Visit the forum if you have a language query!

Dictionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Dictionary, a free dictionary
The truth is that all of us attain the greatest success and happiness possible in this life whenever we use our native capacities to their greatest extent.
Smiley Blanton
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 Dictionary: 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 Dictionary: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.

  • 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.

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

category=Requests for deletion namespace=0 count=1000 mode=none order=ascending </DynamicPageList>


January 2008



  1. A wall made of Sheetrock.
  2. Verb. To install a wall made of Sheetrock.

This is a trademarked term. We have an uncapitalized entry as well. I don't see how the trademarked, capitalized term can have these senses. I suppose it is possible that usage of the cap term includes these senses as well. I may be confusing the trademarking and the capitalization. DCDuring 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Uncapitalized sense is the one people use when they actually use the term. bd2412 T 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any citations supporting the wall sense in either capitalized or uncapitalized forms. Unfortunately there are plenty of cites available for the verb sense in capitalized form, which muddies the waters a bit. DCDuring 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This term is encountered very frequently in architecture/construction documents and translator’s dictionaries include it because so many translators have difficulty with it. For one thing, it is used very frequently in the industry as a generic informal synonym for drywall. Keep. However, I would say that the verb is always lowercase, and I don’t believe either Sheetrock or sheetrock is used to mean the wall itself. Sheetrock only means the gypsum panels, individually or collectively. —Stephen 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As a homeowner I couldn't imagine deleting such a term. I actually added the lower-case version. The upper case version had some senses I didn't believe as well as the basic noun sense, which is hard to deny. I am just trying to sharpen up the entries. I was surprised at how often Sheetrock is used in print as a verb where I would have expected sheetrock. It looks like an author would be well advised to use drywall as a more generic term (noun and verb). Are you voting to keep the two disputed senses? DCDuring 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, not those, just the sense that we know to be right. I know that carpenters and architects are likely to capitalize the verb, but I think that they always mean the lowercase word when it’s a verb. I can’t imagine a valid need for the trademark as a verb. —Stephen 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As an employee at the Home Depot, I will vouch for the first noun sense (drywall, plasterboard), as well as the verb. I suppose the third sense (a wall made of sheetrock) is valid, but I think it should be deleted anyway, since it's really just a part of the first definition (or perhaps simply appended to def #1. I have never heard the word used in the second sense, nor have I ever heard a plural form. It seems to me that the only sense which should be at the uppper-case entry is the brand name, with all the stuff we're currently looking at placed at the lower-case. Atelaes 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I found it used in the plural in legal documents, where it may be written in the plural as a way of including any possible alternative. I could probably find three, but I don't think such documents are great examples of usage. DCDuring 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
delete both senses Παρατηρητής
keep lowercase and capitalized first letter as appropriate in sentence structure. Only the fully capitalized (ie, SHEETROCK[1]) form is, technically, trademarked (by USG). Like another well-known brand, Xerox, the word has become so widely used that it has come into common use as presently shown in the current Wiktionary definition. 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Spam. --Connel MacKenzie 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete team nickname; keep surname if authentic.—msh210 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep, for reasons listed at Spurs above.--Dmol 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course Keep - also Spurs and the rest. Παρατηρητής


Spam. --Connel MacKenzie 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete team nickname.—msh210 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep, for reasons listed at Spurs above.--Dmol 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course Keep - does this Connel person know what spam is? Παρατηρητής 08:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


As above. But this deals with a US sports team. --Keene 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no RfV??? By what criteria is this per se deletable? DCDuring TALK 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's only listed here because it's a US term, in response to Connel's nominations of UK terms - so that all are treated equally. --Keene 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete as obvious spam. --Connel MacKenzie 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not obvious to me that this is spam, except in the sense of spam meaning any bit of internet posting that is not to one's taste. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cited DCDuring TALK 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


As above. But this deals with a US sports team. --Keene 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as above. --Connel MacKenzie 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Jints is a nickname for the New York Giants baseball team, derived from eye-dialect for New York dialect for Giants. Accordingly, I wuld think that we would be happy with it being in a sentence that did not include the words "New York" or "Giants".
Why is there a contest about RfDing sports team names? Most sports teams nicknames would seem to be fine if they are actually used. We may need some way to accommodate them when there are numerous referents of the same word {Broncos, Hornets, ...). Or we may insist on mentions outside of newspapers. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a sentence, a broader context, I think.—msh210 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cited DCDuring TALK 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Previously marked as "kept" - fell through the cracks, apparently. --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. That link is of course Dictionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/08#Athletics, as Keene noted.—msh210 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete this one: unlike the others nominated for deletion above, this is the official name of the team, and is capitalized (initial letter). Anyone wanting to know what it is will check WP or the like. As CFI notes, "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested.". This is, after all, a company name, in two senses ("group of individuals with a common purpose, as in a company of actors" and "business")  ;-) . I'm willing to change my mind if citations can be brought that fit the standard explained at Dictionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names, which I doubt.—msh210 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I thought the "official" team name was "Oakland A's." (IMO, all team names are still spam, regardless.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Added sense as nickname for many teams whose full name includes "Athletics". US sports context. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


As above (try to keep these all together.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep, for reasons listed at Spurs above. Also it is an abbreviation.--Dmol 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Παρατηρητής


Tolkien-cruft. --Keene 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • 1994, Academic American Encyclopedia, Grolier, ISBN 0717220532, page 141
    Not only are there maps of fantasy, such as those of Oz or Middle Earth, there are also hypotheses that have been made on the basis of mapped information
  • 1999, Frederick Turner, Shakespeare's Twenty-First Century Economics, The Morality of Love, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195128613, page 180
    The place might as well be called Noplace; it is a sort of magic island, like Thomas More’s Utopia or Homer’s Ogygia or Aristophane’s Cloudcuckooland—or Oz, or Narnia, or Middle Earth, or Disney’s Magic Kingdom.
  • 2002, Brian Bates (author), The Real Middle-Earth, Magic and Mystery in the Dark Ages, Sidgwick & Jackson, ISBN 0283073535, abstract
    Drawing on historical and archaeological research, Brian Bates uncovers the Middle-Earth that centres on England - a home to dragons, elves, dwarves and demons - a land where spells had real force.
  • 2003, Erik Bethke, Game Development and Production, Wordware Publishing, ISBN 1556229518, page 76
    Some game ideas (such as the fanciful recreation of Middle Earth where the whole world is modeled with strong AI, 3D graphics capable of great indoor and terrain rendering, where an unlimited number of players can join in on both sides of epic conflict between good and evil) cannot be reconciled with the business parameters of two artists and a programmer...
  • 2004, Sam Harris, The End of Faith, Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393035158, page 27
    This is not an account of the Middle Ages, nor is it a tale from Middle Earth. This is our world.

There also appears to be an attestable underground music venue called Middle Earth. DAVilla 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle Earth is a common expression in Paganism (nothing to do with Tolkein!)- see Brain Bates quote above - I will be adding references soon. Thorskegga 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have done some work on this one - I have added two new definitions - one mythological - second from modern paganism, both of which appear to meet criteria for inclusion. I will dig out a couple more citations in due course. I would suggest the Tolkein sense is kept as it is supported by the other meanings of the word. Thorskegga 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, as cited. bd2412 T 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

February 2008


Defined solely in terms of a redlink "The state or quality of being akenned." Akenned has 474 raw googles, but they seem to be proper nouns and email addresses. Akennedness has 5 raw googles (one of them us). RJFJR 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

uh, wait. Middle English dict. shows akenned. But that doesn't support akennedness. RJFJR 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be OE: on cristes akenned-nysse daege from Aelfric's Lives of the Saints] DCDuring TALK 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's OK. You can debate about whether it's English or Middle English, but it's definitely a word. I've now added akenned and aken. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

get sick

Edit: To become ill. Per [[get fill-in-the-blank]]. DAVilla 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"To become ill" is almost idiomatic. Keep? --Connel MacKenzie 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This can also mean "to vomit." So can "be sick," of course, but I don't think "sick" by itself normally has this meaning. -- Visviva 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with that definition. Changed to rfd-sense. DAVilla 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow it means "vomit"? Just in American English, right? Kappa 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's regional; I've heard it, and I'd understand it, but I'd never use it, and I don't think most Midwesterners would. (Of course, ~30–40% of the time I say on Wiktionary that a word/sense/construction doesn't exist in my region, it's less than a month or two before I hear someone use it in real life, so who knows?) —RuakhTALK 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

flatulence tax

Quite real and certainly verifiable, but seems sum of parts in the sense that the Iowa caucuses were, i.e. it has no meaning outside of one specific event. Most citations use quotes around the term anyway. Globish 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Encyclopedia material, looks like to me. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sum of parts; the definition is certainly not what I would have expected from flatulence + tax. But like Opiaterein, I cannot think of any particular merit in having an entry here. Weak neutral. -- Visviva 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Technically sum of parts, but still idiomatic in that e.g. it does not apply to individuals (like people who don't soak their beans long enough before cooking). DAVilla 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Spanish double l

Note: there exists a previously archived request that may be relevant to this one.

Bad entry title. --Connel MacKenzie 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This was matked as kept in November. I repeat my arguments here:-
Books DO refer to this as the "Spanish double l". gbc shows a couple, but more usage can be found in a simple google search, which finds a lot of current usage. Also any Spanish language teaching aid in English will mention the "Spanish double l". There is no other way in English to talk about this letter, which comes after "L" and before "M" in the official Spanish alphabet. -- Algrif 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If we are going to re-discuss this, I'll weigh in as weak delete or move to RFV: I think it's SoP Spanish + double l; it gets very few hits on b.g.c.; and your statement notwithstanding, I don't think 288 Web hits demonstrates "a lot of current usage". However, I'll also weigh in as weak wait a few more months before repeating a resolved discussion, unless we have a specific reason to re-evaluate the validity of that resolution. —RuakhTALK 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have been marked 'keep' incorrectly - both when I renominated it and now reviewing that previous nomination. (Who added that previously lost link, anyhow?) The title is still bad, no matter what DAVilla decreed unilaterally, when considering it an encyclopedic topic, therefore worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. --Connel MacKenzie 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Double l is not the same as Spanish double l. The English spell travelling with a double l, unlike the Americans, who use a single l. This does NOT mean that the UK English pronunciation is eλe. This is, on the other hand, the pronunciation of the Spanish double l. -- Algrif 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is the English name for a specific letter of the Spanish alphabet. We have alpha, ess, long s, and Eszett. This follows the same pattern of being the name of a letter of an alphabet. This has already been discussed and kept. To re-open the discussion, we should have some new reason to do so, not the same reason as before. --EncycloPetey 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason is different this time. The entry title looks just fine to me, but Ruakh has brought up the question of idiomaticity. Certainly it's a descriptive name, which are sum of parts. It also happens to be the name of a single letter, rather than two, as in the English example EncycloPetey gave. That knowledge is not apparent from the name, so keep on those grounds. DAVilla 07:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)\
Sorry, but that does not follow. The previous nomination was not because it had a bad entry title (but should have been, perhaps.) That subject was not discussed at all, before you mistakenly marked it as kept. --Connel MacKenzie 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Since I didn't vote clearly earlier, strong delete from this entry title (even if content is retained in an appendix somewhere.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Two identical senses?—msh210 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, stone is at least a specific subset of "to throw stones at" (at least within biblical references, the only place I've ever experienced the verb "stone"). I would switch "sometimes" to "generally." Past, that I'm happy with the entry as it stands (although it wouldn't be the end of the world if the two senses were merged, as they're obviously closely related). Atelaes 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If stone only sometimes is to death (which is what you must say if you want to change "sometimes" to "generally", or, for that matter, if you want to keep the "sometimes"), then how does stone differ in meaning from throw stones at? To me they're completely synonymous, which is why I said these are identical senses. Is there some difference between them of which I'm unaware? (I.e., what "specific subset" is it?) (Note we have s.v. stone "to pelt with stones, esp. to kill by pelting with stones", which agrees with the entry lapidate and with my understanding.)msh210 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If I had to pick one sense I would pick one that included the idea of stoning to death, partially because "lapidation" is topical in connection with the use of lapidation as punishment in some cultures currently. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Previously failed RFD and RFV. See Talk:anti-truth. --Connel MacKenzie 12:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did both senses fail RfV and both RfD? Even the anti-truth quark is not actually likely to be attestable with 0 scholar and only 1 b.g.c. hit. truth quark seems to be a fairly common nickname for the top quark. And there is an "anti top quark", so it is arguably not mere vandalism, whatever the motivation. I will RfV anti-truth quark. DCDuring TALK 12:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So, speedy delete (six months later.) Eh? It was nonsense then, still is now. Additional sense links to an already-red entry title. --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


