as to whether they are really a good idea overall. Incidentally, if anyone is still thinking about quantitative metrics for set-phraseness, the mutual information score for "soil" and "pollution" in COCA is 3.67. "Water pollution" is 5.9, "air pollution" is 8.35, "ozone pollution" is 8.75, and "transboundary pollution" is a whopping 10.98. "Soil contamination" is 6.00. (...if we were to ever adopt a certain MI score as a basis for inclusion, it would have some very interesting effects...) Haven't checked other measures or corpora. -- Visviva 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Links cleaned up and appear to be from a single source and author. Is this slang noteworthy? --WRE451 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If it could be attested it could be. For example if we could get three uses in newspapers reporting on the teams over more than a year's time. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Avestan Pashtun submitted this for speedy deletion with this comment:

correct spelling is اورېدل citation

However, with no knowledge of Pashto, I brought this here, Since for all I know this could be a variant spelling or common misspelling that Unidad gave us. If we do need to delete this, we also need to inform the Korean wiktionary. — Carolina wren discussió 04:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You don’t notify the Korean Wiktionary, you just move the Korean to the proper spelling. You can either leave the redirect as is, or add {{delete}} to it, which will be taken care of by someone there. —Stephen 17:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the Korean for you. —Stephen 18:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Does not belong in Wiktionary. --Yair rand 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Most good dictionaries have them (at least, American dictionaries have them). Why don’t they belong, do you think? —Stephen 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
See WT:CFI#Names of specific entities: "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included. ...and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not." --Yair rand 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson are two different things. Which one are you talking about? —Stephen 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about Jefferson definition #2:

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826); the third President of the United States (1801–1809), principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founders of the United States. Major events during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Embargo Act of 1807, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806). --Yair rand 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

move the actual people to the etymology where there are other sense. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The examples in CFI, ELE and elsewhere are not authoritative. For example "information" is claimed to be the exemplar of an uncountable noun in App:GL, when it actually has a sense that forms a plural.
Our standard for the proper nouns senses is actual attestation of attributive use of the word, which is an RfV matter. The cat Garfield seems more likely to have such attestable use than the president. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep (all). They are used, singly, in very many texts to mean the US president with that surname. People need to know that meaning. SemperBlotto 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete sense. As surnames, they should be kept; of course. But the meaning a specific person with that surname is something common to all surnames and to everybody (including you and me), and would be best addressed through a link to the Wikipedia page dealing with this surname. Otherwise, notability criteria would be necessary, and they should not be required here (all words are accepted). Lmaltier 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for notability criteria. The only criterion needed is that the surname alone is used to refer to the person, without the referent being explained or obvious from context. Most US presidents, Canadian and modern British prime ministers, etc., meet this test without much question; not because they meet any standard of encyclopedic notability, but simply because their surnames have demonstrably entered the lexicon. Similarly Foucault, Kant, Hegel, Bach, Beethoven, et al. -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Your own surname used alone has probably entered the lexicon, at least for some people that know you. But I don't think you would like to enter yourself as a sense of this word. This is what I mean by notability criterion, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. As a word, it's a surname, nothing else. However, if the translation of this word in a language (e.g. Russian) is different depending on the person, all possible translations should be given, with appropriate comments. Lmaltier 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, supposing that my surname -- let's call it "Smith" -- had indeed entered my friends' lexicon. And suppose that at least three of my friends had published independent works which referred to me as "Smith", without any further explanation, because they assumed that the reader would immediately understand the Smith to whom they referred. In such a case -- and only in such a case -- I would certainly merit my own sense in the Smith entry. -- Visviva 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that what you explain is a typical example of a notability criterion. Lmaltier 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to RfV for attributive use citations. All accept "Garfield" have a reasonable to excellent chance of being attestable in attributive use. I enjoy demonstrating errors in our own documentation, so "Jefferson" will get my immediate attention. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per SemperBlotto. There should be no need for attributive use (as there would be for "James Garfield" or "Thomas Jefferson") because these are not proper names in the first place. If policy says otherwise -- and I don't think it actually does -- then the policy is wrong. -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for all, as per SemperBlotto. Usage is effectivly attributive, as it means the president without other mention being lncluded. Should also accept most major world leaders. --Dmol 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You missed the part where the guideline says “attributive,” and not “eddectively attributive.”
Everyone, please don't waste your and my valuable time by voting—this is not about self-gratification. Either get on with citing these “words” according to the guideline, or propose a change to the guideline. Michael Z. 2009-09-19 23:56 z
Why cite if someone decides it's not such a matter? If it were kept, it might not be RfV'd. Once it is here it has to play out. I'm not sure that the process can be simplified when both matters are potentially at issue. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
AFAICR we have always treated RFD as a vote. Not saying it's particularly wise, but it is what we've done. As for the guideline, it says clearly that surnames should be included. And if we're going to include them, it should be rather obvious that we should include all senses that a person might encounter and need to look up. -- Visviva 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No ... it was never a "vote", and never intended to be; the idea is that there is, or should be, a right answer. The bolded "keep" or "delete" is just a way of highlighting the summary of an opinion. See, for example, at the top of WT:RFV: Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. Robert Ullmann 09:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
But this is RFD, not RFV. I could have been more precise and said that we always treated votes as indicators of consensus (or the lack thereof). It has generally been considered highly improper to delete an RFD'd entry that has a majority of editors (or even a large minority of editors) opposing deletion. If that really doesn't sound familiar, I can only conclude that we have been contributing to different projects. ;-) -- Visviva 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think in that case, surnames like Jackson and Johnson are missing a lot of senses. However I'd like to see these deleted as POV and just generally that surely a lot of people called Adams, Jackson etc. I wonder if George Washington could be cited attributively, would it meet CFI? I say yes, it's a proper noun, widely known and used attributively, right? There's nothing that prohibits it in our rules. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes WT:CFI confirms it. Therefore I added Michael Jackson to Jackson and RFD'ed it at the same time. Genius! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I've already got two attributive uses of Michael Jackson. This is an excellent example of of why this proper noun policy makes no sense. Why is attributive use so important? As far as I can see, we never refuse proper nouns as long as they are used attributively. I'd be pretty surprised if more than three cites for George Washington weren't available. WT:CFI#Names of specific entities actually says "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included unless used attributively. Again, George Walker Bush has a legitimate chance to get an entry here. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Attributive use is important because it gives us something useful to say about them, as a dictionary. If a proper name is used only to refer to its literal referent, a Wiktionary entry for that name serves no purpose to anyone. If it used as a byword to suggest some particular quality, that is a fact that even Wikipedia is unlikely to include, but which might nonetheless be of great significance to someone puzzled by a name's appearance in a particular context. Likewise for surnames; going to w:Jackson (disambiguation) is not going to give the user much insight as to which of the people listed there is likely to be the "Jackson" mentioned without any context whatsoever in some work. Thus again, there is something useful for us to say about such usage. -- Visviva 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced there are even three cases where "Jackson" is used to refer to the singer without "Michael Jackson" being specified somewhere nearby (particularly since he isn't exactly the only pop singer by that surname). I'm sure there are some Jacksons besides Andrew who would meet this test, but I doubt if there are very many. -- Visviva 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I could get three attributive uses for Michael Jackson though. It took me about 2 minutes to get 2. Anyway, I'd better bring this up on WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so may I add the senses of specific US presidents to RFV right now, or am I prohibited until this RFD is closed? Michael Z. 2009-09-20 23:09 z

There's no rule, but some knuckles have been rapped for opening an RfV while the RfD was active. If the conversation seems over and this is deemed kept and closed, then the RfV can be opened with a link to the archived discussion.
BTW, If anyone would like to challenge some two-part human names, the following are available for consideration: Arnold Schwartzenegger, Britney Spears, Brigitte Bardot, and Marilyn Monroe. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As long as you'll accept any three works that refer to the president as "Garfield" without identifying him elsewhere, I think RFV would be fine. But if that's not the case, it would kind of seem to me like you were trying to use RFV as cover for a policy agenda, which would be somewhat uncool. -- Visviva 11:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(from a wrongly created sub-section, Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) If you delete the George Washington meaning, you will only have to inlcude it in the etymology anyway to explain why the city and state are called Washington. Keep. --Richardb 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We do that kind of thing routinely, with a link to the Wikipedia article on the person. I believe that the community considers it a the best way to handle such things. Marilyn Monroe for an example. That entry is also an example of the kinds of usage that might justify keeping a full personal name. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Meaning not attestable. All quotes seem to be simple, meaningless references to the original Strong Bad Email. Korodzik 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See the open RFV: [29] Equinox 20:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A misspelling of a specific entity, the only citation accompanying an actual quotation of the person. No secondary meaning. Michael Z. 2009-09-21 05:30 z

It's not breaking any CFI rules though. Delete just based on common sense, but as I say, no CFI logic for deleting it that I can see. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Could someone direct me to the consensus on what makes something a common misspelling vs an alternative spelling vs an excluded not-so-common misspelling? What is the proportion and/or absolute numbers of misspellings that is required for it to be common misspelling? Or is this just a vote? DCDuring TALK 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we have any. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A specific person, no citations, no secondary meaning. Michael Z. 2009-09-21 05:31 z

As far as I can see proper nouns are always WT:RFV issues as they need attributive use. I think this one might pass, but then again it might not. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Cited in attributive use, IMO. Ergo, would meet CFI. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[From duplicate section created 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)]
Encyclopedic, unfit for a dictionary. Korodzik 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Already RfDed above #Arnold Schwarzenegger. Cited in attributive use IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Cited, so kept. Anyone disagree? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The definition is semi-abstract, but the only quotation refers directly to the person. Michael Z. 2009-09-21 05:33 z

I sort of think delete, but I feel pretty sure that this meets WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep if properly cited. The example given does not convey what I think the contributor wanted, as it refers to the specific person, not the algory of that person.--Dmol 23:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Cited, so kept. Anyone disagree? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we want all possible combinations of IPA letter + diacritic(s)? I hope not. -- Prince Kassad 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to see why someone would try to look it up. This (if I have the right one) is a pretty difficult character to generate, or even isolate. But I agree that having separate entries for each of these combinations is not tenable. Could they simply be hard-redirected to the diacritic? That's likely to be what the user is looking for, in any case. -- Visviva 06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably keep, what harm is it doing? What are the negative effects of keeping this and or seeing new ones created? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be the usual argument against creating SOP entries, viz. policy and maintenance. The total number of valid character-diacritic combinations is somewhere in the thousands, and if these are all real entries with content, they would all need to be updated whenever someone wanted to adjust or improve our IPA coverage. Imagine if every time you wanted to improve the entry for "car", you had to also fix the entries for "yellow car", "blue car", etc. On the other hand, the SOPness of these is anything but obvious to the untrained eye. -- Visviva 15:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think they’re different; cf.  ̼ with  ̫. They are both combining forms. Are there stand-along “modifier letter” forms of all these diacritics, or only some?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That would be this block and this block, I assume. Doesn't look like there's any 1:1 correspondence. I'll admit I just ended up pulling a likely candidate out of that second file; I have no idea if that's the diacritic in the current entry or not. But that's kind of the point -- we need to address these in a way that doesn't assume the user to be of superhuman savviness, but preferably without tossing our principles in the dustbin either. -- Visviva 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Question: are there any languages that use IPA combining diacritics as part of their writing system? If so, hard redirects are probably not a feasible option. -- Visviva 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
How about purely SOP definitions like the ones given to English affixes coöccurring with interfixes (e.g., partheno- = parthen- + -o-)?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That could work, though the formatting would take some thought. The combining diacritics have a way of not rendering at all in isolation, but also look very odd when bound to a hyperlinked whitespace character. Maybe we could have Unicode's description of the diacritic (lowercased) as the display text on the link? -- Visviva 03:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
How about  ̼  and  ̫  (with punctuation spaces on both sides this time)?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That looks pretty spiffy to me. This seems like a low-future-maintenance solution that would not sacrifice user value. Hopefully others will weigh in. -- Visviva 04:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. BTW, if that particular spacing doesn’t do it for you, feel free to compare use with the other spacing widths on my user page (User:Doremítzwr#Useful symbols, § Useful symbols yet to be added to MediaWiki:Edittools, §§ Punctuation).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominated a while ago, can't find discussion, and deleted by User:Jackofclubs. However, this is not just a piece of corporate software, it is a protocol and possibly a generic way of referring to like file sharing programs. —This unsigned comment was added by DAVilla (talkcontribs).