defined as "The state or quality of being barbarious." but that is a misspelling of barbarous. —This unsigned comment was added by RJFJR (talkcontribs) 17:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

Barbariousness gets 32 hits on b.g.c. If it were really strictly a misspelling, I'd say it didn't warrant a "common misspelling of" entry, but it's not quite; it's a misconstruction, perhaps combining barbaric and barbarous, and has a very distinct pronunciation. So, keep, but mark nonstandard. —RuakhTALK 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

military exercise

RuakhTALK 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. The definition is covered under one sense of exercise, with military clarifying what sort of exercise/training. --EncycloPetey 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as very obvious SoP. --Dmol 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, delete. —Stephen 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The translations of "military exercise" to other languages are not necassarily equal to translation of "military" + translation of "exercise", e.g German Militärmanöver and Finnish sotaharjoitus. I do not know whether we have an adequate solution to this. Of course one solution is simply not to care. Hekaheka 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
We usually don't consider that. After all, "This is my bag." doesn't translate word-for-word in all languages, but that doesn't mean the phrase deserves a dictionary entry. In the case of military exercise, it should be possible for someone to look up the individual words to determine the meaning. Presumably also, words like Militärmanöver should be listed as derived terms under Militär, so that a person can find such words. --EncycloPetey 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Del as SoP in the 1st sense and "encyclopedic" in the 2nd. (FWIW, i speak as the creator, a WP-admin who finds himself valuably educated by this discussion. And i thot only "unencyclopedic was a pejorative term!)
At the risk of going off-topic, tho, should i understand "PoV" re the second sense as a claim that the following assertion involves no question of fact, but merely a matter of opinion?
Journalists routinely write "military exercises", when they believe that in planning the events, any training value to be realized has been subordinated to ensuring effective saber-rattling.
--User:Jerzy·t 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete the second sense outright. DAVilla 04:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that depends on whether you can find sufficient citations to demonstrate such use. Ideally, we want quality citations to back up all senses and definitions. In practice however, the most controversial get such quotations first, precisely because they are controversial. Commonly accepted senses may get only an example sentence to start with or may have no usage information at all, as a result of Wiktionary being understaffed. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is my very first visit to this page. I am very disappointed.
First, I encourage participants here to avoid opaque jargon, like "SoP". Its use makes this page impenetrable for those of us who aren't insiders. It took me ten or fifteen minutes to figure out it meant "Sum of al parts".
Maybe I am missing something, but in this particular case I am mystified by the suggestion that "military exercise" is merely "military" + "exercise". I suggest that "military" + "exercise" is much more likely to bring up images of platoons of soldiers doing pushups, jumping jacks, or precision marching.
It seems to me that there is no kind of non-military exercise that is like a military exercise. Do we have "Fire Department Exercises"? Do we have "Boy Scout Exercises"? Do we have "Science Exercises"? "Day care exercises"?
Up here school boards have all their teachers take a day or two per year off from their regular duties for "professional development days". Kids call them "PD days", and love them because they get an extra day of vacation. We don't call them "Teacher exercises". No one would know what you meant if you called them "teacher exercises".
I spent some time looking at this page today. And I am going to offer my overall impression. Sorry, I see a general lack of deep reflection in the judgments placed on this page.
I have to wonder whether those who aren't willing to spell out "sum of all parts", who aren't willing to wikilink it to an explanation, so these discussions are meaningful to those who aren't in the club, are showing they have the patience to give these candidates for deletion the necessary serious deep thought.
Philosopher of Science Jacob Bronowski wrote that the word "Revolution" had no hint of over-turning the established order until Copernicus wrote "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres". Words and phrases have meanings that seem obvious, but really have no tie to their literal meaning. There is no reason, other than Copernicus's work, for us to associate the word revolution with political, scientific or cultural upheaval. And similarly, I suggest, the combination of "military" + "exercise" has no obvious connection to soldiers setting aside their regular duties to engage in training -- other than traditional usage. I suggest this connection only seems obvious through familiarity.
If the wiktionary is going to be a serious project those weighing in on the possible deletion of words have to be able budget the time to think deeply about what they write, and they have to be prepared to think deeply before they write.
Cheers! Geo Swan 03:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful critique.
While it's true that "exercise" is not frequently used in this meaning, it is used in many similar constructions such as "anti-terrorism exercises," "security exercises," etc. It does not seem reasonable that we would have entries for all such terms. The restricted collocational range is probably best covered in a usage note at exercise.
Also, it's a small point, but it appears that Bronowski may be mistaken; at any rate it is claimed that the term "revolution" was in use in this sense a good 90 years before De revolutionibus appeared in print. But of course you can't believe everything you read online, and I'm not sure where to begin with verifying such a claim. Cheers, -- Visviva 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: the 1450 citation of revolution; it's listed in the OED under III. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a large number of mathematical texts that will say something like "Proof of this assertion is left as an exercise for the student." There is a widely understood meaning of exercise that entails practice rather than simply "physical exercise". And in regards to you argument by analogy with revolution, you are arguing that the original meaning is the primary one, and the secondary meaning is only through association. Such as argument would actually argue against what you say about exercise. You see, the original meaning of that word is "busywork, practice, training". It is only since about 1533 that exercise has been applied to specifically military maneouvers or physical practice to improve the body. And interestingly, those two new senses are grouped together in the original edition of the OED, from about 100 years ago. So, a distinction between the two senses you are discussing has only been made in the past century. --EncycloPetey 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not the most obvious sense of exercise (despite the fact that soldiers do plenty of that kind as well). bd2412 T 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The sense at least needs its own definition line at exercise. Keep per prime number. (What kind of prime? A prime number.) This is a common collocation, and it is the way that the sense is clarified. (What kind of exercise? A military exercise.) Sum-of-parts is not an exclusive rule. DAVilla 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So, we're going to have mental exercise, teaching exercise, training exercise, mathematical exercise, physical exercise, lexicographical exercise, illustrative exercise, etc? All of these clarify the kind of exercise by adding a descriptor. The fact that the sense is clarified by the addition of a word does not argue for inclusion any more than it would for candy heart or apple cobbler. Consider: "The military will be conducting exercises today." and "The armed forces will be conducting exercises today." Both of these carry exactly the same sense as military exercise, but without the proximity found in the "collocation", and the second example doesn't even include the descriptor "military". This is not analogous to the case of prime number, since removal of the portion prime compromises the meaning, which is not the case with military exercise. --EncycloPetey 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing surprising about the definition of mental exercise and the others, but I think it's worth pointing out that military exercise implies large-scale manoeuvres and not just physical training, which would be expected from sum-of-parts. One could, I suppose, attempt to include this information in the exercise page. Kappa 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The analogy to prime number is that the removal of number does not compromise the meaning. (As I said above: What kind of prime? A prime number.)
The sentences you give don't prove anything to me because context can always make the meaning clear. You don't always need a collocation, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is.
I don't know about most of your examples, but physical exercise would qualify since it exactly delineates definition 2. There may be another way to allow mental exercise and training exercise, which are collocations that to me are not summed mentally. I wonder if there's always a reason why.
This wouldn't be the best test to use though. At this point we'd have to bring into question how we delineate senses. For instance, Random House, AHD, probably others do not distinguish mental from physical. I think Kappa's take is a little stronger, though I take it as evidence to keep the page, and not just write it off as a note. DAVilla 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is that for prime number, the analogy is seriously flawed. The expectation is that prime is a modifier of number, but in fact the removal of the second component does not damage the meaning. For military exercise to fit the analogy, you'd have to remove exercise and preserve the meaning, which isn't the case. The order here matters, because in such a combination the first component is typically the modifier and the secoind the noun being modified. The term prime number breaks with this usual pattern in a way the military exercise just doesn't do. I'm sorry, but you've made a flawed analogy. --EncycloPetey 05:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well now I understand that one, at least. I'm not sure what would be a perfect example. What about opposable thumb, presuming you would agree to keep that. Even the thumbs of raccoons are somewhat opposable, if not as much as our own. But anyways Visviva and BD already have a better angle on this. DAVilla 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Set phrase, idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


rfd-sense: (psychology) "a recurring psychosocial issue that stimulates growth and development in the personality"

not in 2 psych dictionaries in this sense, incl APA 2006, contibutor cites one author in edit summary. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A section about Arthur Chickering from Professional Orientation to Counseling may shed some light on this use of the word "vector". It still sounds to me like an application of a generic term for a specific purpose that may not be widely recognized as a new connotation, but I'm not a psychologist (nor do I play one on TV). Interestingly, I hadn't read the edit summary of the addition of this sense before I checked, so the fact that my quick search yielded the same Chickering weakly reinforces the idea that this is a very uncommon connotation, maybe only in use by a single professional. Broader evidence is certainly called for. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