Are protocols exempt from the usual restrictions on proper nouns? I suppose it would sort of make sense if they were, and they're obviously useful things for us to have entries for; but I can't recall this issue being raised before. In any event, I would be inclined to delete sense as far as the specific BT client goes (absent CFI-compliant citations, of course). -- Visviva 06:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking grenadier. I don't think this is correct--Volants 10:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed to rfd-sense. Dunno. Seems like an rfv issue to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in the slightest idiomatic. If you know what email and messaggio means, you can realise that it's an email message (deleted English entry). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

algudstuf4learners(lots ofwords/day uno..) w/readers[asme4chin+cedict/mdbg >pl c dalite,vote4cfi-expansion..[sop,pr.nouns
Keep. To me it does not mean "email message", it just means email. They like to be more precise in Italian than we do in English, where a simple email can be any part of speech and have concrete and abstract senses. —Stephen 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Italian isn't the only language that does this. E-mail in a lot of other languages doesn't mean "a piece of e-mail", it means to the "system for transferring messages from one computer to another". We wouldn't say "an e-mail message" in English, but it's exactly what they would say a lot of the time. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete messaggio di posta elettronica as pure SoP. If email in Italian only refers to the system sense the entry there needs a gloss to indicate that. Either keep messaggio e-mail and messaggio email or delete if an adjective sense for email could be appropriately added to the Italian entry. — Carolina wren discussió 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep messaggio di posta elettronica as well. The word email is a very recent loan in Italian (as it is in many other languages) and messaggio di posta elettronica is the proper term for it. —Stephen 19:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I should point out, people can comment on these separately above if they wish. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

This was one RFV and I suppose technically it's failed because uncited. The problem is, it's of course impossibly easy to find the words shaggy and cut next to each other, but this seems to be just a shaggy (rough; rugged; jaggy) cut (haircut). Ergo not idiomatic, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

learners [incl.me stil i/engl! <- aded sv] no've nativspeakers gutfeelin[ cut:justcount owmany meanings +ow2no as alerner(i'd gues,butnotno4sure) isbout hair?? [aded sv]:( >pl keep suchentrys..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
a.,ino dacompnts i/chin.,butuguesdrite>its acolocation,so iwont getit (whole tr-l)rite[&if unluky,i'lbe laughd at..:( [y,somppl'v sily atituds :(--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but you could keep anything by arguing that it's not easy for a low-level speaker to understand it. I don't understand Persian, but I wouldn't want the Persian Wiktionary to include every set of words that can be strung together for that very reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • i'dstil lukitup>if+pic="ah,dat's wot/styl oz guys like"
  • i'dlikeso[dowe'v areader yet?-ifprogramable>ask4engl tr-l dropdown,pretysure we'dget gist ofmostexts even asnewbs i/farsi etc!!:) &'dkeep lots[u'd c my cedict-sugestions,incl pr nouns!..],alredy4tr-latns[admitedly,beginers'dgo2def. i/languag they'v masterd,fe we>farsi on en/fr.wt,unles reader (cos evspeed/conveniens) asaid[iwish uploadin vois'dbe/were easier :(--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

wenthru it>has stub wp><wt[origin=us/jp?encyclopedic,pics butnot sop-isues as is fashion-entity>strongkeep[whynot invest urenergy,whichisgud2hav!,2makesomnice say fr woteva entrys mglovs--ino isugested thisbe4,butpl belivme isnotbout pikin'afite orso,butrathe isoo obvious2me most ofsuch rfd's uscour up r actualy kosher, even w/o resortin2myfavord"inclusiv/fuzy boundarys/gp-styl dict"concept--n wt hasoo much constructivwork screamin2get don:misinIPA,entrys2even compl.ignord languages[c nl &dialects--am irealythe only1 2notice?![nyes,discusion pp needmaintenans2 ngudthing'gain u ao.ppl doso,but'avin schleppt myslowcomp.thru althelinks,ijustdont get why u&dcd asthe worst'ofenders'imv rsokeen onsquezin entity[compound hedwrd-articls~this1 in sop-streitjakets--theyrnot;coz ofcomp.[siz of rfd2big],hands,energy&time reasons aoth i4 1canot contest ea&evry nomination here--ijustwonderwot dacomunity thinks,dothey keeptheir handsof discsns here2[v fewvotes imean but afistfl ev'regulars'..]4similareaons?[itryd2rite outmore btw,butys,that needs asolution2,ino:/~me i/chin:if ijust getit reasonably 'rite'[but ineed betta dict4/2achivthat!!](idont need 'shift'4squar brakets btw,i/contrast2althe others:( ] ihelpmy interlocutor dealin'w/me,~here ifi'dget myinput prob solvd,itbe easier2discs,get answrs-lets just hop delivrans isnear!;)--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • o-n isnot the nonlayerd'avridg ozi rulz player hairdo'[sostildontno name4that] as i asumd from ur pos-'explanation',but insted m.ryan's--c,such entrys r realy needed even by advncdlearners~me,pl belivme..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't even make any sense. How can a haircut "make layers"? SemperBlotto 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If the entry were correct, this would be a keeper (since it would be something more precise than a cut that is shaggy). But since it has failed RFV already, delete. -- Visviva 03:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Deleted, I was waiting for another keep vote, it never came. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the usual references to spanking by Verbo /Matricularius whoever. (Will he ever learn?) My concern is the reference to the meaning of spring or well. I think that is purely Afrikaans not Dutch. Unless someone can come up with a valid quotation (maybe from colonial Dutch literature?) I think it should be removed. Jcwf 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you rfding the whole article? Because that's what it says right now. Plus there isn't any Afrikaans on the page right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I think Jcwf is rfd'ing only the (geography) sense. By the way, @Jcwf: I didn't realize it was Verbo (talkcontribs) who was adding those spanking examples. Your response might set precedent: if I see such spanking examples again I may delete them as well. —AugPi (t) 08:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you AugPi. When googling the word spruit the second hit that popped up was a spanking phrase. (Not good that.) And yes, Verbo (under other names incl. matricularius) has been exiled for this offense before.
And yes I do mean only the geography sense. Maybe I posted this the wrong place? Sorry if I did.

Jcwf 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just move this to Afrikaans then? I mean the definition says "in Afrikaans" ffs. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Afrikaans, I'm not sure there ever was a true deletion debate here. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A maritime communications standard. Just like ISO 639. DCDuring TALK 11:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Should presumably go the same way as #BitTorrent, which has not gotten much input thus far. I can see some value in having a full set of standards and protocols, along the lines of having a full set of Unicode characters and SI abbreviations; but if kept they should really be labeled ==Translingual==, not English. (unless we want 7000 language sections all saying the same thing.)-- Visviva 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
We are part of a larger project. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP is good at. We have {{only in}} for this kind of thing, if we even want that. ISO 639 should also be in our glossary, but otherwise merits the same treatment. There are a great number of standards bodies and standards. The ones that are compositional are particularly suspect, but we have others: 802.11, 802.11a, 802.11n. Also 1040, W-2, 1099; Category:E numbers.
The situation is somewhat analogous to our handling of Translingual two- and three-part species names. In that case we have chosen to have the components, but not the species names. Both WP and Wikispecies have them covered. (We do have the vernacular names.) DCDuring TALK 11:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems (partially at least) like a WT:BP#Translingual question to me. If it's changed from English to translingual, I see no reason not to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit I'm having a hard time coming up with any plausible rationale for this one. Wikipedia doesn't really make an effort to have complete lists of these, but that's mostly because such lists are readily available, usually from the sponsoring organization. Delete this and its ilk, I guess. -- Visviva 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I should maybe add that I think the question of keeping the names of standards (which is probably not a great idea) is quite different from any keeping terms or symbols specified within such standards (which in some cases is essential to our mission). Deleting ISO 639-3 would be very different matter from deleting enm. -- Visviva 15:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
For the language codes, we might well want to have our own appendix rather than pretend that, say, "sga" meets CFI or go through the exercise of proving it. It might enable us to have some content in an appendix that wouldn't meet WP standards.
For the sake of argument, what about 10W-30, which appears 9 times in COCA vs 0 for enm and cmn. I could see being very inclusive about such abbreviations and codes, especially the systematic ones. The motor-oil grades seem to be perfect for a table reminiscent of the kinds of tables that dictionaries have often had for weights and measures, calendars, etc. Sometime WP has them and sometimes not. Such tables can be implemented as templates or as appendices. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
10W-30 seems like a perfectly reasonable entry to me (as would 10W-40, 5W-30, etc.) It's attestable, not a proper name, and not sum of parts to any non-engineers. Certainly a tabular appendix would be useful as well, but need not preclude the existence of entries.
SI units, language codes, and Unicode entities, among other issues, are together making me think that it is reasonable to make a general exception to attestation requirements for closed sets of terms that are defined in a widely-accepted standard. The whole point of these standards, after all, is that even if no one has actually used zeptoohm or sga or in all the history of language, there will be no real question of what is signified (well, except perhaps for the last one); these are more like an arcane sort of verb inflection than like qualitatively new words. And because they 'are part of a closed and widely-accepted set, it is quite likely that someone will run across them and want to know what they mean -- thus meeting the most important criterion for inclusion. ... But anyway. I guess I'll save this argument for when you decide to RFD all of ISO 639. ;-) -- Visviva 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
My Germanic heritage prefers things "regelmäßig". I am suspicious that we turn a blind eye to non-CFI-meeting wikijargon, linguistics terminology, language codes, or have very fine distinctions for linguistics terms. It reminds be of US Congress repeatedly exempting itself from application of, say, workplace laws against sexual harassment. We should be eating our own dogfood. Getting rid of wikijargon was one of our finer moments.
Broader use of {{only in}} sending folks to WP and redirects sending folks to our appendices would be my preferred option. Rather than putting language codes through RfV (not that I would dare), we should have our own appendix and use redirects to point to the code there or the entry for the language if we have the entry. (Reminds me of {{spelink}} for species). Whether we want to have and maintain the list of standards or think someone else (WP or issuer, probably) should is a lesser issue. There are clearly instances where we can perform a service by collating different terminology systems, sometimes something much better done with a table than with a wordy definition. See {{Paper-B}}.
NMEA 0183 is compositional. The user searching for "NMEA 0183" would be reasonably served by NMEA and its associated wikipedia link. A user searching for 10W-30 would probably be better served by a redirect to an appendix that contained a table and an explanation of the "grammar" of the system rather than an entry. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Name of a specific entity, perhaps. Prescribed name and usage. This kind of thing might be acceptable with a technical-usage label like {{communications}}, but I'm not convinced that “closed-set” is important. Authoritative medical dictionaries are full of hundreds of variations of names of diseases and conditions which are portmanteaus from other-language dictionaries, and might have never been spoken aloud.

10W-30 is different. It's used every day by common people who drive cars. Michael Z. 2009-09-25 00:40 z