In the sense of the computing company. Delete per Nintendo. DAVilla 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove sense (to etymology) per nom. -- Visviva 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree, Move proper noun sense to the etymology. --EncycloPetey 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Third that. Conrad.Irwin 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Move sense to ety. per above. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Probably spurious. def. given includes both deprived and spoiled. g.b.c. yields scannos and French language hits, but many of them. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV.—msh210 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Do we want to actively delete these or leave them be if someone wants to create them? Conrad.Irwin 13:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to actively delete them. (I might be more O.K. with them if they were more accurate, though. "Genitive singular form" is misleading on three counts: this isn't really a "genitive"; it's a "singular" only in that everybody is a syntactically singular pronoun, which hardly seems relevant to everybody's, since syntactically it doesn't have a number, and it's not like there's a genitive plural it needs to be distinguished from; and it's not really a "form". And our POS header, "noun", is flat-out wrong: everybody is a pronoun, so there's no way everybody's is a noun.) —RuakhTALK 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason the vote was for noun plurals only - to keep entries like this. Move to RFC. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what vote you're referring to, but the vote I remember did forbid entries like this. It explicitly made exception for "the irregularly-formed possessive forms of pronouns", and there seems to have been general agreement that the personal pronoun one's would probably be O.K., or at least was a special case to be considered independently; but I see no suggestion that the vote only cover nouns. —RuakhTALK 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ruakh. The vote clearly only allows for irregular pronominal possessive forms, such as whose and its. While I don't know how I would have voted, had I been around for this vote, its mandate is fairly clear. Delete -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
To quote Ruakh: "(I'd actually prefer that there also be an exception for one's, which is the only personal pronoun that we use the apostrophe in, but whatever. This way is quite fine.)". The only one, eh? Really? Not that it is my place to protest deletion: this is not my mother tongue. However, Dutch does have: ieder - ieders (everybody - everybody's) and imho ieders deserves a lemma. What translation should I give [[everybody|everybody's]]?
Jcwf 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We do not create English entries simply to provide a translation substrate. I would probably do everybody's. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that when there is enough reason to we should, even for entries like father/mother's brother which could be linked in place of a translation of uncle in certain languages. It would not surprise me if several languages necessitated this for all possessives of pronouns. Therefore weak keep as a phrasebook entry. DAVilla 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The only one, yes. (In Standard English, at least. Certainly "it's" is a very common misspelling of "its".) I don't speak Dutch, but on the face of it, yes, [[everybody|everybody's]] looks like quite a reasonable translation, as does [[everybody]][['s]] [edit:] or, as Atelaes suggests, [[everybody]]'s. (From what I gather, the genitive in Dutch is mostly archaic except with pronouns like ieder. If this is correct, then I agree with your opinion that ieders deserves a full entry.) —RuakhTALK 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, genitives are mostly archaic and in fact less common than the English possessive. They are mostly limited to persons: Jan->Jans etc. Pronouns are a bit of an exception like wiens, wier, ieders, niemands, but then there is a whole bunch of adverbs that derive from genitives. I still don't understand your 'the only one' argument: i.e. I fail to see the difference between everybody's, one's, somebody's and anybody's.

Jcwf 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

dog shit

I know someone is going to say how this means something other than dog + shit, or other languages translate this special or some other nonsense, but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't try and get this nonsense deleted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect. This is a bit of a toughie, because we have to include dogshit, and since dog shit is a bit more common, it seems odd to redirect from dog shit to dogshit. But, I don't see a better way. *shrug* —RuakhTALK 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we really? And equally the s*** of every imaginable animal? Why not mention under the entry "shit" that it can be combined with names of animals to produce a term meaning their particular produce? I have used this approach with some Finnish nouns. Hekaheka 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
We need entries for horseshit and bullshit anyway. There really aren't that many that form a single word (rat, worm, whale, bird come to mind). They are used in different contexts and sometimes have special nuances or usage. Otherwise we are just talking about the usual attirbutive use of the animal name with "shit". Many have special non-vulgar names like "pellets", etc. It would be amusing to get those in one list some day. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Seems like an excellent solution to the whole set of these. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, but what about doggy doo/doggie do/doggy do/doggie doo? AFAIK, the dog is the only animals whose faeces is referred to as "doo". Or does do/doo cover it?--Keene 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a redirect here would be harmful and misleading. While "dogshit" is almost always an adjective, "dog shit" is usually a noun. A the very worst, it could be reduced to a soft redirect, but that would just be forcing readers to to click-through (which usually results in people leaving, to try a different reference instead...i.e. not helpful.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Keep as it is an idiomatic set phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There are about 9 of these in English that I've identified: bat, bird, bull, chicken, dog, horse, rat, whale, worm. Not all form a single word with shit. Most can be found with and without hyphens, the usually but not always for some kind of adjectival use. We will not be buried in the subject matter. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You forgot apeshit. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe we need an entry for pigshit as well. bd2412 T 08:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, I pronounce this as one entity, with stress on "dog" and none on "shit", whereas if I said "cat shit" I would stress both words. Kappa 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone at least tell me what it means, idiomatically? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I would guess it's similar to bullshit or horseshit, but the problem is that there is no idiomatic sense defined at the actual article yet, despite the arguments here that one exists. I don't think people should say to keep something because a more valid meaning exists without even adding that meaning; then we end up with the less valid article kept in the end, and the problem isn't fixed. Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I took a crack at an entry for dogshit. We could probably keep attesting entries (which are readily available, of course) off the page. I don't think we need too many usage examples, either. If we just get serious about this group of words for a bit, we can probably handle it once and for all. Compared to the others dogshit seems to be just "common", but "worse" than human. rat-; horse-, bull-; whale-, worm-; chicken-; and bat- and, yes, ape- all have different meanings, divided into groups of related meanings by semi-colons on the list. I'm not sure about bird and snake, though snake might be like worm and whale. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep as an alternative spelling of dogshit. Both may be idiomatic under the "in between" test and the latter per community support of Dutchman. DAVilla 10:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


One sense (in English) has been split incorrectly into four separate senses. --Connel MacKenzie 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I know; the editors of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) really went too far with the whole "Webster's 1913 is not paper" thing. In their defense, though, they were probably prodded in part by their desire to desire to translate words helpfully into every language. Seriously, though, keep; it's probably worthwhile to distinguish between a literal fable, and three extended senses, especially since they give such different connotations. —RuakhTALK 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep MW3 retains 7 distinct senses in three groups. One of the things WT should NOT be is WTSimple. Grouping similar senses; displaying simply worded sense or glosses first; and hiding subsenses and subtleties all seem worthy of consideration, but deletion pushes us to be a very specific kind of dictionary, rather than a universal one. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The OED distinguishes 5 separate senses and a total of 10 sub-senses! Widsith 08:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As written, senses 1 and 3 do seem redundant; isn't sense 3 precisely describing a made-up story told for amusement? Maybe the distinction made more sense 95 years ago, or maybe the inclusion of "amuse" in sense 1 was simply an error, or maybe there is some still-obvious distinction I am simply missing. Clue, please. Sense 2 does seem distinct, but I have to wonder whether this sense has ever actually been used by anyone besides Dryden. -- Visviva 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The 4 meanings are quite clear to me.--Richardb 01:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of WikiLove, parts of the preceding comment have been redacted. —RuakhTALK 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Not until we ban personal attacks from them. Let's discuss pages not people here, meta discussion and personal grievances to talk page please. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As I recall, last time you were here you were blocked for a single-minded campaign of attacks. If you're here just to do that again, I'd rather you just leave again. I think we as a community are probably quite impatient with it by now; I know I am. Dmcdevit·t

Al Jazeera

A proper noun encyclopedic concept with no attributive meanings (I believe). Dmcdevit·t 06:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Hundreds of book usages, and more than just another TV station. Frequently used to cite mid-East public opinion without US perspective. BTW, isn't it Al-Jazeera with a hyphen--Dmol 09:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. In Arabic, it’s all one solid word. In the English transliteration, the official spelling is without a hyphen. —Stephen 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, then it probably deserves an entry in Arabic, but no English, unless some attributive sense can be elucidated. We don't make entries simply as translation substrate. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not following this. Just because it's written as a single word doesn't make it any more worthy of inclusion than any other company name. -- Visviva 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If SGB is to be believed, then keep for the special spelling compared to the English speling. If not, then abstain —This unsigned comment was added by Keene (talkcontribs) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
I totally assumed that was a bleached conditional until I got to the second sentence. Is there a reason to think maybe Stephen isn't to be believed? —RuakhTALK 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What is a "bleached conditional"? --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
A bleached conditional is a construction that's structured as a conditional, but doesn't really have conditional force. (As in the "conditional" has been semantically bleached right out of it.) Usually this happens when the antecedent is presumed to be true, so it can't be "condition" in any real sense. One common use of bleached conditionals is in transition sentences; after a paragraph about how hard middle-school math was, for example, one might introduce a paragraph about high-school math with "If middle-school math was hard, high-school math was flat-out impossible." —RuakhTALK 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The term doesn't appear in Google's Book or Scholar search.—msh210 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. I presumably got it from this, but it is apparently not a widespread expression. google books:"semantic bleaching", however, is; so if I stick to "semantically bleached conditional constructions", I should be fine, even if that exact phrase currently gets no hits anywhere. :-) —RuakhTALK 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep as the very-most common spelling used in English, currently. [1]. --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Why does that matter? Most company names are the most common spellings of the name of the company, almost by definition ... but that doesn't mean they should have entries here. -- Visviva 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, Delete - I wasn't clear on it actually being a company name...I thought it primarily was used figuratively to refer to all Middle Eastern TV (e.g. comedy skits and such.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain. --Connel MacKenzie 08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as the name of a company without any idiomatic, symbolic, attributive or otherwise lexicographically-interesting use shown. (I wouldn't be surprised if such use could be shown, given this network's increasingly iconic status worldwide; I have come to rely on AJ almost exclusively for nuanced international news coverage. However, my initial search of usage was not promising.) As noted by WT:CFI#Company names, being the name of a notable company does not itself guarantee inclusion. I am rather mystified by the "keep" votes above. -- Visviva 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Visviva. Please, can we have return to the wonderful days when people used to twist and reinterpret the CFI beyond all recognition, rather than simply ignoring them and making arguments that aren't based in any of our policies? —RuakhTALK 01:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's not such a bad idea. CFI was meant to reflect what the general consensus of (what was at that time called RFD, now is) RFV !votes. But it never did, not even for a majority of the contributor's concerns. In many ways, we were better off without having any codified restrictions at all. Ironically, the codifying of the rules was meant to reduce objections to speedy deletes (by pinpointing specific rules,) reduce repetitive nominations and reduce bickering. Oddball cases like this term highlight the fact that perfectly codifying Wiktionary is a silly goal. If we've lost the ability to make exceptions when needed, then it is indeed a very sad day. --Connel MacKenzie 08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't an oddball case; no arguments are being made here that wouldn't apply to the name of every moderately prominent world company. Deletion follows not only from the CFI but from simple common sense; I might as well have phrased my vote "'''Delete'''; encyclopedic." -- Visviva 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Al Jazeera gets almost 5,000,000 Google hits and is an extremely important name in international politics and news. It has specific translations into other languages, which includes its particular grammar in most of those languages. Besides being interested in how to write it in another language, people may also wish to know what it means and so on. Seems a little silly to delete such an important word in a well-written article. —Stephen 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think it would be great if one of the Wikimedia projects gave the sort of information you describe. But as of right now, according to the criteria for inclusion that define the English Wiktionary, that project isn't us. —RuakhTALK 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently w:Al Jazeera is doing a roughly 6.5-times better job of providing translations than we are, as well as providing far more satisfactory in-depth information (in 34 languages!) than we ever will. Now, we could easily copy the interwikis and bring ourselves back to par translation-wise, but it wouldn't be long before Wikipedia was out in front again; it is highly unlikely that we will ever match the manpower of the several Wikipedias. I don't understand why we would want to invest effort in duplicating work that is already being done so well elsewhere. -- Visviva 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete and replace with {{only wikipedia}}. This is not dictionary material, however it may well be looked up by someone. Conrad.Irwin 12:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, w:Al Jazeera and the interwikis don’t provide the same information that we do. For instance, they don’t give transliterations in non-Roman languages such as Chinese, or grammatical info such as gender and declension. The Wiktionary article isn’t simply a poor shadow of the Wikipedia article, it includes different information that is hard to obtain elsewhere. —Stephen 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But those transliterations are just transliterations of transliterations (with the arguable exception of Chinese); it's difficult to see how that amounts to anything but noise. And frankly, someone who can't extract gender information from a quick Google search probably doesn't speak the target language well enough for our translations to be of much benefit. If there is some plausible criterion which Al Jazeera meets that millions of other corporate and brand names do not, then fine. But allowing an infinite number of proper noun entries scotches what is to me one of the most important attributes of Wiktionary -- our mandate is enormous, but fundamentally finite and achievable. -- Visviva 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't list George W. Bush just because it gets numerous Google hits and requires translation into Chinese. And for good reason. Delete this (unless it's found to meet the CFI).—msh210 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And what good reason would that be? —Stephen 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
To quote WT:WIN: "Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, a genealogy database, or an atlas; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of factual information, or of data about places and people" (emphasis removed). To put it another way, quoting the CFI, "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words." And, futher along in the CFI, "A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included" (emphasis removed). That's why we don't include George W. Bush. But you know all this already, Stephen; why are you asking?—msh210 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I should note that my Bush argument was not meant to compare Bush to Al Jazeera as far as the CFI are concerned. It was meant merely to counter to argument "it's got lots of hits and needs translation and that's sufficient". Al Jazeera fails the CFI, but not for precisely the same reason as George W. Bush.—msh210 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, good American English dictionaries such as the Random House do have many such names. For instance, under Washington, both George and Martha are mentioned. Also, the various kings of England named George (I, II, III, etc.). An encyclopedia article is fundamentally different from a dictionary article, and many terms may be found in both. An encyclopedia article gives statistical and factual information such as populations, histories, politics, belief systems, dates, and so on. A dictionary article is about pronunciation, spelling, capitalization, hyphenation, translations, transliterations, gender, plural forms and other grammatical forms, and so on. An encyclopedia will put George Washington spelt just like that, under G, whereas a dictionary will probably put him along with other notable Washingtons under Washington. In my profession (translation), we have to look up all sorts of words, not for encyclopedic information such as birthdates or populations, but to find out how a word or name is written in the target language, and often to find out the grammar and capitalization associated with the term in that language. The only time we should not have a term here in Wiktionary that has an article in Wikipedia is if there is nothing linguistic that we can add to the article. In the case of Al Jazeera, we have information that Wikipedia lacks, including links to the name in other languages where, if applicable, you can find out the gender and declension. —Stephen 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the main difference is that a paper dictionary is standalone, we have a very suitable companion which is a mere click away, and linked from the "missing" page. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep for the translations, and anything else Wikipedia does not have. But reduce the definition part to a pointer to the Wikpedia entry.--Richardb 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted.msh210 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A well-written and useful article with several votes to keep, and a lot more relevant than many of the weird words and peculiar spellings that find room here. I’m not going waste my efforts to add any other English pages or do work on English pages that derive from foreign words or names. In the end the work will be for nothing and they’ll probably just be deleted anyway. —Stephen 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Dmol, Stephen G. Brown, Richardb, and Keene (the latter now permablocked) said "keep". Atelaes, Visviva, Ruakh, Conrad.Irwin, and myself said "delete". You're right: I was too hasty in deciding there was consensus to delete. I apologize, and have undeleted. There was no {{rfd}} tag, for some reason, and I'm adding one, and not striking this section as kept.—msh210 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and Dmcdevit also said to delete.—msh210 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Etymology is interesting, translations are useful. SemperBlotto 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, regardless of etymology or translations. --♠TBC♠ 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep please Παρατηρητής


--Connel MacKenzie 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, why? The entry is 100% correct. Birkenhead is a proper noun that is the name of a town in Merseyside. Thryduulf 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Been there (on the Ferry Cross the Mersey) but Liverpool is better. Yes keep. SemperBlotto 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, lacking attributive use. -- Visviva 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - it is a real place. Παρατηρητής
Submit to RFV per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities.—msh210 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:Delete per WT:CFI#Company names and abundant precedent including #Microsoft above. -- Visviva 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as spam.--Dmol 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - it is used generically in the UK by mechanics etc as any detergent to rub into your hands to get rid of grease etc. SemperBlotto 12:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Changed to strong keep - over 700 google book hits, many from scientific journals. SemperBlotto 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Definitely remove company sense. Not being British I had never heard of this, but these and a smattering of Book/Scholar hits strongly indicate generic use to refer to certain detergent compounds. -- Visviva 12:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
After finally actually looking at the definition (!) I have rewritten it as a noun, and added a few citations. SemperBlotto 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The 1987 quotation is mention-only. You seem to be saying this is in widespread use in the U.K., but it would still be nice to have quotations that demonstrate the term meets CFI. :-) —RuakhTALK 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm that the term is (was?) used in the Netherlands. I know it from my undergraduate chemistry labs. Jcwf 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Παρατηρητής


Ancient vandalism [2] that went undetected (original sense's example still with that incorrect, redundant sense.) While there may be a desire to list the literal back-formation definition, it should be listed after the real definition, perhaps as a sub-sense (the back-formation meaning "dispatcher", I'm not convinced even exists, but that would be a question for RFV.) But even if attested, it would still be redundant (or "by extension" or whatever.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Firstly, the sense that you tagged (sense #1) was not the sense added in the diff you linked to (sense #4). Secondly, neither sense #1 nor sense #4 seems like it could plausibly be a backformation. Thirdly, sense #1 doesn't seem even remotely arguably redundant, while sense #4 is after whatever the "real" definition might be, in that it's the very last definition. All told, I'm really not sure what sense you're talking about and what you're trying to say about it. —RuakhTALK 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also confused, but note that sense 1 is attested back at least to 1927 in the field of logistics. However, inasmuch as the uses I have found refer to a job title rather than a simple description, they might need a separate sense. Senses 3 and 4 do seem likely to be redundant (defining the same thing in different ways). -- Visviva 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would rather say that senses 2 and 3 describe the same thing... where as sense 4, maybe similar but could be distinctly different...--BigBadBen 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep now attested RfD'd sense. Agnostic on other improvement potential. Start over if more cleanup, verification, deletion required. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

router as power tool

Made a new section to keep original discussion clear. -- Algrif 11:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're about it...Isn't the power tool definition a different etymology and pronunciation? -- Algrif 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the etymology, but in UK the power tool is pronounced IPA: /'ɹaʊtə/ and the other uses IPA: /'ɹu:tə/. I believe in the US the pronunciation IPA: /'ɹaʊtɚ/ is used for all senses. Thryduulf 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Power tool router is from the verb to rout (which needs some work, btw), while the other senses are from the verb to route. -- Algrif 23:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't think I've jumped the gun, but I've separated the power tool out to a separate etymology. -- Algrif 13:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

birthday party

Unlike birthday present (see WT:TR#birthday present), this seems to be SOP in both English and all the languages for which translations have been entered. If so then its value as a phrasebook entry would seem limited. Thryduulf 16:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, distinguishes from a political party? Keep. Harmless. bd2412 T 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete; just as "Halloween party", "Christmas party", "keg party", etc. The context of which definition of party is intended is clear from the pairing with birthday. --EncycloPetey 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete just have party
Do we have any statistics on passive pageviews by anons? There really ought to be some reflection of the interest of our users in an entry in the RfD process. There may be some common collocations (that also form phrases, probably noun phrases) that should be in here for users. Or is this only for smart, alert useers? I suspect that this would be oft-visited. Based on that suspicion, 1,390,000 raw web hits, 235,000 raw news hits, 1900 b.g.c. hits, and 353,000 groups hits: keep. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How many hits would you get for the Bible? Does that mean we should have an entry for the Bible? No. We don't use number of hits for a juxtaposition of words to justify it as an entry. Most such common juxtapositions are the result of regular English grammar. --EncycloPetey 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keg party seems okay to me, also wedding party, but this one I have a hard time justifying. It's the principal meaning of party, and it's not really used figuratively, so rather than deconstructing a sum-of-parts collocation the only reason to keep it would be to discover it if construction were not straightforward. But as to that, it apparently makes a poor phrasebook entry as well. DAVilla 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Fairly harmless, but delete if you want. Παρατηρητής

Arian heresy

[ Arian Heresy ]

An encyclopedic concept; this is what Wikipedia is for. Dmcdevit·t 05:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Arian and heresy should certainly have words, but the combination is encyclopedic material. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
But wait! It's an Egyptian pyramid! Delete, even though it sort of is one: encyclopedic, compositional, and generally useless for dictionary purposes. -- Visviva 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
At least a search for "Arian Heresy" will find "Arian", "arian", "arianism", and "heresy". (Analog would be true for Egyptian pyramid.) DCDuring TALK 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, on the basis of Egyptian pyramid. There is no way to know what this means from the simple assembly of parts. It is a particular ideology, and refers to a specific set of beliefs, like gnosticism or Zoroastrianism, albeit a bit more specific and esoteric. --EncycloPetey 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If you know that Arian is an adjective formed from w:Arius, then you know something about it. The details would be findable in an encyclopedia, most assuredly under Arianism. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This term is a pejorative for Arianism, a neutral term. Are we, in some way, enshrining the POV of Catholicism? Should that, together with the ease of finding all the associated entries via search, influence our application of the rules? The pairing of evaluative words with the labels of beliefs seems to exemplify SoP. This is a good case for considering what I feel is an issue because the controversy is not heated in the eyes of very many observers (although on WP "Arian heresy" redirects to "Arian controversy"). It seems to me like "American Imperialism" or "Soviet Imperialism". DCDuring TALK 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Including the name, if it is otherwise worthy of inclusion, is not a breach of neutrality; it's what we're here for. But Category:Heresies should probably go. -- Visviva 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
How does this differ from "Soviet Imperialism" or Soviet imperialism? DCDuring TALK 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Primarily in that, as far as I can tell, "Soviet imperialism" really is just Soviet + imperialism. It doesn't mean Sovietism as such, but rather imperialism of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, "Arian heresy" or rather "the Arian heresy" seems to have the specific referents "Arianism" and "body of the church supporting Arianism." It does not automatically mean "a heresy which is Arian," as one might suppose; this is borne out by the overwhelming use of the definite article. -- Visviva 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This one has been bothering me. Put me down for a reluctant keep, inasmuch as the specific definition (Arianism) is not particularly clear from the sum of the parts (unless you already know what Arianism is, in which case you probably won't be looking it up). It definitely does need to be moved to Arian heresy; hardly anyone capitalizes the "H." There also seem to be two senses, the Arianism one and another which turns up in phrases like "bishop of the Arian heresy" ([3]), in which case I guess it refers specifically to the ecclesiastical faction supporting Arianism. Interestingly Arianism itself is never used in this way. -- Visviva 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I never expect a monolingual dictionary entry to enable me to understand something like Arianism. At most I expect it to confirm spelling, provide synonyms (if any), and provide some context (time period, geography, field of study or endeavor) for where I could find more. It is very hard to say what the substance (no pun intended) of the controversy was in a dictionary entry. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, sure, but we're not trying to enable people to understand Arianism, just to enable them to understand that this is a non-obvious synonym for Arianism. -- Visviva 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Cf. Cartesian plane, abelian group.—msh210 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep if it's a collocation. To sum from parts would require knowing more than the definitions of each word. DAVilla 07:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