Nominating along with Invisible Pink Unicorn. Both are encyclopedic. Not dictionary material. Korodzik 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure from the way they are used. They have each been used in anti-Creationist rhetoric often enough that they seem to have a lexical life of their own, albeit possibly only in a narrow context of religion. colourless green ideas dream furiously is such a famous example that one wonders if it also has a comparable life of its own, at least among linguists. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Good evidence of usage in books. This includes both pro and anti creationism works. The definition needs work, as it doesn't explain the parody angle or origins of this term.--Dmol 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Name of a specific entity. Please cite attributive usage where the reader doesn't have to be in on the joke. Michael Z. 2009-09-25 00:25 z
I trust you would apply the same logic to God, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Odin et al.? -- Visviva 10:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
And Bible, Torah, Koran, ... --EncycloPetey 14:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that these were ever used except as rhetorical devices. They are no one's actual deity. Not to say that they shouldn't be included. Aren't they more like early bird or China syndrome, evocative of a parable or incident known in a context? Or like flying purple people eater? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Pastafarians would beg to differ. You may be right about the unicorn. -- Visviva 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL. The site makes my case about the strictly rhetorical use. There are many kinds of fictions. This is an insincere kind. Though sincerity is not a CFI criterion, it has always seemed a wise course to limit the "fictional universe" standard to purely literary fictions. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would agree (I think?) that we shouldn't apply the fictional universe standard. But the specific entities criterion is more troubling. It seems obvious to me that deity names shouldn't require attributive use, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why. Part of it may be that attributive use doesn't work that well when the specific entity is known to us only as a set of attributes. A mythological god like Zeus is one thing, but a more abstract being like His Noodliness or the God of Moses is more problematic. I'm trying to come up with a specific rationale that would not be widely regarded as blaspemous... -- Visviva 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, some good questions brought up here, for the purpose of evaluating and developing our guidelines.
But FYI, in English, God (and god) is used in dozens of senses, phrases, and compounds. OED includes a section “attrib. and Comb.,” with categories attributive and appositive substantive combinations (e.g., God-box, slang ‘church’, God slot in broadcasting, God squad), objective (God-consciousness, God-maker, God-monger), possessive (God's-eye-view), participial (God-adoring), with passive participle (God-begotten), adjective (God-full, cf. Godful). OED has very little about Allah or Yahweh, Zeus is allusive (“the Zeus of Weimar”) or combining (“Cretan Zeus-worship”), and Odin is absent. Michael Z. 2009-09-29 04:05 z
Interestingly, the OED does have an entry for Hephæstus (their spelling), a pretty minor god of the Ancient Greek pantheon, for whom it notes the derived adjectives Hephæstian and Hephæstic.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
We’re probably going to have to close the door on some the littlest deities, lest we open it to 333 millions of Hindoo gods;-Þ  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The deity question is interesting and important, but what could be more obvious than that this headword is not the name of a deity. I don't see any particular reason do discriminate against the attestable deity names of polytheistic religions. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was ignoring the attestability vs. slippery slope thing, largely so I could post that little link. :-D Heck, why not all the 八百万の神 (800,0000 gods) of 神道 (Shintō) if we can get ‛em?! Dya reckon English translations of the 古事記 (Kojiki) and 日本書紀 (Nihon Shoki) count as well-known works?
It may be obvious, but it’s difficult to offer objective criteria for why the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t a deity. Divinity is rarely an all-or-nothing affair. Consider the Nazarene: Is he only divine? Heresy. only human? Heresy. A bit of both? Heresy. Then what, in God’s name, is he?! Good question, that. Then there are the angels. There are lots. Which ones do we let in, just the seraphim, or should we accept some cherubim and ophanim as well? There are nine choirs of angels in Christianity. Technically, none of them are divine, even though they’re fairly strongly analogous with the lesser gods and demigods of many polytheistic religions’ panthea. Then there are various nymphs, genii loci, and god-begotten heroes of lore when one considers more animistic belief systems. And it isn’t just Achilles and the Cæsars who claim demigodhood and practise apotheosis; we could quite reasonably have entries for all of the easily-attestable 125 Emperors of Japan (as descendants of 天照大御神Amaterasu Ōmikami), or 124, depending upon how you interpret the 人間宣言 (Ningen-sengen). Furthermore, one needn’t be divine to be significant to a religion — Buddha was just a teacher, and Mohammed was a prophet; then again, if we let them in, what do we do about Xenu? He’s pretty important to the Church of Scientology, even if news of him only passes to us through the science-fiction oracle Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, and even if he is a genocidal galactarch. Not easy, huh?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Faced with a really interesting, challenging problem, it is so often more efficient to reframe it as some thing easy. Existence of initialism + Pawley criteria => keep. Deity is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion under current CFI, nor is it likely to be under editable CFI. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That skews things far too much in favour of long deity names. We’d omit the Hindu goddess of destruction and eponym Kāli, but retain some obscure Sumerian river spirit.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I'm not sure why. -- Visviva 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Pawley makes it easy. The fairly widespread use of the acronym within some context implies idiomaticity within that context. Perhaps we could be more explicit about which circumstances and what nature of such use and evidence thereof is acceptable to us, but I'd bet on this. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a good exercise. Think about what it is about the names that makes us want to include them or not. Hint: divinity is a quality of a being, not of its name. Michael Z. 2009-09-29 19:39 z

Good point. I once proposed the sufficient (but not necessary) criterion for inclusion that the proper noun have an attestable derived “proper adjective”, which would, for example, let in Hephæstus, given the existence of the derived adjectives Hephæstian and Hephæstic. Perhaps we should compile such a list of sufficient criteria…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept, consensus. As a proper noun it's susceptible to an RFV mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See #Flying Spaghetti Monster above. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that IPU is common (with no accompanying expansion or explanation), e.g. on newsgroups discussing religion. Equinox 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that little boy was kept as a no consensus, should this be restored? I say no but I'd like us to make our minds up one way or the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not have any restoration start with the citations. That way we can be discussing something concrete and not too speculative. If we establish that there is usage of one or more non-SoP senses which we can specify, we can determine whether we need to start fresh or can salvage any of the failed entry. I suspect that some of the translations were of the SoP phrase rather than the purported idiom (but then I'm just skeptical generally). IOW, no, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Why? Little boy didn't (and doesn't) have any citations. Restore, both cases were borderline but they were exactly the same. -- Visviva 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from the top of this page: "Terms that failed a request for verification are presumed invalid. They should not be resubmitted as the same term without adequate verification (see verification archives) and do not need duplicate listings here." We have a procedure. We could validate it by conforming to it or we could make all procedure subject to debate and interpretation. Other decision procedures are also available. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This is RFD, not RFV. Neither of these terms was submitted to RFV, and I would imagine that they would both pass with flying colors, since idiomaticity is not an RFV issue. -- Visviva 00:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It indeed was RfD that it had failed. My mistake. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"ndeed it failed RfD not RfV"-so rfd fail.not the end?>can sb explain pl?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RFD is decided by consensus, while RFV is decided by whether a word/sense is attested or not. As a rule, an RFV cannot be overturned by consensus, but only by providing three durably-archived citations of use. Likewise an RFD cannot normally be overturned by adding citations; rather, it must be shown that the consensus of the community has changed (usually through a second RFD). -- Visviva 14:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
There were specific assertions about the meaning of the term that were not supported by much attestation. I was hoping that attestation would help make the arguments less ideological and more constructive. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, here's an argument that would be kind of specious to cite, but compare the use of google books:"you going|doing little girl" to google books:"you going|doing young girl" (rare, mostly translations), google books:"you going|doing little woman" (only a couple of unique uses), google books:"you going|doing little lady" (mostly a different meaning entirely). It's pretty clear that "little girl" is not pragmatically equivalent to "young girl", or any of the obvious candidates except -- arguably -- for "young lady". This suggests to me that there are useful things we can say about this word, and also that the case for this word is if anything stronger than it was for little boy. -- Visviva 15:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per floor tile, which I wouldn't have minded keeping. But User:Duncan MacCall said they should be treated themselves. I abstain until I see what some other people think. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The closed form rooftile is google books:"rooftile" attestable. So "roof tile" should be kept. floor tile should be undeleted per the existence of floortile. If CFI does not meet this criteria, CFI should be amended, to the effect of "A multi-word term shall be included if its closed form, meaning one without spaces, meets inclusion criteria". --Dan Polansky 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
See also #coal mine. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems like we need to change CFI on this, or get this kept and floor tile restored first then go to WT:VOTE. I actually agree so keep, restore floor tile and change CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per CFI. (I take it there is not any evidence that it would meet current CFI.)
Make the proposal to change CFI. I don't now have a firm opinion about such a change. An alternative form/spelling does not have to meet CFI or be wikilinked. The alternative form will lead internal searches to rooftile and we could make it easier for search engines to find the compound. We could have a usage note if the alternative forms are more common. Perhaps if the open form is more common that would warrant keeping it as an entry even if it did not otherwise meet CFI. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we should grant unprecedented deference to CFI as long as it remains in a suicide pact with WT:VOTE (a suicide pact that arose unplanned from the half-assed cleanup of the egomaniacal mess left behind by Richardb in '06, not out of any visible consensus). Fix the policy process, then we can see about following it. "In the wiki but not of the wiki" = dead letter IMO. -- Visviva 00:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the proposed rationale. It drives me nuts to create entries for a rare single-word form of some (apparently) sum-of-parts phrase that is far more commonly written as two words, while being unable to create an entry for the primary form. Apart from being stupid, this creates distortions in the fabric of translations and synonymy. The proposed rationale would also give us a plausible basis for considering something a "set phrase" -- if it's sometimes written as a single word, that's a pretty strong indicator of setness. But this is the first time I can recall this particular rationale being suggested, and the other entry has already been deleted. Couldn't we have had this discussion earlier? Weak abstain on the specific question, support Dan's rationale in general. -- Visviva 00:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The existence of the "Isn't it spelled solid or with a hyphen?" question is one of the Pawley criteria for idiomaticity. Would we want to enact the entire set of Pawley criteria? Wasn't that considered and rejected? Do we want to reopen the discussion of such extensions of idiomaticity or address the various proper noun proposals first? DCDuring TALK 00:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought we'd been using (an adopted version of) the Pawley criteria all along -- not by policy, but as a rough map of the idiomaticity minefield. We wouldn't want to follow any outside criteria blindly, certainly, but WT:SURVIVOR suggests that we've been following at least a few. An advantage of this test is that, unlike say the "fried egg" test, it can be applied without resort to introspection, which is always fallible. -- Visviva 02:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
How would anyone except a long-standing veteran know that we were and what it meant that we were? I'm not suggesting a vote. I'm suggesting a guidelines page (ie editable, at least by admins) that someone could read, so that they might be able to join us and help. Was there a problem with the reference text that had been in use? The criteria seem almost to allow any multi-word term anyone is likely to want to enter, except that it does not have the translation-target criterion. DCDuring TALK 03:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It's a word. In many languages, it's translated as one word. sour cream is not just cream and a roof tile is not just a tile. Even in German Dachziegel, there's Dach (roof) but Ziegel is a brick or roof tile, not a tile. --Anatoli 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep (I thought we'd already discussed this somewhere.) Per OED, roof-tile, also roof tile, can refer to a ridge tile—not just any tile for the roof. Michael Z. 2009-09-29 04:27 z

Kept, strong consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Removed the rfd-tag. --Hekaheka 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppposed "common" "misspelling". Not common. Not a misspelling. AFAICT only 2 valid citations from durably archived sources. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete per above (almost word for word too). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed above and kept due to lack of consensus. Is there some new reason to nominate this for deletion again? —Rod (A. Smith) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Was meant to be an RfV, as it now is, because 2/3 cites are not from "durably archived source". DCDuring TALK 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Too rare for a misspelling entry; cf. google books:"digitigrade" (1,021) with google books:"digitgrade" (39). Delete.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What's our cutoff? 3.7% seems like plenty for a misspelling, especially in print works that have (mostly) undergone some degree of editing. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to create it, but I'm inclined to think that anything over 1-2% is keepable. Further, turning to the web -- which is what most previus misspelling discussions have been based on -- I get 7530 for google:+digitgrade vs. 44100 for google:+digitigrade. At 14.6%, that's a higher error rate than accomodation (which is 10.9% by my Google). I'm OK with it if we want to adopt a 5% b.g.c. cutoff or similar, but unless we do adopt a strict numeric cutoff, this looks keepish to me. -- Visviva 00:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I rechecked: the number of hits for *digitgrade became thirty-two by clicking on the last screenful of hits; of those, these: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] were invisible and this one is a scanno of the correct digitigrade (see the centre of its “(d)” paragraph). So, only twenty book hits for *digitgrade are confirmed, or <1.96% of the number of hits for digitigrade (before similar adjustments are made to the raw b.g.c. hits for it). Google Fight gives digitigrade (11,800) vs. digitgrade (583), making digitgrade <4.95% as common as digitigrade. Bear in mind as well the fact that we’ve had an entry for digitgrade since 15:40, 10 May 2006, so that’ll inflate the number of hits Google yields for digitgrade. Compare google:+plantgrade (217) with google:+plantigrade (87,100): making plantgrade <0.25% as common as plantigrade. This, I think, is a very good reason not to listen to Google Web Search hits when considering such things in future. I conclude again that this is too rare to be kept as a common misspelling.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point. But if we apply the same correction to the b.g.c. hits for '+digitigrade', the total number of hits becomes 336: [41]. So the actual percentage would seem to be around 8.7% [32/(336+32)], which is again quite high, particularly given that we are dealing (primarily) with edited works. I hadn't heard of any "common misspelling" criterion that would place the cutoff above 5%. -- Visviva 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. I really didn’t expect 660 hits to be fake. Yeah, I suppose that’s common enough to be retained. However, I think the point about the especial unreliability of Google Web Search still stands.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Google Web counts are fiendishly unreliable (and often impossible to double-check), yes. Perhaps we could use a cross-section of the smaller Googles instead? -- Visviva 02:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Book Search seems OK with some corrections; Groups Search has inspired suspicion; I haven’t tested the others enough to comment.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

moved to sacherijnig. See official spelling Jcwf 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the reason for this RfD? The project is not limited to words listed in official lists. Lmaltier 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
For the nth time, I don't know what you're proposing for deletion, or why. Since I don't know any Dutch, I can't comment, but someone has to clean this mess up. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

After properly moving a page to the proper spelling and cleaning up the mess. I am proposing to delete a page that has a wrong miss-spelled title.... Dutch has a regulated spelling agreed upon by law by three democratically elected governments. It is time for you to start respecting our language and stop screwing around with it by creating misleading wrong spellings in it. That is exceedingly offensive and undemocratic. Jcwf 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh FFS you do know this is an online dictionary, not a soapbox? Keep the politics off the page and stick to the dictionary stuff. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with deleting this page. It's nothing more than a misspelling which isn't even very common. If the English Wiktionary would like to include this sort of entrees in Dutch, they could also tag =English= on every Chinese character page or include entrees like "raynbow" for rainbow and "offishel" for official. It makes as much sense as keeping this page.. --Ooswesthoesbes 05:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The project is not limited to regulated spellings, nor to current spellings (old spellings not used any more should be included too). The important thing is current and past use. Please, compare statistics between sjagerijnig and sacherijnig, they seem to suggest that it could be kept. In such cases, you should add an explanatory note explaining that this is not the regulated spelling, or that this spelling was used during a limited period, or whatever appropriate, but not delete. Lmaltier 05:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a common misspelling (or rather, a non-standard spelling): see, for example, http://www.songteksten.nl/songteksten/37236/Kinderen-Voor-Kinderen/Wakker-met-een-wijsje.htm . Look up "wakker met een wijsje songtekst" on Google, and wherever you find the lyrics, you find the word "sjagerijnig" in it. So the article should be kept at least as a redirect. Besides, the spelling "sjagerijnig" matches the pronunciation /ʃa.ɤə.ˈɾɛɪ.nɪx/ in the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8-Ru1GBbiY (0:29), whereas "sacherijnig" would be pronounced /sa.xə.ˈɾɛi.nɪx/, which doesn't match the song. —AugPi (t) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
However, KvK 's official website does use the standard spelling "chagrijnig": http://kvk.vara.nl/Song-single.408.0.html?&cHash=cf705f019d&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=466 . On Google, "chagrijnig" gets 43,000 hits, "sjagerijnig" gets 17,200 hits, and "sacherijnig" gets 13,500 hits. "sjacherijnig" gets 13,400 hits. —AugPi (t) 06:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. w/ Safesearch on.
"Chagrijnig" doesn't really quite match the pronunciation in the song either: "chagrijnig" suggests /ʃa.ˈɤɾɛɪ.nɪx/, but in the song there is a schwa between the 'g' and the 'r': /ʃa.ɤə.ˈɾɛɪ.nɪx/ —AugPi (t) 07:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This last argument is beside the point, since spelling doesn't have to match pronunciation exactly. "sjagerijnig" gets only 5 hits on YouTube, whereas "chagrijnig" gets 70, including from KvK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3wlD-YXjWs . By the way, in this last link the pronunciation for "chagrijnig" matches "sacherijnig" exactly. —AugPi (t) 07:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(I'm writing this a little bit hasty, so if something could be considered offensive - it is well meant) You are actually saying it should be kept also because it is pronounced so? Then we could at least add a different entree too for sjachereinig, sjaachereinig, schaachereinig, schachereinig, sjachereineg, sjaggereineg, sjaggareinig, sjaggerijnig, sjaggereinich or sjachereinech. Not only because people in Limburg would more likely pronounce it as /ʃ(x)ɑxɐˈrɛɪnɪx/. If "non-regulated spellings" are good to be kept you could also split up every compound word found in Dutch (it's a common spelling mistake), so instead of appelboom appel boom and for schapenvlees we could use schapen vlees, schape vlees (the "n" is not pronounced) or - for the immigrant communities - sjchappefleesj. Another thing to raise the amount of articles would be to include entrees like ap-pelboom or appel-boom (when breaking a word at the end of the line people might make a mistake in the spelling) - just an idea of course ;) --Ooswesthoesbes 13:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well delete assuming you're all right (which seems very likely) I just wanted to know what we were discussing. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I find different figures for Google hits (www.google.fr site): 23000 for sacherijnig, 27900 for sjagerijnig, and 76800 for chagrijnig. I still don't understand why it would be offensive to keep sjagerijnig (with a comment about its non-standard status): the standard word seems to be the less usual one. Lmaltier 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

cos ppl i/&fromlow cuntrys brainwashd bout that stup.list[iwont evn use it as wc-paper--mao-zegreen boekje,so democratic-beurkk] that arbitrarly incl.1variant[i'v neva seen'n'dnt evn gues wotitmeans,unles from context]butnot the other1i prsnly kno as holl-ic[from tv,livin there]~2som purist french w/AF bs praps:(--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 01:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

@Ooswesthoesbes (talkcontribs): Number of Google hits (with Safesearch ON): "chagrijnig" = 44000, "sjagerijnig" = 17200, "sacherijnig" = 13600, "sjaggerijnig" = 10500, "sjachereinig" = 755, "sjaggerijnig" = 577, "sjaachereinig" = 0, "schaachereinig" = 0, "schachereinig" = 0, "sjachereineg" = 0, "sjaggereinich" = 0, "sjachereinech" = 0. Since "sjagerijnig" gets more hits than one of the two standard spellings, one can argue that it is a common misspelling. —AugPi (t) 02:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I get different results: sacherijnig: 2.750, sjacherijnig: 1.950, chagrijnig: 76.000, sjagerijnig: 28.000, sjaggerijnig: 1.7000. --Ooswesthoesbes 04:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

me w/twG~lmalt.[70vs20+gran]funy..:/--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep
    It is attestable in Google Books.
    A usage note can make it clear that this spelling is considered non-standard by a particular authority. Whether it is a misspelling or a non-standard spelling can be clarified. The request for deletion has given as a justification for deletion the existence of another, official spelling; this is an invalid justification per Wiktionary's WT:CFI. Wiktionary's inclusion criteria focuses on actual attestability (description of what actually is the case) rather than on external authorities (prescription of what someone, even if a democratically elected body, considers should be the case). Nevertheless, the views of authorities can be mentioned in a usage note.
    Some searches:
    google books:"sjagerijnig" and google:"sjagerijnig"
    google books:"sacherijnig" and google:"sacherijnig".
    --Dan Polansky 09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

same as sjagerijnig

keep as/ogpi+lmalt just abuv[we rdescritiv;)--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if yoo wood olsow elou payges written yoozing fonettik (or fonettique, wee need toô bee deskriptiv ofkorz) Inglish. :) --Ooswesthoesbes 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sum of parts. It was created by an anon if that tells you anything about how important it is. Ultimateria 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Ultimateria. Not sure about the IP comment mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

keep-def ok+tr-l needed[cfi expanded!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 14:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The definition is very good. --Ooswesthoesbes 15:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does it matter how good the definition is? I could write a good definition for Al Gore but it would get deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's true. Though I don't believe "sum of parts" really fits to this word. Another thing is that "paper flower" is often one word in another language (Limburgish: pepiersbloom) which suggests that "sum of parts" isn't really good for this one. "sum of parts" would be more appropriate for "red car" or so. --Ooswesthoesbes 17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

evn:auto rouge,紅色的車but紅車=popular car needed4userfriendlydict[isowish datconcept'd truly sink in here..:(

paper (attributive use) + flower. I can't see anything else, nor can the person that created the article. As far as I can see the Limburgish isn't idiomatic either, it just doesn't keep the space between pepier + bloom. I don't think you can defend this use our criteria for conclusion, you'd have to look elsewhere. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Sum-of-parts. Are we also going to have entries for "paper crane", "paper frog", "paper fish", "paper aardvark", "paper whatever"...? Korodzik 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ifuguys dontlike such entrys,then dont conslt'em--aslong therz no nonsens in'em,tolerat'em[notlearnt i/skuldat,no?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Then what's the point of keeping a "requests for deletion" page if we are just supposed to "tolerate" the entries we don't think belong in here? Korodzik 07:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is really funny :) You keep misspellings, but delete correct pages if I'm right :) --Ooswesthoesbes 05:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have address our points above. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, nice strong consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
At some point, the term "paper flower" will need to be recreated, albeit with the sense of a kind of vine: paper flower at OneLook® Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky 09:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at that, but could find no actual citations of use. Might be one for Appendix:Unattested common names. Paperflower is attestable, but in reference to a different plant entirely. -- Visviva 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Idiomatic? DCDuring TALK 23:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have a more specific meaning: google:"verbal assault is defined". Are high school codes of conduct considered durably archived? I assume they are still published in printed form in most places. -- Visviva 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not idiomatic or a set phrase (to me) so delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but those don't all say the same thing; it's defined under the school's own rules. Since they don't support any single definition, I don't think they're usable anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There seemed to be a number that supported a definition along the lines of "speech that causes someone to fear physical assault." I have now added three cites that I think substantiate this use; there are a few others that might do if these do not. This is definitely a sense that is scraping by on the edge of the language, outside perhaps of Michigan educational law, where a Supreme Court ruling has constrained most school districts to adopt a similar definition. NB, there are also numerous references on b.g.c. to "verbal assault statutes", and numerous references on GNA to "verbal assault" being a "crime" (e.g. in England). But on closer examination, these all seem to mean that assault is defined to include (all sorts of) verbal abuse, not that there is any specific notion of "verbal assault." -- Visviva 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete These regulations are not usage, they're prescriptive definitions. Please write out the text of WT:CFI 100 times! Michael Z. 2009-10-07 02:11 z

<sigh/> Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without making the implicit assumption that the person with whom you disagree is an idiot? At any rate, CFI is at least clear that the presence of a definition does not preclude a cite from counting as use, especially when the definition follows the use, as it does in the two Michigan cites that I have added to the entry. The reason I linked to the definitions initially is simply to make clear what I was talking about. You know, so that we could have a thoughtful discussion instead of yelling "keep" and "delete" at each other. But since that seems to be all that's happening here, let me be the first to say: KEEP! ::eyeroll::
If you think CFI is wrong, that's fine; please help to build up a constructive BRD cycle at Wiktionary:Editable CFI. -- Visviva 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As per the definition "oral or written speech that creates, or is intended to create, a fear of physical harm", that is a specific disambiguation of the generic "verbal assault" in the sense of "verbal threat". Without this definition, I would read "verbal assault" as synonymous to "verbal insult" or name calling. So, at least I am unable to reliably deduce the specific meaning of "verbal assault" from "verbal" and "assault". Keep.
That said, this term is probably a borderline case, judging from its absence in most OneLook dictionaries: verbal assault at OneLook® Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep as cited in legal and associated context. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The article has been rewritten (every word, I think) so keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, nice work Visviva. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Idiomatic? DCDuring TALK 23:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have said so, much like war of choice, war of aggression and just war. I'll grant I'm having a hard time coming up with anything besides "set phrase" as a rationale, however. -- Visviva 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not idiomatic or a set phrase (to me) so delete.. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete as sum-of-parts. Michael Z. 2009-10-07 02:12 z

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

History that is local in its subject. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Local history does not normally include microhistory or Alltagsgeschichte, although these are local in subject. I also find the compound "local historian" to be of interest -- it chunks very differently from "local teacher" or "local dentist". The fact that the boundaries of the field have been the subject of periodic debate for decades is also of interest. Keep, perhaps sharpen definition (though it looks pretty good from here). -- Visviva 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not idiomatic or a set phrase (to me) so delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not every possible combination of senses of red and senses of car is actually attestable. Should be have an entry for red car that contains only those that are? "Red team" and "red car" use different senses of red. Should be have one or both for that reason?
Also would an official (ie, prescribed) definition of "local history" from, say, a "Universal Society of Local Historians" merit an entry if attestable? How would we warrant that a given citation was of the official definition? DCDuring TALK 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

redcar/tm-'dbe alowd,y[c furtherabuv]2,y,tho praps rathe i/wp-extnsn-史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1. No, of course not. 2. No, of course it wouldn't. But nobody is suggesting either of these things, so I'm not sure why you bring them up.
"Local" seems to have only one applicable definition: "From or in a nearby location." Obviously we are missing a sense or three. But I don't see how any plausible sense of local would reflect the fact that a) local history is normally considered to exclude microhistorical and ethnographic studies of a locality's history, even though these are both local and historic ([43]), or b) that someone could say in all seriousness that "proper local history is not really local history at all." ([44]) -- Visviva 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Well the current definition doesn't refer to the history of a locality, but a sort of study, a body of work. So providing that is correct, I'd say keep. But only if there's some sort of credible source. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

praps dc isbrainwashd i/schools[imjust tryin2understnd why s/he chaoticly nomnts like that,oris itjust bordm+silynes?];but neva stepd outside ntried2thorely understand sth??[uwont getv.far w/ur aproach..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I blame not just my schools, but also my ancestors, food, medication, friends, relatives, employers, coworkers, friends, partners, acquaintances, correspondents, government, and society and environment in general for all their shortcomings as manifest in me. In the great Wiki in the Sky you can always put in an RfD on me. Please refrain from out-of-process deletion or even editing.
I nominate what I come across in the course of sowing chaos throughout wiktionary, for example, in Category:English phrases, Category:English interjections, and Category:English proverbs, also uncategorized entries, and items with bad structure, missing inflection lines, bad headers. Also entries that haven't been materially changed since being imported from Webster 1913. Should I presort them before putting them in to RfD or RfV? Is it my job to perfect each entry I find with shortcomings?
If someone would like to make a good entry out of this entry by indicating in what context the specialized meaning applies and attesting the elements of the definition or referencing the definition, preferably from more than one source, I'd be more than happy. Otherwise, .... DCDuring TALK 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly; I nominate entries based on what they contain. If there's a specialized context or another meaning I don't know about, I can't predict that the entry will be improved in the future. Often, rfding a poor entry either leads to deletion, or a good rewrite. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

“All white horses,” and all that. Sorry that I don't know what microhistory and Alltagsgeschichte are, but even if other histories are local in character, that doesn't mean that local history isn't simply “history that is local.” Also, let's please not mix up prescribed technical definitions—perhaps there is a sense of local history which should be marked with {{history}}—and everyday terms that everyone knows the meaning of, like local historyMichael Z. 2009-10-07 02:40 z