A bunch of interspersed redundant senses. --22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm presuming that you are wanting to merge the following noun senses:
  • "A round piece of metal put around a bird's leg used for identification and studies of migration." (3) with "A circumscribing object (looking like an annual ring, earring, finger ring, etc.)" (1).
  • "A circular arena where circus acts take place, a circus ring." (5) with "A place where some sports take place; as, a boxing ring." (4)
If so, I can see what you mean about 4 and 5, although the definition of 4 would need to be modified slightly to note that it isn't just sports that take place in that sort of ring.
I disagree that the specific bird ring sense is redundant to the general circumscribing object one though. A ring around a birds leg is used to uniquely identify that bird for various reasons, this is not true of any other sort of ring that I can think of.
Regarding the verb senses, I disagree that any of them can be merged. Thryduulf 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't see the verb senses being combined in any way. But both should be expanded a bit.--Dmol 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that deleting senses usually laughable for us in a common polysemic word like this. For ety 1, MW3 has 28 senses for the noun + 14 subsenses, 10 + 2 for the verb. For ety 2, noun 6 + 2, 14 + 4 for the verb; for a grand total of 80 senses. It seems as if we should figure out how to make sure we have all the main senses covered and context-labelled, and grouped and sequenced so they provide mutual support. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
A boxing ring is not always circular; to quote w:Boxing ring, "A boxing ring is the space in which a boxing match occurs. A modern ring, which is set on a raised platform, is square with a post at each corner to which four parallel rows of ropes are attached with a turnbuckle." On the other hand I believe that circus rings are generally circular, or at least round, in shape. -- Visviva 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Bird rings are not always round pieces of metal. Their main purpose is to identify, not to be round. -- Algrif 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't they always sit around something, though?—msh210 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
They usually do, but they can come off and are still rings. I presume (but don't know) that before they are applied to a bird they are neither ring-shaped nor enclosing anything. Although it is possible they have a different name before they're applied, my guess is that this is not the case. Thryduulf 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the bird sense is also specifically UK, as indicated by the Wikipedia article. At least, in the US I have always heard these referred to as "bands." -- Visviva 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That's evidence enough for me for a UK tag. Thryduulf 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Adjective sense: "pertaining to a soviet." Seems like just attributive use of the noun? -- Visviva 01:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have provided 3 citations of the comparative use of soviet, some capitalized. They support a different sense. If there is enough evidence for a different sense of the uncapitalized form that truly forms a comparative, then it might be kind to users to keep the attributive sense, both for the distinction and for a kind of etymology. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have provided 4 quotations with adjectival use that does not seen like attributive use of the uncapitalized form and moved the cites of the capitalized form to Soviet. I think they make a case for keeping the RfD's sense and for some other sense(s). I have added one, but it doesn't reflect all usage. It is tedious to cite because Google's basic search doesn't separate cap from non-cap forms and there are vastly more uses of the capitalized form, used as a noun, used atributively in the same sense as the noun, and used in adjectival senses more distantly derived from the noun or from "Soviet-style". DCDuring TALK 14:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. To me, the citations you added seem like an alternative capitalization of Soviet (and as such worthy of retention). But I would still argue that the tagged sense be deleted, inasmuch as it is not an adjective. If this is noted, and it probably should be, it should be as a usage note under the noun. -- Visviva 00:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have very strong feelings on the point. My thinking is that, if we have one sense that merits entry (meets CFI), then we may serve our users best by including senses that would not otherwise meet CFI but might confuse the user. If the sense that meets CFI is only an alternative spelling, I don't know. But I have been thinking that we need to include gloss-like entries where possible for links that are targets of alt sp, past of, pre part, etc., unless doing so would be misleading or excessively lengthy. Save'em the clicks, I say. DCDuring TALK 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree in principle -- that information should be available on the page -- but think we need to be fairly strict about what actually qualifies as a distinct sense. -- Visviva 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't yet have enough citations, either. I'll have to try something besides b.g.c. It may just be an alternative spelling, I'm not really sure that it is all that common, although I limited my search to use in comparatives or adverbially modified without quotation marks. DCDuring TALK 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete rfd'd sense. No evidence of use except as attributive use of noun. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

recognized components

This was added by a bot from an article somewhere (not Wikipedia). Is it any more than a sum of parts? Dbfirs

It was probably created from the singular. That singular was deleted by SB, leaving this orphan. Would you like to put the singular form through RfD on these grounds? It lookls like it is some vocabulary used in the UL process for electrical devices. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Searching on '"recognized component" UL' gets 75 raw b.g.c. hits. It certainly isn't SoP because it relates to a specific important approval process which is probably essential to allowing goods to become salable in the US. I don't much care about the plural, but the singular should be a keep, or rather a restore and rfc. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose the "recognized by the US Government" sense might be worth recording (just) - but isn't this officially Recognized Component Mark? Dbfirs 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
UL is a not-for-profit funded by the insurance industry. It seems to be used commonly more or less as entered. There mere fact that there is an official definition doesn't necessarily mean that much, unless actually usage "wants" to conform to that definition. People don't spend a lot of time making sure that trade-mark and service-mark appear every place the mark holder would like them to, nor are we obligated to uphold their trademark. In any event, I will restore the singular and edit it into shape for our consideration. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

recognized component

I have restored this entry. Please take a look and make a decision about tagging it "RfD", "RfV" or whatnot. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

bridal wear

bridal (sense 1 "of or pertaining to a bride") + wear (noun sense 1 "clothing") = bridal wear ("clothing worn by a bride") = sum of parts. Thryduulf 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Bridal wear can also mean lingerie but this is different from the intended meaning. Maybe needs another definition. Search google images for a few examples. (Purely for research purposes, of course).--Dmol 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, There are also regional and cultural differences in what the term means, even within the same country. We might think of bridal wear as white flowing silk, but to someone else it is bright coloured saris or a kimino.--Dmol 09:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It could also be the erosion that happens as a result of wedding day stress ;) --EncycloPetey 14:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But that definition of wear says "in combination". Why isn't it bridalwear? DAVilla 05:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that most sum of parts combinations can be melded in a few ways: x y, x-y, xy. This does not overcome the SOP issue. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is to go, then wedding cake, wedding dress and wedding ring are also in danger zone? Hekaheka 09:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


This is hardly a common spelling of bodacious - almost all the first 2 pages of web hits are mentions (including Wikionary), of those that are uses only a fraction appear independent of the first one. 21 books hits, the ones I can see are roughly 50% mentions. A Google groups search returns a whopping 6 results, only 4 of which are independent and one of the others might be a use. Compare this to 230,000 groups results for "bodacious". Thryduulf 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you remind of the difference between an alternate form and a misspelling? Or eye dialect and misspelling? I thought I knew based on prior experience with other entries here, but I'm losing confidence. This isn't eye-dialect because eye dialect would be "phonetic" throughout ("bowdayshus")? It's not an alternate form because .... ? DCDuring TALK 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow Brite

It seems I RFD'd this in june last year. one of our fictional characters from the Care Bears. -Keene2 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete --EncycloPetey 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be citable, e.g. Chicken Soup for the Recovering Soul, Stephen King's The Tommyknockers, lots of books on young children and others. DAVilla 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Sense 5 seems to be just a special case of sense 3, but I don't speak Welsh, so I cannot judge accurately. Dbfirs 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think they mean proselytizing or proselytising ? DCDuring TALK 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think they're distinct. I read sense 3 as being a character trait epitomised by non-conformist preachers, whereas sense 5 is the name of a method of prosthletising employed by preachers (who may or may not be non-conformist). Only senses 2 (fun) and 4 (sail) are listed in my (basic) English-Welsh dictionary so I am not sure. Thryduulf 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this will shed some light on it. I didn't realize that all five senses were in some way part of the same meaning. Another meaning seems to be personal "state", although that might be an abstraction of mood. GTTR. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't see a preview of that book (it is not unknown for different regions to see or not see different works on bgc), so I can't say one way or another. Thryduulf 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't see the book either, but I accept the shade of meaning, so I've removed the rfd and corrected the spelling (which is what brought me to the entry in the first place). Thanks. Dbfirs 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am distressed that the two of you can't use the link. Any thoughts on why? Browser related? Does this problem arise in entries? I thought that I could paste a link and thereby provide all the context anyone would need for our more stringent attestation test. If I can't, ..... DCDuring TALK 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
From past experience of this (sometime last year), it is almost certainly a region thing. Dbfirs and I are both in the UK, whereas I believe you are in the USA or Canada. The most likely explanation for the difference is Google being cautious over copyright issues. Thryduulf 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

‘Writers very often mystify matters by using words that are not intelligible to their readers. Some with the air of classical knowledge will tell us that “hwyl” is an “affiatus;” and a good many readers will ask, “What is an affiatus?” They may as well aver that “hwyl” is a kind of atmospheric disturbance cause by windmills. It is mere rhetorical enthusiasm. It is a nautical metaphor. “Hwyl” is a “sail;” and when the Welsh say that a man is in a good “hwyl,” they mean that he is moving along or enjoying himself immensely, navigating gloriously on a sea of good feeling. When a man enters into a discussion of a subject enthusiastically, he is said to be “sailing” into it, which is exactly the Welsh idea of “hwyl.” It is somewhat akin to spread-eagleism in politics. The Welsh word “hwyl” is used  generally in a good and, par excellence, in a religious sense. There is, however, one peculiar characteristic of this hwyl which is especially Welsh. This is the peculiar cadences of the Welsh preacher when he is on the high sea of inspiration, when in a grand breeze and with all sails spread, he moves majestically to the goal of his sermon.’ —RuakhTALK 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

heavy roller

See #light roller

light roller

Both heavy roller and light roller are the sum of roller (sense 3, explicitly marked as "cricket") and the primary sense of both heavy and light. Thryduulf 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that a roller is "a heavy rolling device", would you suspect that heavy roller isn't merely a redundant term, or for that matter that a light roller is "a heavy rolling device"? I'm okay with keeping these, but if not there would have to be a lot more explanation at roller. DAVilla 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would favor keeping both of these because they name specific physical items. At least that's how I understand it, since I've never heard of either of these items before (coming as I do from a land where cricket principally refers to an insect). --EncycloPetey 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep both - specific meanings in cricket (played in some Greek islands). Παρατηρητής

en zo voorts

For correct spelling see: here Jcwf 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

internet block


SoP.—msh210 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn’t the sum of the parts. The sum of the parts could means, for example a physical barrier which prevents a user plugging a computer into a modem. That could also prevent a user accessing the Internet.