Feel free to edit the entry, in a way that you feel would resolve these concerns. As you may have noticed, this is an RFD; the only point at issue is whether the term is always and everywhere the sum of its parts. If it is, it doesn't belong in the dictionary, because no one will ever need to look it up. On the other hand, if it is only sometimes the sum of its parts, then it can stay and be improved. But before anyone is going to want to spend time improving the entry, it has to not be deleted.
We haven't satisfactorily dealt with the issue of how to deal with words that are SOP in common use but have an occasional non-compositional meaning. Ruakh proposed a good solution a while back, IIRC... I'll see if I can dig it up. But in any event, I'm not convinced that applies here; I have a hard time imagining that anyone would consider, say, an ethnographic study of a locality over time to qualify as "local history". I wouldn't expect to find, say, Shinohata in the local history section of a library; even a Japanese library. -- Visviva 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if someone added a specialist definition, then the entry doesn't get deleted (and then perhaps the common sense should be added, no?). I don't know anything about the use of local history by historians, so I could only speculate. Michael Z. 2009-10-07 04:50 z
We always have the citation space available for someone who wants to provide quotations that would support a non-SoP sense. I sympathize with the need to give a home for work that might lead to a real entry. Is it more reasonable to have an entry like this RfV'd first? The issue seems largely the same in either case. The citation effort may be "wasted". I have always thought that talk was cheaper than citation effort, so that a challenge on idiomaticity grounds would lead to less wasted effort.
It seems to me especially important to have citations to support an entry that the lexicographic authorities at other dictionaries don't find worth having an entry for. We seem to give a great deal of credence to such authority in many other areas. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs) 7 October 2009.
Delete this and improve the related sense of history, because it can be combined with any plausible adjective. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional character with no attested independent use. Korodzik 14:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cited in attributive use, IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per WT:CFI. Simple as that. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as cited. bd2412 T 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Daffy Duck offense is the proper name of a specific football play named after the character: a variation of the “Donald Duck.”[45] The coots quotation refers to the fact that the species has similar coloration to the character.[46] A “Daffy Duck shuffle” is the walk you see in a Daffy Duck cartoon. The last two quotations are specific references to the character and two of his attributes, and not attributive use as a word. The “Daffy Duck election” may be just a comic play on words following lame-duck. I don't see any evidence that the duck's name is used as a word with fixed meaning in any of these. Clearly, in none of these is it being used “attributively, with a widely understood meaning,” as required by WT:CFI#Names of specific entitiesMichael Z. 2009-10-06 13:17 z

I've added three quotes that either justify this entry or a new one for Daffy Duck voice. --EncycloPetey 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Are the examples of Daffy Duck the noun or rather of Daffy Duck the adjective? If they are actually of the latter, the definition should read "Having a characteristic associated with Daffy Duck, a comic character." Defining the word like this would render Daffy Duck voice as unnecessary. --Hekaheka 14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
We need attributive use for attestation. The PoS is Noun. Ergo, the definition is nounal. It wouldn't hurt to have a common noun use of the term, eg, of "a Daffy Duck" or "Daffy Ducks" to make clear that we are defining a noun. The true proper noun sense should be confined to the etymology and Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. How could "a Daffy Duck offense" be the name of a "play"? Clearly the author is commenting on the goofiness of a style of play that characterizes the offense of a team.
  2. I don't see how CFI mandates absence of humor in attributive use.
  3. There are a various possibilities for the specific analogy with coots: color, goofy behavior, long neck, sound. Why one would use Daffy Duck to convey blackness or a specific gait is beyond me. These seem like incidentals.
I think most attributive use of Proper nouns is broadly evocative of certain attributes of the referent. Our effort to define such use is necessarily focused on salient, distinguishing characteristics. I think the salient ones are goofiness, wise-guy-itude, and the voice.
Frankly, I don't think that very many of us could meet MZ's apparent standards to attest the specifics of any definition of any term in Wiktionary. It seems to me that we would need more or less three attestations for each noun, verb, adjective, or adverb in a definition. (It is possible that a given quote could attest to more than one defining word, but it is also possible that some function words might need attestation). I don't think that the OED meets that standard. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1 Clearly, you haven't followed the link next to my post above, which is an article about the Daffy Duck offense.
2 I think you miss my point. In the election quotation, the meaning would not change at all if you substitute a made-up name, like “Dopey Duck.” This quotation doesn't assign any meaning to Daffy Duck, except that it sounds like lame-duck but daffier.
3 The others mentioned are not used “attributively, with a widely understood meaning.” The one is virtually synonymous with “coots look like Daffy Duck,” and the other compares the author's walk to the cartoon Duck's walk. There is no widely understood meaning, there's just the duck. The current “definition” doesn't have any meaning, it just names the duck. Michael Z. 2009-10-06 23:30 z
  1. I was not aware that CFI requires that attributive use is limited to common noun phrases. The "Daffy Duck" name for the offense is intended to evoke the idea of trick plays, that the offensive formation and ensuing plays "look funny".
  2. The capitalization of Daffy Duck is clearly a reference to the character. That it also may be a pun is irrelevant. That the meaning does not involve many attributes of the character is also irrelevant. The point of the reference is that the speaker wanted to disparage an election (presumed serious in many countries) by invoking a comical character.
  3. The point with coots is that they are funny looking, not like an ordinary duck, but like a comical duck, as the definition has specified.
-- DCDuring TALK 00:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm... The definition seems to be morphing. When we discussed it earlier, it was a specific comic duck. Now Daffy Duck means “a comical duck,” which is just wrong (if not, then one could explain Donald Duck by saying he's a Daffy Duck).
The selection of quotations is getting ridiculous. “Daffy Duck voice” actually mean's Daffy Duck's voice, fer cryin' out loud. Just look at this excerptMichael Z. 2009-10-07 01:35 z
    • 1987, UTAH'S DAFFY OFFENSE HAS QB MENDONCA IN STATE OF CONFUSION[47]
      [...] otherwise known as the Utes' “Donald Duck Offense” for its daffy formations.
    • 1987, U. making quacks in defense with Daffy Duck plays[48]
      [...] their “Daffy Duck” offense. [¶]Of course, it's been seen before. It's a variation of the “Donald Duck” the Utes ran two years ago on rare occasion.
    • 1987, Meet Mr. Inspiration—he's the short guy nobody wanted[49]
      They experimented on some new variations of the “Duck” offense (they are calling them Dewey and Daisy Duck).”
    • 1987 Oct 7, “HERE'S FRESH NEWS: EVERTHING IS JUST DUCKY AT OREGON”, Dallas Morning News:
      At Utah, the Utes are sporting a Daffy Duck offense. The linemen come out of the huddle and go to one side of the field. A wide receiver snaps to the quarterback...
Daffy Duck + voice. Which of the meanings of attributive and use are we supposed to use? This looks absolutely fine to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You ask an interesting question about attributive use, which could probably stand some discussion, perhaps at Wiktionary Talk:CFI, leading to clarification at BP. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
“... attributively, with a widely understood meaning.” I take that to mean that it has its own meaning as a word in English, beyond simply the proper name of the character. For example, meaning that you don't have to know about the Venetian adventurer to call someone a casanova. But the wording is open to different interpretations, and should be clarified. Michael Z. 2009-10-12 22:10 z
As I've said before, it says a "widely understood meaning" - it doesn't put any limits on what the word means. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The examples demonstrate clear limits. Denoting a single specific referent like George Walker Bush, Thomas Jefferson, or Daffy Duck is not a widely understood meaning of a word. Otherwise every specific entity would be allowed and the “Names of specific entities” rule would be meaningless, thanks to common specific attributive formations like “the Thomas Jefferson estate,” “the Thomas Jefferson letters,” “the Thomas Jefferson presidency,” or “a Daffy Duck cartoon.” Michael Z. 2009-10-13 00:05 z
Oh I completely agree. However that's not what CFI says right now. If we're basing this on CFI, this has to be kept. If this part of CFI gets changed (and I really hope it does) this might get renominated for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A Daffy Duck voice is definitely not a Donald Duck voice nor a duck voice. At a minimum, if this is deleted, Daffy Duck voice ought to be kept in its stead, as it is more often used in the sense of speaking like Daffy Duck, than of the voice of Daffy Duck himself. To not do so would be dethpicable. Narrowing the sense of this entry also works for me. — Carolina wren discussió 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
And a Stalin moustache is not a Don Johnson beard. Pierre Trudeau wit, Michael Jackson glove, and George Bush quote are attested too. Are you serious? Michael Z. 2009-10-14 03:39 z
Why not. Certainly the collocation Hitler moustache refers to a particular style of moustache, just as Beatle haircut, John Lennon glasses (or spectacles), and Nehru jecket all refer to very specific forms of items. Either we have a compound noun in each of these, or else we have attributive nouns with very peculiar properties. --EncycloPetey 04:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What we have are encyclopedic references to specific people. They are sum-of-parts phrases composed of an inadmissible proper name plus a common word with no special meaning. They aren't found in any dictionary, and we'd stand out as foolish if we started adding these to ours. Michael Z. 2009-10-14 13:11 z
Your statements are easily proven wrong. In fact, I own several dictionaries that include an entry for Nehru jacket (including Webster's). I even own dictionaries that have entries for specific individuals (AHD notable among them). Your conclusion is thus not supported by the facts. --EncycloPetey 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, which statements have you proven wrong, then? Michael Z. 2009-10-15 00:02 z
"They aren't found in any dictionary", and "we'd stand out as foolish if we started adding these to ours." --EncycloPetey 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't be telling me that I'm full of shit when you are citing yourself. I didn't mention Nehru jacket, Mr. Daffy Duck voice. Michael Z. 2009-10-15 01:42 z
Then your comment was either a non sequituur or suffers from a severe lack of clarity in lacking antecedents to the pronouns. If Nehru jacket (from the preceding comment) does not fall within the scope of your description, then could you please clarify exactly what you did and did not mean by "They are sum-of-parts phrases composed of an inadmissible proper name plus a common word with no special meaning"? --EncycloPetey 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The phrases I named, along with Daffy Duck voice and the principle under which you want to include it in the dictionary. Michael Z. 2009-10-15 02:02 z
So, the phrases that I named are all OK then? What distinguishes my list of phrases from your list? --EncycloPetey 02:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(from the left) kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SoP, as so many. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Even if we suppose that an appropriate sense were added to harrow, I can't imagine how this could ever be decoded from its parts to refer to this specific hagiographical event. Or are you suggesting that the new sense at harrow should be: "(of Jesus) To free the souls from (a place) between one's death and resurrection"? -- Visviva 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, I sort of feel that this is a proper noun since it refers to a specific event. If we move to it Harrowing of hell (or Hell?) then it would need attributive cites, which might be a problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

this nominatn=haitof stupidity,butrealy.

It is, in any event, encyclopedic. Simiilar events in Christianity: Resurrection, Assumption, Second Coming, Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Apocalypse, Ascension, Armageddon, Annunciation, End of Days, Last Judgment.
I suppose that they all fit into one of Pawley's "systems" of terms. Any long-standing religion would have such a system. The Roman Catholics have names for every day and some other Christian religions have something similar, for example, on a different calendar. Of course there are at least three liturgical texts using each so they would probably be readily attestable.
Other systems of events might be battles: Thermopylae, Gettysburg, Antietam, First Battle of Bull Run.
Considering this should lead to either a whole nuther class of potential entries or a sharper determination of our role relative to an encyclopedia. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not one of those who goes around banning people, as a rule, but IMO this kind of language in a community discussion is really far, far outside what is acceptable. That you choose to cloak your personal attacks in a nearly incomprehensible garble does not make them any more acceptable. Please knock it off, permanently. -- Visviva 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1.IDIDNT'CHOS'2V RSI,NI'L CITE U4THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2.newbis get rv 4'stupidity' aldatime here,get ur doublstndeds sorted,disgustin'comunity'.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I have cited and revised the entry. After actually taking a look at the data, I would have to revise my judgment above. This is (or can be) a generic term, so attributive use need not enter into it; it can refer to any sort of incursion into the underworld. Which brings us back to the sum of parts issue. I believe there is sufficient reasonable doubt to justify keeping this entry. To wit:
    • The verb harrow is simply never, ever, ever used in this sense in normal modern English (if at all), except in this phrase. Thus any claim of sum-of-partsness would have to be based on historical rather than modern usage.
    • The common noun appears to be a genericization of the proper name Harrowing of Hell (not at issue here). Prior to 20th century, AFAICT, that term referred solely to the Son's little postmortal escapade. Thus the common noun is also not historically derived from its parts. -- Visviva 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to Harrowing of Hell and keep as it's used attributively in the current article. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SoP: figurative + speech DCDuring TALK 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The entry says that it's speech which is figurative, so delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, kill it! --Hekaheka 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you know what a cadre is in a political context, you'll know what this is. Ie, non-idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment until cadre has the correct definition, which it doesn't AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to get all the unlisted pages from [[Category:Requests for deletion]] here, so I'm not the one tagging the entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • wi dun'we'vthat automated per/ala rfd-rqst>cmnt bot-generatd here+same4rfc/v etc pp?[i alredy wonderd+asumd it'dbe~thatbe4,now cnfrmd=not]--shame ofur time+hnds[c?im realy aniceguy i/disguis;)--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. MWOnline has a different, purportedly idiomatic sense, with which I am not familiar. The second sense of "sun" is metonymy/synecdoche for "sunlight". delete DCDuring TALK 12:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
A day in the sun (meaning fifteen minutes of fame) is common, but Google seems to pick up very few idiomatic hits for the same phrase with year, month, decade, or week. I'd say in the sun is SoP, but can redirect to the longer phrase, which someone should add: either a day in the sun or day in the sun (and redirect the other).​—msh210 16:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC) 01:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The possibly idiomatic uses of the form "X in the sun" (X being a subset of imprecise time words) represent a small share of the usage of "in the sun". Of the first 100 collocations of "X in the sun" at COCA representing 1838 instances, only 6 were of time words, representing 219 instances. Many of the time words were not usually used in a remotely idiomatic way. Four hours, years, and days only 3/44 uses were possibly idiomatic. "Day" (72), "moment" (52), and "time" (51) are the main candidates for "X". "Place in the sun" is even more common than "day". What seems clear is that there is a sense of "sun" meaning "glory" or "public acclaim".
MWOnline has "in the sun" meaning "in the public eye". RHU and AHD have "a place in the sun". No dictionary has "day", "moment", or "time" in the sun. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your searching nd analysis. Delete this and add the sene to sun unless it's there already.—msh210℠ on a public computer 01:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