An Internet block is a specific type of computer programme. Barbara Shack 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Note also that among the first 31 Google Books results for internet-block, just one (by Guthrie) seems to be with this meaning, and it has a capitalized initial I. The rest have commas between the words, or the like, or refer to a block of IP addresses. The remaining five Books results are invisible to me.—msh210 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've capitalized it and added a hyphen. Is it OK now?Barbara Shack 19:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to me, at least, to be a SoP. Others will have their say on that issue, and, doubtless, some of the regulars here will disagree with me. As to whether it's attested (which is what the Google Books results are for), we still have only one result (and it has no hyphen, incidentally; I'm not sure why you added one); can you find more? But attestation is an issue for Requests for verification, not here; and if the consensus here is that this term is not a SoP, then I will recommend moving the discussion to that page for an attempt to find attestation.—msh210 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This fails just like and for the same reason that virus checker, virus scanner, and spam blocker all fail, they are simply SoP names of types of programs. An internet-block is software which blocks the internet, a virus checker is software which checks for viruses. There is no information beyond what is contained in the name which requires definition. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV or delete. If I thought this phrase were real and always had this meaning, I wouldn't be ready to call it SOP, but I don't, so I am. :-) —RuakhTALK 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV to see if some orthography for this has the meaning given: roughly, "selective user-computer internet-site blocker". This longer phrase would seem to be SoP. The phrase in question doesn't quite seem that way because it would seem to me to allow for governmental blocking software not installed on user machines, complete blocking of the open internet while allowing access to intranets, etc. Or am I missing something? DCDuring TALK 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I've used the term, an internet block is not a program, it is a sequential set or IP adresses (usually specified by a mask). RJFJR 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - rubbish. Παρατηρητής

Family Feud

If the show meets CFI it needs to be split out, but I do not think it does. --Connel MacKenzie 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Even an inclusionist like me thinks it should be removed. SemperBlotto 07:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why these things, which regularly survive based on citations, are pushed into RfD instead of RfV. Is it because they can be deleted more quickly? The Proper Noun needs its own entry. The show is used allusively often and attributively on occasion. Why the bias against pop culture? DCDuring TALK 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of the bias against "pop culture" is due to incessant spam from the various media outlets - media outlets that in turn try to get a name out there any way they can - even if it mean crap loading here. (I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here; I'm answering your more general question.) All reasonable dictionaries prohibit product and company names, for many other reasons. But being on the internet, we are a finer target - reasonably, we absolutely should take a much harder line than major print dictionaries. Ans a much harder line than we currently do. --Connel MacKenzie 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've put the proper noun where it belongs. DCDuring TALK 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
RFV (or just keep per citations:Family Feud).—msh210 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The citations on citations:Family Feud are not idiomatic, referring to actual teleivision show (ex: "watching the new Family Feud"). As such, delete.--TBC 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


"Front of a queue" sense. Isn't this just the "foremost part" sense? Does anyone ever say "you can go to the head" when they mean "you can go to the head of the line"? -- Visviva 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"At the head of the queue" and "go to the head of the queue" are the most common formulations, "come to the head of the queue" is rarer. When the context is firmly established as being the position in a queue, you could say "You can go to the head" or "I'm at the head", but in both cases I would use either the word "front" instead of "head" or include the word "queue". In other words, delete sense. Thryduulf 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we look at some of the other senses, too, and the rfc, while we're at it? These multi-sense words are killers. Grouping can help a bit. Some of the entries with contexts are closely associated with a more generic sense, more figurative with more concrete (e.g. pus/crisis).
  1. 2nd sense "any round object". A ball or sphere is not automatically a head.
  2. The sense for hammer/axe head is worded to include striking tools so the business end of a lacrosse stick needs to mentioned separately and other non-striking tools and other implements that have parts called heads that are not included.
  3. It doesn't seem to have a good sense for head of lettuce, cauliflower, etc.
  4. The sense for nail doesn't seem to include screw.
  5. Anyone who is willing to take this on should go to the head of the class. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
1. No, but many round masses are called heads. I have replaced "any" with "a"; is that sufficient?
2. I'm not really familiar with lacrosse terminology, but my understanding is that the rationale for this is similar to the rationale for the guitar sense; it refers to not to the business/top/working end of the stick, but to a very specific part of the stick. As for other tools, I'm sure it's true, but examples would be helpful. Some, like "head of a rake," might be covered by the principal-operating-part sense; or the striking-tool sense might need to be reworded to encompass all hand tools.
3. I guess it depends on whether a seed/flower head and a lettuce head are basically the same thing. My first inclination when reorganizing the defs was actually to put the lettuce example under sense 2; i.e. a head-shaped lump of lettuce, not a capitulum of lettuce -- but other dictionaries seem to disagree.
4. Huh? Why not? The definition mentions screws, and people talk about the heads of screws all the time.
6. I'd be surprised if the pustulent-abscess and crisis senses have any connection; it seems more likely that it is derived from the tendency for the head of the abscess to become round and swollen with pus. -- Visviva 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. I hadn't looked at the edit history. Wow! This is so much improved that I feel like I'm just quibbling, but quibble we must:
  1. I'm not so sure that a round mass not connected to something to make a non-round whole would be said to have a head. The comet usage example is an illustration. Maybe it just has to say "part" in the def.
  2. Too bad "business end" is too idiomatic for defining vocabulary. It seems almost a synonym for some of the senses of head.
    1. The ball-carrying part of a lacrosse stick is the business end. The stick is used (within the rules) for carrying the ball and for holding it while throwing it.
    2. Not just hand tools, but power tools, including industrial ones, also often have heads.
    3. MW3 has 11 subsenses for the sense closest to this (75+ subsenses for "head" as a whole).
  3. I had never known the word capitulum; MW3 uses it as a subsense for an undefined sense, the other half of which is the head-of-lettuce sense.
  4. I think I need another monitor so I can see what I'm writing about while I'm writing. I seem to misrember things. (ie, screw/nail). Huh, indeed.
  5. You are the usage example for head of the class.
  6. I recently got that crisis/abscess relationship from some non-authoritative, but credible source (Crystal or Pinker, I think). They didn't offer any support for the assertion. It seemed to give me a litte aha moment.
  7. Is a well-head ever referred to as the head of a well?
Having a long, single-level list of senses made me use my printer to try to hand-make a hierarchy. A two-level (even three-level hierarchy, as in my MW3) is a little bit of a help in grouping somewhat related definitions. Why is that not done here? The use of "#" allows it technically. DCDuring TALK 11:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Seems so. [4] But this is arguably covered by the "topmost part" sense. -- Visviva 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should move this discussion back to RfC. Regarding subsenses, I was thinking about the same thing and put together one possible mockup at User:Visviva/head. I agree that this leads to much improved readability, but a) MediaWiki's handling of ## seems less than ideal (it's confusing to have multiple "sense 2's"), and b) if this were going to be implemented on more than an experimental basis, it would require thorough community discussion and a revision of WT:ELE, particularly since some additional fiddling with indentation rules is required. -- Visviva 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
RfC seems like the right forum. I'm going to collect prior discussions about subsenses and put the links on a user page somewhere. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding MediaWiki's handling of ##, it would be ideal to have senses labelled as 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, etc. I would assume that doing this will require a mod by a developer to allow this behaviour to be set on a per-project basis rather than being js or css hackable?
If it does require a developer mod, then we will need to show overwhelming support to have any hope of anything being done this side of 2012. Where do we have the discussion about this? Thryduulf 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is CSS-hackable; MediaWiki just generates <ol> and <li> tags for the list and leaves the rest to the browser. Not sure how feasible it is to have one level numeric and one level alphabetic (which IMO would be ideal), but there must be a way. -- Visviva 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The options described at are supported by most halfway-modern browsers (though IIRC not IE 6); something like ol > li > ol { list-style-type: lower-alpha; } would do what you describe (as would just ol ol { list-style-type: lower-alpha; }; the former would only affect ordered-lists that are immediate children of ordered-list elements, while the latter would affect any ordered-list that's a descendant of another). I have no thoughts how to do what Thryduulf describes, barring JavaScript that finds them, sets their list-style-type to none, and inserts the right pattern at the beginning of their content — though that would have the down-side of moving the list markers inside the list. To keep the list markers outside the list and do this would be even more complicated. All told, a great thought, but probably not worth it. —RuakhTALK 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What I currently have here seems to implement Thryduulf's suggestion fairly well, at least on FF/Windows; however, it may cause undesirable effects with other types of lists. -- Visviva 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. One of these days I should re-read the CSS 2.1 spec; I had so completely forgotten that those properties even existed, to the extent that they don't even look familiar! At least, I should re-read it before the next time I decide something is impossible. :-P   Anyway, good work. :-)   Something like this would be even better:

ol { counter-reset: subitem }
ol > li { counter-increment: subitem }
ol ol > li { display: block }
ol ol > li:before { content: counters(subitem, ".") ". " }

since for the top-level it would retain the benefits of actual list style (e.g. the ability to have list-style-position be outside, as it is by default; we can halfway-simulate this with something like ol > li { text-indent: -1.5em }, and maybe we should do so for the nested lists if no one can think of a better way, but for the outer list there's no need).

RuakhTALK 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This would have to go to BP and Vote, I'm pretty sure. There has, unsurprisingly, been discussion of this: Dictionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/May#subdividing_definitions and Talk:quaint, for example. There are probably other discussions, but I'd rather someone selected a good one that they were involved in rather than me trying to determine the quality and import of something I wasn't involved in. It's worth a review of the prior discussion before we reopen it to see if the issue looks different this time. There also might be something else we could do that was less dramatic to improve the definitions for long, basic, highly polysemic words. We seem to be a little light on guidelines, let alone policy, in this area. There are a few examples of subsenses for particular words. Widsith has been a reasoned advocate of subsenses. Most of the ongoing head additional-sense discussion is back at rfc. DCDuring TALK 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