as/usual,keep--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual, no CFI or other logical reason to do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an [[island]] [[chain]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is a sum of parts, why is there no emphasis on "chain"? In, say, "long chain" there is. Does n't that make island chain a compound?

Jcwf 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no Mglovesfun (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It definitely has many markers of set-phrase-ishness. We don't/can't speak of a "tree chain", or a "hill chain", or a "lake chain", although we can obviously speak of a "chain of lakes" et al. The only other landform that collocates with "chain" here seems to be "mountain". Coming at it from the other side, a lei is a chain of flowers, associated with certain islands, but no one would ever call it an "island chain". Nor would one be likely to apply the term to a length of chain from Guernsey. Looks to me like this is compositional but idiomatic, which is to say we can say something useful about it, but not a lot. Weak keep, with a view to the "Rocking chair" and "Easier said"[no, not this one; "Fried egg", I guess] tests in WT:SURVIVOR. -- Visviva 07:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, the MI in COCA is 5.21, which is higher than "kitchen island" and "heat island" but lower than "island nation", "island lore" or "desert island". Hmmm... -- Visviva 07:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is like rocking chair. Any chair can rock, but I think that island chain only refers to a chain of islands, ergo delete as unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the "rocking chair test" in WT:SURVIVOR is supposed to relate to unusual patterns of stress and intonation (as per Jcwf above). You're right, though, that rocking chair would probably be kept for other reasons, regardless. -- Visviva 02:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep per Visviva. --Dan Polansky 11:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Likewise weak keep, although perhaps stronger than some others. A chain in every other usage I can think of has objects that are physically or chemically connected to each other. An island chain is arranged as if they were connected, but without any such physical connection. This seems to make the meaning idiomatic, at least to me. --EncycloPetey 12:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The islands in an island chain are usually connected by an underwater ridge, very much the same way as mountains of a mountain chain. --Hekaheka 14:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
A chain of correct answer[s]? A chain of ideas? Of mountains? Nah, I still think this should be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I would expect a chain of mountains to be connected at least by a higher elevation region at their bases. I would expect a chain of ideas to have a thematic connection. I can't imagine ever saying "chain of correct answer". --EncycloPetey 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Typo for answers. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sum of parts (says Codecat) laten + ontsporen. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree: there are two separate emphases :láten ontspóren Jcwf 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think stress is the word. Anyway. As far as I can see it means to "allow to derail". Since I don't speak the language I can't make a good quality comment, but it doesn't seem idiomatic to me. Mglovesfun (talk)

Same as above, achterom + kijken. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. It is a seperable verb, but its correct spelling is achteromkijken (and it has one emphasis: on "-om-"). It does need to be moved. Jcwf 03:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay move. Any objections to that? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly it occurs both as two separate words and as one. Compare:
Heb je al áchterom gekéken? - Did you have a look behind the house yet?
Heb je al achterómgekeken? - Have you looked over you shoulder yet?

Unfortunately for non-native speakers the stress marks -although a legitimate component of the spelling system- are seldom used because for native speakers the context (and the concatenation of the spelling) usually are enough to prevent confusion. Jcwf 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Renamed by Jcwf, looks okay to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sum of parts, tagged by User:Tooironic. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless Tooironic (or indeed, anyone at all) can explain why this should be deleted, I see no reason to leave this debate open indefinitely just "hoping" someone will explain what the problem is. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Chinese writing is not space-delimited, the argument would be that this is sum of parts, equivalent to "very few" (+). I don't know enough about Mandarin to have an opinion; but it would be nice if someone knowledgeable in the language would weigh in. The note in the template about "few, if any" dictionaries having an entry gives me pause. If there are real dictionaries (not just termdumps) that include it, IMO we should probably do the same. -- Visviva 13:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep. This can also mean 'too few', i.e. 'not enough', but does not have quite the same connotation as 'not enough'. It's difficult to quantify, but there is no other phrase or combination of characters that conveys exactly this sense. bd2412 T 17:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfd-sense:

  1. automated production of material goods

which has been added recently[50]. AFAICS the sense is redundant to the first one:

  1. Businesses concerned with goods as opposed to services

The reference given to the newly added sense seems irrelevant to the sense. --Dan Polansky 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO this has to be treated as an RfV. The definition adds "automated", so it is not, on its face, the same. In the context of European patent law, this might actually be used. If it is used attestably in this sense beyond the document cited, it would be includable. Other approaches, such as putting "especially automated" in the first sense, don't seem likely to succeed. In that particular case, I don't think it would accurate with respect to normal usage, at least not over the whole period of usage. And handicraft production might well be excluded from the European patent law sense. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There might be a very particular reason for the narrow definition of industry given in this law. There seems to be a particular effort to differentiate "industry" for purposes of patent law from ordinary definitions. See [51]. We have been taking legal definitions relatively seriously, despite their narrow context (usually not narrower than the context of, say, linguistics). DCDuring TALK 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


The definition seems to be wrong. The European patent law does not limit the term industry to mean "automated production of material goods".
Under Art. 52 of the Convention, patents are granted to inventions which: are new; involve an inventive step; can be applied in industry.
* Novelty - an invention is new if it does not form part of the existing state of the art in technology. The state of the art is anything that was disclosed to the public prior to the application date in oral or written form, through use or in any other way.
* Inventive step - an invention is said to involve an inventive step if, with respect to the existing state of the art, it is not obvious for a person skilled in the art. The inventive step requirement is designed to prevent the patenting of obvious solutions, which would slow down the development of technology.
* Industrial applicability - this requirement is met if the subject matter of the invention can be manufactured or used in industry of any kind, including agriculture. --Hekaheka 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems that I was too quick. The software patent directive does contain this strict definition. This is because the European legislators have wanted to limit the patentability of software, and therefore "industry" has been more narrowly defined in this directive than in patent law in general. --Hekaheka 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Boy! That is a narrow context. It is now so indicated. Do you think it is attestable? I would expect there to have been some nattering about this over the last ten years. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged by DCDuring (talkcontribs). Not idiomatic, apparently. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was and remain unsure. It is probably idiomatic, but it seems highly encyclopedic. What I think is almost certainly idiomatic is lapse rate (adiabatic lapse rate). DCDuring TALK 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It does seem SOPish, but I think it meets the standard of reasonable doubt, given that many meteorological texts define it explicitly: google books:"called the adiabatic lapse rate". -- Visviva 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, adiabatic + lapse rate, that's all that it is. --Hekaheka 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

sortir + la poubelle -Rising Sun 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete, or create take out the trash in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Just for the non-French speakers, this is sortir (take out, put out) + la (the) + poubelle (bin). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be shown to be idiomatic in some fashion. —Internoob (TalkCont.) 23:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Template generated typo for eventuele. Jcwf 03:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 07:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

SoP. google books:"question|questions is|are polar" -"in question is polar".​—msh210 17:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to want to keep this per the discussion on #free variable, but the zero dictionaries having the term at polar question at OneLook® Dictionary Search set me in doubt. In any case, the "polar question" has only been make look SoPish by having a dedicated sense at polar: Of a question, having but two possible answers, yes and no. I did not know what "polar question" was before I looked up the definition, unlike with "yes-no question". OTOH, when looking for "polar question", the user can at worst give it a try at "polar" after an unsuccessful search at "polar question", and the term "polar question" can be mentioned in a quotation or an example sentence at the dedicated sense at "polar" to facilitate findability. --Dan Polansky 18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I'd say that if it is used in linguistics, keep it. Where in polar does it say "that can only take a yes or no answer". To me it's clearly not just a question which is polar. So if attestable with this precise meaning, keep. If not, don't. WT:RFV#polar question anyone? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the sense of "polar" here is a little broader; something like "admitting of no shades of grey". See e.g. the smattering of hits for google books:"polar statement". But I don't think this is sum of parts for all who use it; the community of use for polar question is not a subset of the community of use for this sense of polar. Hence the occasional need to define it explicitly. And defining things explicitly is what we do best; so why not keep. Also, this seems like just a bit of a fried egg. "Are you a Christian or are you some kind of Commie?" would be a question that is polar (admitting only two responses), but nonetheless not a polar question, as I understand it. -- Visviva 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If this gets kept I'll rfd the sense that has been added at polar, which looks wrong or even farcical to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, MG, as written, that sense seems silly. Perhaps it can be revised instead of RfDed.
I think this is a keeper in the context indicated, per Visviva. I'm not so sure that it means no gray area. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this dictionary stuff? There is lots to explain and translate in the Bible, if we decide to go that way. --Hekaheka 14:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's used as a proverb, keep it. If it's just a passage from the Bible, delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
See [[52]] for > 100 hits at bgc for the full quote in books with Proverbs in the title, not all of them referencing the Old Testament Book of Proverbs.
And what or where are the special, more strict CFI rules for proverbs, anyway? DCDuring TALK 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Per DCDuring. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
All right, all right.. --Hekaheka 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than that they were coined by James Joyce instead of George Lucas, J.R.R. Tolkien, Gene Roddenberry, or J.K. Rowling, I don't see how these two words meet the requirements of Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes. Delete or move to an Appendix for Finnegans Wake. — Carolina wren discussió 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't meet the CFI. Razorflame 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly favor amending WT:CFI to eliminate the "well=known work" exception to our normal attestation standard. Shakespeare, Milton, Joyce, Nabakov, Burgess, Tolkein, and Pynchon are among the authors whose bad coinages are given a free pass. In this context "bad" means not taken up by anyone else (mentions in literary criticism doesn't count.). I'm sure that if we looked harder at some of our contractions we'd find some that exist only because they satisfied the need a well-known poet for a word that fit the meter. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I would approve such an amendment to the CFI. Razorflame 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Mostly useless, but also mostly harmless, and well within current (and long-standing) policy. At least, I have a hard time imagining a definition of "well-known work" that wouldn't include Finnegans Wake. Therefore keep, without prejudice to the general policy question. -- Visviva 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The rationale for the well-known work exemption, as I understand it, is that a complete version of Wiktionary should leave no word-sense questions unanswered for someone reading Shakespeare, Milton, etc. This seems reasonable enough to me, though the flip side of that is that we are currently missing thousands of words and word forms that appear even in respelled modern editions of Shakespeare. (I have some lists, if anyone is interested.) On the other hand, this particular need could arguably be better addressed in Concordance: or Appendix:-space, though that approach also has problems. That said, if we eliminate the exemption entirely, we need to replace it with a more nuanced approach to languages that are poorly-attested (Homeric Greek, Eteocypriot, Cia-Cia) or unstandardized (Middle English, Middle Korean, actually almost any Middle/Old language). "Well-known work" gives us an loophole for including forms that appear only in the Homeric hymns, or that are found in a particular spelling only in Chaucer. This is unsatisfactory, of course, since it still excludes less-known writings; but I don't think the well-known-work issue can be addressed before the poorly-attested-languages issue. -- Visviva 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy if we just did it for English. Other high-use modern languages might merit the same treatment. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek#Attestation, if approved, would require only one attestation for an Ancient Greek word. (See Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/April#Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek.) —RuakhTALK 13:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As much as I don't like it a lot, keep per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to the dickens, like the fuck, the hell, the devil. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding two relatives.
Move per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Move. Equinox 13:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