rfd-sense: collective noun. I thought that the collective noun was "herd". DCDuring TALK 03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Whoever added that probably just didn't know what "collective noun" meant. —RuakhTALK 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have converted it into a proper definition. Now, how about the second definition - that does not seem correct, and is in no other dictionary that I have. SemperBlotto 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Turns up in the Canadian Criminal Code [5] . -- Visviva 10:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Revert; the noun is not uncountable. "Uncountable" means a noun cannot be used with numerals, and cattle can be (and is). See this quotation from the NY Times [6] "...bringing with them thirty-five cattle and two horses". The noun most certainly is countable. --EncycloPetey 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This rfd is not about the plural material on the inflection line or in the usage note, but about an already removed purported collective-noun sense (like "herd", eg, a "cattle" of Herefords) that some with more boldness than I would have deleted on sight. I thought maybe there was some other usage that I didn't know (and also wasn't in MW3).
While we're at it we might clean up the plural discussion, which could use some clarification. The {{rare}} "beef" (guffaw) sense is the only sense that seems to me to be uncountable. The "rare" tag, if not just there for the wordplay, might suggest that we should not give such prominence to uncountability on the inflection line. (I would argue for eliminating it from the inflection line in favor of the definition lines for all entries, not just ones like this.) Longman'd DCE just shows it as plural. MW3 shows it as "usually plural in construction". I have not yet searched for "cattle-is" on b.g.c. to see how justified MW3's "usually". The usage note is not as helpful as it might be because it mostly does not address the question of what number-inflection of verb cattle takes. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, I think, that "cattle" is a kind of generic term. If you only have 1 cattle, you would normally define that one as what it actually is, e.g. a bull, or cow, or ox, or whatever member of the cattle genus (if you will allow me to use this term incorrectly here) that one animal happens to be. But most certainly it is NOT a collective noun, and neither is it uncountable. -- Algrif 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The singular use is much, much less common (but citable). The problem is with the term plurale tantum, literally meaning "plural only". Am I supposed to say "usually plurale tantum" or plurale fere or plurale plerumque? I don't know of any dictionaries that provide a good model of how to use plurale tantum in such a case, because I don't know of any dictionaries that use the term at all. I'm sure there must be some, because we wouldn't have wanted to be breaking new ground on something like this. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What I did at pax, which similarly is used far more commonly as a plural, but does get used singularly, is a simple usage note saying "Usually plural". Thryduulf 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it. But I favor keeping "usually plural" within an inch of the inflection line no matter how long the list of definitions. DCDuring TALK 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Abbreviation of a band. Sure, its an acronym, which usually makes any entry passable, but I think we agreed against bans names (except for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones because they're, I guess, so huge). I doubt anyone can see TMBG in their league though. Keene 06:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, it links to a Wikipedia article, not to a definition here. If it stays, then I shall add to AWB. SemperBlotto 07:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that 'hugeness' was a metric we were concerned with, but I added this as a test case anyway. I provided usage cites on Citations:TMBG spanning 8 years, 4 books and a usenet. We don't add band names, but TMBG is not the name of the band, They Might Be Giants is the name of the band. There are several acronyms of this type, STP, P!ATD, where the acronym is well known and widely used, but not the name of the band. (another citation, see: alt text). - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. From the above my understanding is that if TMBG were the official name of the band, we would not even consider including it (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see why not being the official name should ever be an argument for inclusion. Of course if there is any reason to think that this might be used out of context (a la the brand names criterion), or to refer to anything other than the band itself, I'd be inclined to take a second look. -- Visviva 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See the citations page linked above, the term is in use. It is an initialism which has meaning. Why wouldn't we keep it? BMW, AT&T, LAX... we have a long history of keeping initialisms and acronyms even when the term it represents doesn't merit inclusion. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as per argument of Visviva above. --Gauss 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard...I added it, I didn't do so to promote the band, if this is promotional we need to re-nominate almost every brand name entry we have. What about the entry is in any way promotional, any moreso than any brand name or trademarked term which we already have? I am still waiting from some deletion reason based on either president or written policy. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 20:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Replace with {{only in}} Wikipedia. As a band it is clearly not a dictionary term, however as something that people might look up, we should at least shunt them in the right direction. Incidentally waiting for everything to happen according to policy is a bad sign, nothing would ever get done sensibly that way. Conrad.Irwin 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would apply brand-name priciples to bands... and possibly to acronyms in general—that they not be identified in citations (or preceding sections of a work)—but at least to organizations like this. If it's promotional, then the ones promoting it can have fun finding independent citations. I'm not sure that this one would pass, not because the band isn't well-known, but because one would use the full name of the band in contexts where it isn't clear that what's being referred to is a band. At least, I would. If others do not, then that's what citations are for. DAVilla 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


This does not appear in my Classical dictionaries, but that does not mean it isn't a word in New Latin. The problem is that many of the 206 Google cites (linked on the page) are dubious. One of the cites I looked at was otherwise in German, with tincidunt in the middle of it. Many others I looked at seem to be books about software packages, but written in Latin!? I am very confused by all this. Do we have a neologism here? A protologism? Or soomething else? --EncycloPetey 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This is not in my Latin dictionary either - and I can't even figure out what verb is might be a form of. SemperBlotto 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Every bgc result (IINM) is in a lorem ipsum. (There must be some software used by all these authors that generates a lorem ipsum including the word tincidunt.)—msh210 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • So do we delete this, or keep it, since so many books have it, but with a note that it's not a word and has no meaning?—msh210 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm don't think it meets the current CFI, except perhaps for the “general rule” that “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.”link Indeed, that seems to be the reason this entry was created: an anonymous editor found it in lorem-ipsum text generated by a certain lorem-ipsum–generating Web site, and despite knowing the purpose of the site, seemed to believe that it was a real word (which does make sense, seeing as the original lorem ipsum was a corrupted version of an actual Latin text, and one might well expect words in lorem-ipsum text to be real Latin words). So, move to RFD and ponder the nature of meaning. :-) —RuakhTALK 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Preceding is from RFV. Please continue discussion here.msh210 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. to be nice to users who might not be familiar with lorem ipsum, as Ruakh suggested. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    There is at least one other way of being nice, so I take back my keep vote until the finessing more-or-less within-the-rules approach suggested below is evaluated. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as it is used and someone may want to find out what it means (or in this case refers to). sewnmouthsecret 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments. (1) It's obviously meant to look like Latin (especially considering the text always found around it). But it's not Latin. If we keep this, what language header do we use? (2) and what part of speech? (3) I suspect that there are many other terms in tincidunt's class: non-words that are frequently found in lorem-ipsum text. If we keep this, presumably we'll keep all such.—msh210 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    The lorem ipsum entry calls "lorem ipsum" an English noun. It does not have any attestation.
    Perhaps we could finesse the problem. Perhaps we could include "text" including "tincidunt" (not now present in the entry) in the "lorem ipsum" article. That way at least the search engine would lead a user to a place that gave an explanation. (BTW, it would be nice if we could also find at least one real usage example for "lorem ipsum" as a noun. It would also be nice if we had some discussion there about the term on its talk page.) DCDuring TALK 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have found a few cites of "lorem ipsum" being used as a noun for attestation. I have also found a short nonsense quote in which it is used with "tincidunt", which I have inserted in the lorem ipsum entry. Once the article gets re-indexed, it should direct search to that entry as well as "tincidunt". That would make our decisions about "tincidunt" and the precedent it might set a little easier. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    A search for "tincidunt" would find the cited noun entry "lorem ipsum", which is used in English. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    I would have thought one of the key points of lorem ipsum is that it is ==Translingual== . -- Visviva 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    I wouldn't object to such altering of lorem ipsum. I was just interested in whether we could stick to the form of our practice about PoS and citation, preferably both for lorem ipsum and tincidunt. We seem to be able to do it for lorem ipsum under one of English or Translingual header. I see how by finesse to include in search "tincidunt" and many other frequently occuring pseudo-words without having to have new entries for them, but I don't see how they can be entries under our existing rules. Nor do I particularly want to if search would take a user to an informative lrem ipsum entry. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I think that "lorem ipsum" itself is probably a valid English term, but that the words (or word-like objects) which occur in lorem ipsum passages are best regarded as translingual. IMO the same arguments that apply to having entries for nonsense Hangul sylables that have never been used to convey meaning -- which the community recently decided was desirable -- would apply at least as strongly to lorem ipsum words, which at least are used for some purpose. Given the structure of Wiktionary, I would say that if we are going to cover such words in mainspace, they should each be given their own entry. If not, they could simply be listed in Appendix:Lorem ipsum. -- Visviva 09:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    An appendix is only useful if you know what you are looking for or at least realize that are appendices to search. It's one drawback to citation space. There are many more users who don't know than who do. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed formatting slightly (my goof). Fair enough, but if these are worthy of mainspace inclusion -- and they certainly do provide some user value, if only to let the user know that this is not a real word -- I think they really do need their own individual entries. -- Visviva 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't, because they're never used as words. They're nonsense text that appear in a single, specific (albeit widely circulated) "text". The text is in pseudo-Latin, which is not a language and has no ISO code. The individual "words" are never used in Latin nor in any other language I know of. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see how that would make them any worse than random Hangul syllables which are never used to convey meaning, but which the community unanimously decided were desirable because someone might want to know that they are not words (or something like that). At least there is plausible reason to think that someone might actually imagine that tincidunt (et al.) are words, and need to be disabused of the notion. -- Visviva 10:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    The differences are: (1) Hangul syllables are used to assemble words. So, just as we have entries for the letters of the Roman alphabet, we have entries for Hangul syllables. (2) Hangul syllables have a language header; tincidunt does not because it is not used in any language. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Good point, EncycloPetey (15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)). All the cites are from the same widely distributed lorem ipsum. So they're not independent, right?—msh210 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ubiquitous network society

This seems wrong. I'm not sure why: SoP; no consistent meaning; nonsense. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be nonsense to some, but it is a topic widely discussed in the telecom community around the world. It was one of the main themes of the ITU (International Telecom Union) conference in 2006: [7]. A simple Google search will give more than 10,000 hits. Hekaheka 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I had thought it was suspect, but was surprised to find that it is rather widespread. Keep as a set phrase.--Dmol 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I should have just RfV'd this I suppose. Does anyone have sensible usage of this? Does it have a single somewhat vague meaning? Does it have multiple meanings more sharply defined, but more broadly used than in one author's works? Does it have a specific context where people would know what was meant? DCDuring TALK 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, the term is mostly used by telecom speacialists, certainly by a number of authors, and it has been in existence for more than three years now. It has a clearly defined meaning. I agree with Dmol, it looks set phrase to me. I have not seen e.g. "omnipresent web society" used as an alternative term, although the words could mean the same. Added one quote. Hekaheka 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Move to RFV. I don't think this passes the test; its use is too narrow, apparently limited to those within the conference-attending segment of the telecom industry, only. --Connel MacKenzie 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Which problem do we have with conference-attending telecom experts? I'm sure there are a lot of terms in Wiktionary that are used by much smaller segments of people. It's not only telecom people that are discussing the ubi-society. Among the 11,500 Google hits and 50 bgc hits are publications discussing e.g. biometrics, retail trade, airspace and vehicular technology. --Hekaheka 09:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

tío materno

Sum of parts. Spanish, like English, has no word especially for maternal or paternal relatives. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete, I guess, except that it seems silly to delete it as long as we still have maternal uncle. —RuakhTALK 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

tío paterno

Sum of parts. Spanish, like English, has no word especially for maternal or paternal relatives. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How else would you know that it doesn’t simply mean a "fatherly uncle"? —Stephen 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

abuelo paterno

Sum of parts. Spanish, like English, has no word especially for maternal or paternal relatives. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


American-rock-band sense. —RuakhTALK 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