journalism that is literary in style. SemperBlotto 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But not in subject matter. Which is a bit odd, really; literary translation, for instance, involves the translation of literature. No patent translation could ever qualify, however ornate and florid its prose. -- Visviva 14:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this actually in use anywhere? It seems a tiny bit idiomatic, providing it's actually used with the meaning given in the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The current definition is not well-worded IMO, but the genre it describes is real enough; you can even get a degree in it. :-) -- Visviva 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No definition - presumably because it is the sum of parts (saccharification of wood). (Plural seems wrong if the entry is OK) SemperBlotto 13:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete, there's no definition anyway, we'd essentially be deleting an empty page. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted SemperBlotto 14:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is simply a determiner modifying another determiner. We don't need entries for which two and them twelve, etc.--Brett 13:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete but add the appropriate note at them. Equinox 13:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, pointless and unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
delete DCDuring TALK 16:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted--Brett 12:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous verification notwithstanding, this is simply sum of parts. The previous discussion erred in assuming that us is a pronoun. It is a determiner. Thus, this is no different from those two or every three. It can also be extended to nouns referring to people such as us editors, us teachers, us students, etc. It is the same as determiner you.--Brett 16:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, pointless and unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted--Brett 12:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As above.--Brett 16:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, pointless and unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted--Brett 12:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Like the fuck, the dickens, the Devil, the hell. We've been redirecting to those forms from whatever fuller forms we enter. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very dubious of the current meaning given at Sam Hill -- I'd always understood it to be a simple euphemism for "damned hell" -- but otherwise a redirect seems reasonable. -- Visviva 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"Where in Sam Hill is he?" So, unlike some of the others the redirect should be to the form without "the". Possibly the same should be true for terms involving dickens if it is ever used without "the", as in "where in dickens is he?" For the others we lose the user in the longer entries, I fear. A user-needs-justified inconsistency? DCDuring TALK 16:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2 SoP senses, not US law enforcement sense, which seems idiomatic to me. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete these, SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've tried the same approach as with #take out the trash below, though I'm not sure it works quite as well here. -- Visviva 11:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, no lexical content whatsoever, only encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Amazing as it is that this has been sitting around for more than 2 years, I cannot envision any case for having this. If anyone would like to make such a case, I would be happy to restore it. :-) -- Visviva 14:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It may have lasted because it was in no categories and appeared on no lists, except RfC. The RfC may have led folks to believe that there was a pony in there somewhere. DCDuring TALK 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfd-sense. Remove rubbish. That's just [[take out]] [[the]] [[trash]] isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at the sort of placeholder definition that has been proposed for these. The problem with deleting these SOP senses entirely is that we are left with an entry that appears to be incomplete -- or even misleading, when the SOP sense is overwhelmingly more common, as it is here. As a consequence, the senses are likely to be added again, then have to be removed again, etc. etc., which gets a bit tedious. So I guess I would put myself down as a very weak keep. -- Visviva 14:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with the rewritten version. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep as now written. This is a recurring problem with idioms. It can get really silly when there are numerous distinct non-idiomatic senses. As an alternative, could we put the literal sense in the etymology? Users may ignore the etymology, of course, so the same repeated re-entry may arise. Maybe we could try it for a while on some common terms and see if it works. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't like this newfangled business of moving definitions into other parts of the entry just because they're a little awkward. Not only may direct users skip over this information, but indirect users may never see it at all. I would want the output of google:define:take out the trash to (continue to) include the literal meaning as well. -- Visviva 09:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep current version.​—msh210 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A hoary joke, not an idiom, like why did the chicken cross the road? Equinox 16:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I could easily be swayed by argument on this, my NY bias favoring it. The possibility is that the question is an allusion to the jocular/serious answer, thereby making it idiomatic or proverbial. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. We have knock knock, but that's a class of jokes. This is just a set-up line. bd2412 T 18:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really get the definition. I don't see any reason to keep it, but I don't see how I can comment on something I don't fully understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It's a double entendre - how does one get somewhere? The usual meaning is that the person is asking for directions to a physical location; the joke is that the person answering tells them how to achieve a milestone symbolized by that location. Say the Super Bowl is in New Orleans, and I ask, "how do I get to the Super Bowl in New Orleans"? The answer I'm looking for is probably either how to obtain tickets, or how to physically locate the stadium. If you answer, "Win all your playoff games", this implies that I want to play in the Superbowl, not just be at the location when it occurs. bd2412 T 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The rationale for keeping it, with a corrected "definition", is that the joke is so well known (in the US, at least) that the setup is often heard as the answer. There are a large number of Proverb, Phrase, and Idiom entries that have that relationship to something more complete. In some cases we have both the full form of a proverb and a phrase or clause that evokes it. Now, I don't want to say that anyone doesn't have wit enough to see the merit of my arguments, but if the shoe fits.... DCDuring TALK 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If this can be demonstrated, I think it's a definite keeper. But google books:"how do I get to Carnegie Hall" is not very encouraging. -- Visviva 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm betting on on Google news. DCDuring TALK 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete or open a pretty big can of worms. Should we include all well-worn set-ups, come-ons, punch lines, snappy comebacks, ripostes, gags, plays on words, shticks, and thigh-slappers that have gone the rounds, on the grounds that they have all ascended to proverbial status? I certainly have a very hard time seeing this one as an idiom, a proverb, or a part of one. Who's on first here, anyway? -- WikiPedant 00:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The can of worms is already leaking a bit: sticks and stones, when in Rome, bird in the hand, time and tide are examples of lead-ins to proverbs that we have as entries. What is required is that the completion be fairly obvious and proverbial. Not very many joke questions end up with a proverbial as a punch line. We also have evocative fragments like and your little dog too and and the horse you rode in on, which are includable largely because they are euphemisms. We have no reason to exclude any of these if they are attestable and I'm reasonably sure they are. In each case they allude to and evoke a full expression. The sole difference, AFAICT, is that, in the instant case, the speaker of what is evoked is different from the speaker of the question. Also, rhyming slang works analogously, it seems to me.
I wonder how big a can of worms this could be (compared to including, say, gazetteer entries and SoP terms that are translation targets). This seems to meet CFI. It conveys meaning beyond the meaning of actual words. I believe it would prove attestable in a sufficient number of newspaper columns. I'm sure that it would pass a few Pawley idiomaticity tests, too. DCDuring TALK 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Judging by how hard it is to attest in the use that I have heard, that I know exists, at least in the NY metro area and among educators, musicians etc, there are very few worms to worry about here. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I only understand now because I've read the WP article. Someone needs to say what Carnegie Hall is. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that the attributive-use standard narrowly construed would allow Carnegie Hall to be an entry. It could be an application of {{only-in}} pointing to WP. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per others' comments.​—msh210 17:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Basically, this is not an idiom or a proverb, it's the first line of a joke. What's next? an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that I could attest the usage that I know exists: It is too regional and dated to be used in print in the allusive way that I had posited above. I don't think that it is deletable for the reasons stated. In the usage I know, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" is the retort to some asking for advise on how to do something easily that, in fact, requires practice: "What do I have to do to get an athletic scholarship to college?" / "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" The joke is supposed to be well known enough to trigger the automatic punch line. If it does not and the person says "Hunh?", then one has the opportunity to make one's point directly. It is all in aid of giving advice. My position is that in such a case "How do I get to Carnegie Hall" means "Practice! Practice! Practice!". That is not inferrable from the components. It is not a joke. It is just like proof of the pudding (in OneLook dictionaries) which is an ellipsis for the the proof of the pudding is in the eating. One does not infer that one is referring to a metaphorical eating without knowing the expression as a reference to the proverb.
Accordingly, I would prefer that this be a Keep and Move to RfV to not create a precedent against allusive entries per se. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Moving this to RfV would only delay the need to determine whether a well known setup to a punchline should be included. Of course, we could make an entry on something like why did the chicken cross the road (which is clearly verifiable) to test this principle, but this entry already exists. bd2412 T 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A comeback that is snappy. Uses like "snappiest comeback" [53] seem to counter the claim of idiomaticity; it's a common collocation, but not especially idiomatic, as far as I can see. Equinox 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I think snappy and comeback both have sufficiently large ranges of meaning that this particular usage qualifies as an idiom, and a chiefly US one. The first time I saw it used (in an American comic strip in the 1960s, I believe) I didn't know what it meant. The fact that variant forms exist does not cancel its idiomaticity (lots of idioms have alt forms), although the variants might disqualify it as a set phrase. -- WikiPedant 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
PS -- Although attestability was not raised as an issue, I replaced the e.g. sentence with 20th- and 21st-century news quotations. -- WikiPedant 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete; snappy can be used with other terms besides comeback. --EncycloPetey 01:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't get your point here, Petey. Nobody is claiming that this is a set phrase. I see it as an idiom, and the terms comprising idioms can virtually always be used with lots of other terms. With regard to its idiomaticity, snappy comeback strikes me as easily passing the "fried egg" test: "terms for which specific restrictions to the meaning of constituents are made that could not be surmised pragmatically". -- WikiPedant 02:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The idiom is at comeback, not in the combination. You can make a snappy reply, a snappy rejoinder, etc. So, would you consider all of these to be idiomatic? In any case, a "snappy comeback" can either be snappy because it is made quickly or because it is made irritably, so it utilizes two of the three definitions of snappy. --EncycloPetey 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Petey, I'm not sure what you mean by describing comeback as a one-word idiom, but this does not bear directly on the point I'm struggling to make. No, I wouldn't consider your examples to be idiomatic, since their meanings are SoP depending on context. What I'm getting at is that, although snappy has 3 senses and comeback has 2 senses, the term snappy comeback is used almost exclusively with one sense--a quick retort--and is thus idiomatic. Other uses of this collocation (which occur very rarely, and which I'm inclined to discount as plays on words echoing the idiomatic sense)--such as "a rapid return to glory" or, as you note, "a cranky reply"--strike me as SoP and linguistically non-noteworthy. But the "quick retort" sense fills the bill as an established idiomatic usage. -- WikiPedant 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we hold off action on this on this item for a bit? I am going to try to calibrate the COCA mutual information scores for adjective-noun combinations that we have accepted as idioms vs. some that we have considered and rejected. Preliminary results seem to suggest that the score in the plural is quite high. (It is lower for the singular. I don't know how to properly combine them.) Among collocations with more than one occurrence with comeback, snappy has the second highest MI, after "fourth-quarter comebacks", a standard in US sports. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I always think a good test is if you can guess what it means before reading the article. Snappy and comeback are enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.—msh210℠ on a public computer 17:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominated as speedy, but clearly shouldn't be. Assuming the definition is correct, delete as unidiomatic. A load of entries like Sicilian-American got deleted a few months back, I don't see (yet) how this is different. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See WT:PDE letter S for the Sicilian-American debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Very widely used Mandarin term. 24.29.228.33 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Obviously Sum of Parts entry. Tooironic 11:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominated as speedy, but clearly shouldn't be. If the definition is correct, keep. It's the Chinese name for a Scientific Latin botanical name isn't it? Don't we allow these as ==Translingual== entries? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep, of course (if the definition is correct). Keep as Chinese: this is not a scientific name, as all scientific names are always written in Latin characters. And there is no reason not to create Lavandula angustifolia and common lavender too. Lmaltier 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
We have been avoiding making two- or more-part taxonomic names. We welcome genus names like Lavandula, lavandula its Latin source, and angustifolia. Vernacular names, like common lavender are also welcome. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this a rule? I was not aware of it (and I don't see the reason to refuse scientific species names). Lmaltier 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
We have so little policy. Not having species (and subspecies and variety) taxonomic names or cultivar names is our way of letting wikispecies take the burden of keeping track of this and of off-loading encyclopedic material with little of purely lexicigraphic interest to WP et al. I have been following EP in this regard. We obviously have a long way to go before we have the components, let alone the combinatorial explosion of species- and lower-level names. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no reason to refuse binomial (or even trinomial) names. But at the same time, we have little of value to say about them. Any links should probably go either to the generic/specific epithets or to Wikispecies (since all the user is going to find is a soft-redirect to WP or Wisp in any case). NB, the community has voted to delete cases like B. splendens, for reasons I'm not sure I understand. -- Visviva 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep, based on w:zh:狭叶薰衣草. -- Visviva 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm the one who nominated the above two Chinese entries for deletion. Can someone explain why they shouldn't be nominated as "speedy" deletions, and how to avoid doing this inappropriately? Obviously I'm biased, but I would delete both these entries as, in my opinion, they do not have any meaning beyond the sum of their parts. Tooironic 09:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would imagine that there are many species of lavender that have narrow leaves, just as there are many species that may be common in some part of the world. But there is only one species called "common lavender", and likewise it would appear that there is likewise only one species called 狭叶薰衣草. If that's not the case, and this is actually a generic term for any lavender with narrow leaves, then I would support deletion. -- Visviva 10:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is reserved for anything that's undeniably unusable here. Empty pages, insults, paten vandalism (with no 'good' version in the history). This was neither, still keep from me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep this Mandarin term. 24.29.228.33 06:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sole adverb sense. This seems to me to be [[right#Adverb]] + [[back#Adverb]]. Surprisingly, we don't have right back at you. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

By the above logic, we shouldn't have right back at you, as we have [[right]] and [[back at you]]. D'oh. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete this SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A national park. So? --Hekaheka 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also an amphitheatre though. Tooironic 09:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Attributive use? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Plural of now#Noun. It's given as uncountable, but if anything it's a singulare tantum, I think. I just have a bit of a doubt if now is always uncountable or always a singulare tantum. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The entry was created by an IP, I didn't know if it was ok or not. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep: no reason given for deletion, SFAICT. (Did you maybe mean this for RFV? If so, I can say that I'm quite confident it would pass. See e.g. google books:"those nows".) —RuakhTALK 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It was created by an IP. When I saw that now was uncountable in the article, I nearly speedy deleted it. It should be an RFV but whatever. We'll need a new sense at now in order to make this findable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It needs a philosophy sense. We need someone versed in Hegel, Heidegger, and/or Husserl (and Aristotle and Derrida, if possible). Maybe we can recruit someone from WP for this and similar terms. Beyond my pay grade. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep, bad nomination (by me). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

History that's postal in its subject. Either encyclopedic, or unidiomatic. Seems to bolster the argument for deleting #local history, as that uses the same sense of history#Noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect agricultural history, ecclesiastical history and similar stuff would use the same sense of history too. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
delete --Hekaheka 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think in the case of #local history it is a question of the (unique?) sense of "local" rather than of "history", which just means "history" in both cases. There doesn't seem to be anything unusual about the meaning of either "postal", "history", or "postal history" here, so I can't immediately see any grounds for not delete-ing this one as nonidiomatic. -- Visviva 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Although if the 'pedia is accurate in describing this as a specific form of collecting, it might be keepable. Needs further research, as the pedia artice is somewhat incoherent. -- Visviva 13:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The Postal History Society doesn't mention anything so specific, so I'm sticking with deletion. -- Visviva 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Definite keep for the second definition. It is widely used in philatelic circles to indicate postal items that can be studied and collected. There is no meaning of history that would indicate tangible items such as these, therefore it can not be some of parts. In reply to the previous comment about agricultural history, this would never mean tractors or other machinary. Postal history has this distinct meaning.--Dmol 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from RFV. DCDuring says "Five senses that seem to me included in two real senses." DAVilla 05:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that only the two uncontested senses are worth keeping, but would this mess up the translations? Perhaps the sociological and ecological ones are different words in some languages. Equinox 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I would not worry about translations. The tagged senses have currently only two translations. If other languages need several words to cover a sense, they should simply be all listed, and explanations given in appropriate foreign-language entries. --Hekaheka 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're quite right. Delete. Equinox 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with deleting these without prejudice. I don't doubt the definition could be more finely splintered, but I would want to see examples to make sure that the way it was divided was appropriate. 63.95.64.254 02:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
These haven't been deleted. I'm taking the rather unusual step of moving this to the bottom of the page to get a debate going, as I don't feel right deleting or keep these based on a discussion that took place 7 months ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We need some serious debate here, given the number of senses up for deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine to express openness to good definitions, but we will need citations to add senses unlike those that appear in other dictionaries. If we could get contributors to contribute even one real citation that doesn't seem well covered by our existing definitions, we would have something to work with. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

silver (associated with a twenty-fifth anniversary) + jubilee. We should have the table of these things according to the customs in various cultures. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See Appendix:Anniversary associations, ripped from WP. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
We lack the sense of silver, though I agree we shouldn't. If the definitions we have are right — which I doubt — that jubilee is a generic anniversary whereas silver jubilee is especially a monarch's, then keep. Otherwise, delete as SOP.​—msh210 18:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
An appendix sounds like a great idea to me, although this isn't exactly bowling me over as unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep: it is only by providing the meaning of "silver jubilee" at "silver" that this becomes a sum of parts. Or does "silver" in this sense combine with anything else but "jubilee"? Also for those who care: silver jubilee at OneLook® Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Saved from speedy (not speedily deletable IMO), but IMO deletable: SoP: google books:"periodic sentence".​—msh210 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We have periodic sentence. Should a definition of periodic structure reference that? I find this sense of "periodic" obscure, as apparently do the OneLook dictionaries that have a separate sense of "periodic" that references "periodic sentence". These same dictionaries do not have "periodic structure". DCDuring TALK 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It needs a serious cleanup because the definition seems vague and difficult to me. I can't really comment before that happens. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some building blocks for the definition [54]:
4. PERIODIC structure: When ideas are unequal because one is logically or emotionally more important than others, and when the writer wants to create a climactic feeling of tension followed by resolution, the periodic sentence can be a good choice. Its structure is the opposite of cumulative structure -- phr or SC + MC. Subordinate clauses and/or phrases precede the main clause, which is located at the end, near the period. (In modern American English, periodic sentences are used more sparingly than the three structures above.)
a. "If it had not been a fairly ordinary thing, in one part of the world, to teach young children to pay the pianoforte, it is doubtful that Mozart's music would exist." (Hearne)
b. "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in." (Abraham Lincoln, "Second Inaugural Address")
c. "In the case of the omniscient point of view, the narrator sees all and knows all." (Boynton, 250)
It seems, as DCD suggests, that periodic structure is more or less synonymous to periodic sentence. If one wants to see a difference one might conclude that a periodic sentence has a periodic structure. Note that we also have a grammar sense to periodic, which says "having a structure characterized by periodic sentences". To sum up, I would say delete to periodic sructure. --Hekaheka 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

rfd-sense: (British, pejorative) One who attempts to force a mutual organisation, such as a building society, to demutualise — to list on a stock exchange, solely for personal pecuniary advantage. This particularistic sense is a use of the general term in a particular instance. I could not find evidence of use where the term conveys this meaning. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved to RfV DCDuring TALK 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WOTD for Halloween or SoP? DCDuring TALK 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say SoP and consequently, delete. The entry posthumous has this sense: "published after the author's death". --Hekaheka 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[[and so on]] + [[and so forth]], two members of Category:English coordinates. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete this. There's no doubt that you can chain together quite a lot of these, like with adverbs. SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to say keep, but neither CFI nor OneLook supports me; the term can be understood from its parts.
Some Google searches for the interested:
--Dan Polansky 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"and so on and so forth" is more euphonious to my ears than other combinations of coordinates, but it is not set and its meanings is deducible from its parts. It surprised me how many of these coordinating-conjunction + phrase expressions seem to be idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

French only. Ignoring that both the English and the French are wrong in this section, this isn't an idiom anymore than way of speaking is in English. No reason why the English etymology can't link to the individual words. SoP, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it's an idiom! Lmaltier 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
What should the article say then? Because right now it's totally unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The same definition as in English. This definition shows that it's idiomatic. When you say il parle lentement, c'est sa façon de parler, it's not idiomatic at all, but the sense defined here is idiomatic. Lmaltier 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition seems wrong. [[rester]] (stay) + [[]] (there). If it does have an idiomatic meaning, what is it? No other Wiktionaries have this. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an actual expression: en rester là, which means "keep it to this", "not escalate further", though. Circeus 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think any verb (other than really defective ones) can go with faire to mean make [someone] [do]. So this is to make someone know. Common use of both faire and savoir. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep, it's not al all the same case as usual faire + verb phrases. The most obvious SoP sense would be to teach, and it's not the sense of this phrase. Lmaltier 20:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. The meaning is really "to let know", and it is very much a set phrase. The literal interpretation would be "teach". Circeus 21:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
But unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
However, if it also means to teach, that's (to me) clearly not SoP, so I'd then say keep. But that's not what the article says. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not mean to teach. Someone speaking English may guess what it means, but it's only because the same kind of phrase also exists in English. Lmaltier 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To put it in DCDuring terms "explain how this meets CFI". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It meets CFI because it's an idiom, just like tehdä tiettäväksi, of equivalent meaning and construction, and because faire savoir is not at all the same structure as faire démolir (which is "to have smthing destroyed/demolished"). Circeus 20:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's denying that faire has more than one meaning. But faire fuir and faire comprendre (and 10 000 others) use the same sense of faire. If anything, let someone know needs an entry in English because it doesn't use any of the usual sense of let. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same meaning as let someone know. I can assure you that, unlike in faire fuir, people using faire savoir do not build the phrase by thinking to faire and to savoir, they use it more or less to mean tell, inform, and this is not obvious at all. Lmaltier 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[[faire]] (to do, to make) [[la]] (the) [[grève]] (strike). Faire can combine with almost any noun, faire des pâtes (cook some pasta). Unidiomatic use of both faire and grève. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep, as a set phrase. There would be no reason to keep faire des pâtes (where faire means the same as préparer), but it's not the same case at all. Lmaltier 21:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
faire grève should be created, too (same sense). Note that both phrases are mentioned by the dictionnaire de l'Académie française. Lmaltier 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Corrected the definition, though. Go on strike is se mettre en grève. Circeus 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the mass nomination. This is just to accompany with remarks. If it has an idiomatic meaning, what is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep it. Lmaltier 21:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a grammatical error (to have some biceps (singular, biceps)). But anyway, seems really really SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Even the dictionnaire de l'Académie française finds that it's necessary to provide a definition for this phrase. (but it's not very common). Lmaltier 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To remove the dust. Not idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Not idiomatic, not even a set phrase. Lmaltier 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The normal term is dépoussiérer, or faire la poussière (phrase deserving a page). Lmaltier 21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah faire la poussière seems okay to me, because you're not making dust, you're getting rid of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To make a remark. Doesn't have to be negative, it just can be depending on the context. Anyway I might stop there and continue tomorrow to let people read this. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is a preposition (as it claims to be), then most adjectives need to show such a preposition as a derived term: as preposterous as, as misguided as, as deletable as, etc. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, silly entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete this Preposition section. But it might be useful to keep this sense nonetheless (for beginners). —This comment was unsigned.
I don't get the theory of why it would be an advantage for beginners to have this and only this entry have a definition for a "preposition" which grammar books and other dictionaries don't say is a preposition. If we had some systematic "do not confuse" type usage notes, perhaps that would be advantageous. But I would like to see some evidence that it would be desirable from some other language references, preferably dictionary-like. DCDuring TALK 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An event that acts as a signal? SemperBlotto 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The definition is really bad. Hard to comment unless I can understand it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Since plaire is always used as plaire à, these can't exist. It's a common error, il m'a plue, (woman/girl speaking) but since it's il a plu à la femme, plu should never take -e, -es or -s. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. A quote from Le participe passé dans la langue française et son histoire‎ (Jean Bastin, 1880) : ... qu'au XVIIe siècle les grammairiens et les écrivains suivaient encore assez souvent cette ancienne règle) : Ils se sont nuis. Ils se sont plus. This may be considered as an error today, but it was still commonly used by writers during the XVIIth century (and it's still common, as Mglovesfun mentions it), and it was the general rule before Montaigne proposed to change it. Lmaltier 17:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I was actually going to say [] the only reason to keep would be if they were obsolete verb forms, like pre-1900. Funny coincidence eh? Keep and rewrite per Lmaltier. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfd-sense (2) of plus, masculine past participle of pleuvoir. That actually sounds more plausible to me than the plaire ones, as to rain can be transitive in English. I suppose this might be an rfv issue? Comment? —This unsigned comment was added by Mglovesfun (talkcontribs) 25 October 2009.

This isn't idiomatic, is it? Despite the definition which seems dubious (POV?) I think it is just a game involving adventure. We don't have action game or fighting game. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If "adventure game" refers to computer games exemplified by The Secret of Monkey Island, then I don't see how I can possibly derive the meaning from "adventure" and "game". Per WP, the term originates from the 1970s computer game "Adventure". --Dan Polansky 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The correct spelling is accuutje. As written it evokes a strong association with kutje (little cunt) and would lead to the wrong pronunciation. I think this entry is probably a result of the fact that if "accuutje" is broken off at the end of a line it is written as accu- tje. Jcwf 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered {{misspelling of}} (cf. rijstaffel)? Circeus 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. —This unsigned comment was added by Jcwf (talkcontribs) 25 October 2009.

It means "generated by a user or users". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Debatable. have a scream got deleted because scream can mean (dated) a good time. So can blast. It's a bit better than be a blast (it was a blast) but only a bit, IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete please. Same as "have a scream" or "have a wonderful time" or "have a laugh". DCDuring TALK 01:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Equinox 01:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Definition from Wiktionary
Content avaible with GNU Free Documentation License

Powered by php Powered by MySQL Optimized for Firefox