From a help-the-normal-user perspective, I've never understood why such a sense is a bad thing. Maybe we could make the sense line slightly more informative and include a link to the WP article. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete sense - it's purely encyclopedic. bd2412 T 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Proper, yes, but still part of the English lexicon. DAVilla 06:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Spam. The last edit was by the site's author. Dmcdevit·t 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not spam, but not obviously CFI-meeting either; has no obvious lexicographical interest apart from being a famous acronym. Should probably go the same way as #TMBG above, so I will vote as I did there to delete. -- Visviva 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: if deleted, we should have a line in Dictionary:Glossary for entries like molly-guard to link to. -- Visviva 12:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
delete we are not here to provide endless links to other "Free" dictionaries. --Williamsayers79 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep in the current soft-link form. --Connel MacKenzie 10:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Also: see other discussions on other dictionaries; inherently of lexical value. --Connel MacKenzie 10:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I think we should keep it, but I don't have a good reason why. :-P   —RuakhTALK 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

maternal uncle

Sum of parts: useful only as a place to hang translations. (Unlike some editors, I'm not thoroughly opposed to having such a place in cases like this where a lot of languages make this distinction; but if we're going to do that, the entry should be structured so as to make that clear, and it should only include the translations that rightfully hang there. A lot of the translations we currently list are either catch-all words for "uncle", or equally-SOP translations.) —RuakhTALK 12:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it really sum of parts? A genealogically naive user might assume it means "mother's uncle." -- Visviva 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Or a matronly uncle. —Stephen 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not sum of parts. No combination of maternal or uncle will define the term without ambiguity.--Dmol 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Necessary, and desirable, in English. Translations which are SOP should have their component words wikilinked separately. Widsith 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, question: would y'all argue that since maternal brother isn't already taken as a genealogical term, it might indeed indicate a mother's brother, or to a motherly brother? It's true that maternal has multiple senses, but I believe that maternal <relative> has only one, and various examples of this fact are all SOP. —RuakhTALK 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I would say that "maternal brother" can only mean a brother who is quite motherly. At any rate, it is pretty confusing to interpret it any other way. More to the point, it is an almost non-existant phrase, whereas maternal uncle is a very common collocation, and furthermore is idiomatic in the sense that this is the most natural way to express the concept in English. Widsith 05:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, all the b.g.c. hits I can find for "maternal brother" use it to mean "brother with whom ego shares a mother" only... however, a web search for "maternal brother"+"mother's brother" turns up a number of sites which appear to treat these phrases as synonymous. (For example, on a professor's course-notes website, "He notes in European stories the maternal brother is good and the father's brother is evil." [8]) This does seem to indicate that "maternal" can be polysemous even when applied to relatives, at least when the author is not paying strict attention. Personally, if I encountered "maternal brother" out of context, I wouldn't be sure which way to interpret it, if only because the notion of distinguishing siblings by shared parent is rather foreign to me. -- Visviva 06:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, good point. You could obviously have a maternal brother and a step-brother. Widsith 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So if I may paraphrase: there's a strong tendency to interpret maternal uncle as "uncle on one's mother's side", just as there's a strong tendency toward that interpretation of maternal <relative> in all other cases. (Is that fair to say?) That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the term's non-SOP-ness. —RuakhTALK 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. --Bequw¢τ 23:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. IMO reasonable doubt exists as to compositionality, and the value of this and related terms as translation-hangers adds some weight in favor of keeping. -- Visviva 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter terms

I presume all the other wonderful Harry Potter coinages/meanings abide by the same policy?

And probably a few others. For some of them RfD/RfV has already been placed. --Ivan Štambuk 13:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

From an above discussion, these should all be looked into and decided upon individually, most can be deleted without prejudice. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but save sieppi. I have already deleted Harry Potter -sense, but the word has other meanings in Finnish. Hekaheka 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
מחפש (m'khapés), seeker) is not just a Harry Potter term; it should be fixed rather than deleted. —RuakhTALK 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
quidditch is now a real sport. That will pass RFV or RFD. I imagine Muggle would pass, as well. sewnmouthsecret 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course these terms shouldn't be deleted outright if they aren't just HP terms. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Native Californian

Seems strictly SoP. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This isn't SoP, it's just incorrectly defined. It's a state-level equivalent of Native American. It refers not to those born in California, but to the indigenous people present in the region of the state before the arrival of Europeans, and to the descendants of those people. --EncycloPetey 13:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You want to keep an incorrect sense on the grounds that there might be a real sense? I challenge the entry as it is. I've never heard of the usage you suggest. It is certainly plausible, but needs to be cited. If it is actually used as you say, we will have to keep the SoP meaning to clarify the distinction in use. I'd like see in what context it is used. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I agree (or disagree, depending on how you look at it) with both of you. I would say that anyone trying to use the term "Native Californian" in the why it's defined would probably be considered wrong, so SoP isn't the issue ("native Californian" seems better), and the term is commonly used to refer to indigenous Californians. At the same time, I find it confusing, or even annoying, when people say "keep" for a bad sense, just because another attestable sense for that word exists. You don't really mean that you want to keep it, you mean "delete-it-but-oh-by-the-way-it-should-be-replace-by-this-meaning." In any case, I have deleted that sense, but oh by the way, I replaced it with EP's, and cites for it. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, a lot of admins don't give helpful deletion summaries, so a later reader (potential contributor) coming across a deleted entry is likely to think that we've rejected the sense they're thinking of. If there's not consensus to keep any of the currently defined sense, but there is consensus that the term has a real sense that warrants inclusion but that no one has added (for whatever reason), then I'd either (1) change the def to a {{substub}} or (2) delete the entry with a deletion summary that makes clear the need for a better entry. But either way, thanks for side-stepping that by adding the right sense. :-) —RuakhTALK 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe not. Someone born in California is a native Californian, but not Native Californian, I suppose. Edited the article using entry on "Native American" as a model. Hekaheka 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Grr, I just edit-conflicted you on the article, and the again here. I just put my version of the article in instead of yours; no hard feelings I hope. ;-) Our definitions were essentially the same, I just added citations for the senses. Dmcdevit·t 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
SoP sense has been deleted. Entry is now beautiful. It never occurred to me that this is what the phrase meant. In the northeastern US the state names aren't used that way. "Native New Yorker" just doesn't seem likely to be what a Native American from the Six Nations (Iroquois) would call themselves.
Does "Native Californian" merit a usage note or something to distinguish it from "native Californian"? DCDuring TALK 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
A usage note does seem in order for this entry. I expect that one reason that Native Californian is used, but that the construction is not used for other US states, is that (1) California is highly isolated geographically from surrounding, so indigenous peoples seldom migrated across what later became state borders, (2) there is a highly charged political issue concerning recognition of tribes and their lands in this state, (3) Native Arizonan, Native Oreganian, et.c just aren't as euphonious. --EncycloPetey 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This entry is now lacking and misleading. The SoP sense filled the gap between the common meaning of the term and the relatively rare meaning (that we now currently have a definition for.) If the intent was to describe it in a usage note, that never happened. While Hekahaka's observation might be more correct than the common use, most bumper stickers will have the "N" capitalized. Even if pedantically it should be a small "N", it is instead capitalized, normally. Rejecting how the term is commonly used, for the sake of political correctness, seems directly opposite to Wiktionary's purpose. Furthermore, I see only two citations for each of the rare forms, not the requisite three. --Connel MacKenzie 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, you seem to be wrong: the first few pages of google books:"native californian" and google:"native californian" are almost entirely in the sense we define. (Incidentally, this continues to be true if we ignore the uppercase-N hits.) —RuakhTALK 00:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

May 2008


Characterized as a suffix. It is not. It is a "combining form", which we do not normally allow as an entry AFAIK. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Actually, this is not a combining form nor a suffix (at least in the examples cited). This is simply a Latin verb (scrībō) which is the etymon of a number of English words. Unless someone can find some words which are the result of an English suffix "-scribe" this really needs to go. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If it were a combining form, would we keep it? Are you suggesting that this should be an RfV? DCDuring TALK 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. This combining form has meaning to English speakers; just about every combination-word that I thought to Google, including omniscribe and retroscribe and angloscribe, had hits. I couldn't find any that seem to meet CFI; but they suggest to me that -scribe itself might be worth including. (Of course, it would need to be fixed — firstly, to change "suffix" to "combining form", per DCDuring, and secondly, to make clear that the terms in the "Related terms" are just that, and not derived terms, per Atelaes, lest we give readers the wrong idea.) —RuakhTALK 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. First;y, this isn't a suffix; it's a Latin root word. A suffix is an ending tacked onto a root, not a root itself. Nor is this an English combining root, well, at least not in the examples given. Each of those comes from a Latin source word formed from a preposition + scrībō. That is, the combination was made in Latin, and the resulting combination was then transmitted into English. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This feels like the type of entry that should be well understood by English speakers, in which case there may be productive evidence that it has entered the English language. That is, it might be possible to find neologisms that were formed with an understanding of what this combining form means. But you're right that without that, it isn't an English term. DAVilla 05:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

have a bathe

Sum of parts. Thryduulf 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Semper added have a bathe and have a bath. He wrote that the former means to "immerse oneself in the sea" and the latter "to wash oneself in a bath". If this is correct in whatever dialect, then I'd keep both to illustrate the difference, and use {{see}}. Can someone confirm this distinction?—msh210 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would never use "have a bath" to mean "immerse oneself in the sea", and using "have a bathe" to mean "wash ones self in the bath" rather than "have a relaxing soak in a bath" would be unusual ("have a bath" can mean the primary intention is either to get clean or to relax, and neither precludes the other as a side effect) - i.e. one can "bath" only in a bath, but one can "bathe" in either a bath or in the sea (or in any other body of liquid). So, yes there is a distinction, but to me though it is entirely that between the verb "bath" and the verb "bathe". Thryduulf 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added content at bathe, including UK noun sense. -- Thisis0 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

have a bath

Sum of parts. Thryduulf 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above s.v. #have a bathe.—msh210 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep, this doesn't mean "own a bath". "bath" doesn't even have a verb entry at this time, quite rightly IMO. Kappa 08:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 ?? If you'll take a quick look at google books:have, you'll notice that have usually doesn't mean "own". Even if you restrict it to google books:"have a", not one of the top ten hits means "own". Also, you seem to believe that in the phrase "have a bath", bath is a verb? If so, then that belief is mistaken; if not, then sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. —RuakhTALK 14:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just added the verb sense to bath, supported by three citations spanning 17 years. Thryduulf 10:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep per fancy dress test. Sounds awkward to Americans. DAVilla 05:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

must have killed a Chinaman

Sum of its parts. This not a metaphor or an idiom; it's used literally, if facetiously. --Ptcamn 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Facetious expression of Karma-esque thinking. DCDuring TALK 09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Now has three cites spanning many years. Idiomatic, not SoP.--Dmol 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that the first cite is a mention.—msh210 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I had never doubted that it could be cited. I think it is SoP. One could substitute any bad deed for "killed a Chinaman". The construction "must have (done a bad deed) in (one's) past life" might be an idiom. Is "kill a Chinaman" a synonym for "bad deed"? DCDuring TALK 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

see this -- Thisis0 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just looking at it. Sigh. It might also be that "kill a Chinaman" meant to "do an inconsequential bad deed". There are plenty of other forms of the Karmic construction, but none seem to have the authority of Macquarie's and Partridge's behind them. Add offensive tag and Keep. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that in this saying it refers to an "inconsequential bad deed" (as in the unrelated American folktale of Roy Bean [9][10][11]), but rather the opposite. It seems in Australia that "Chinamen" have long had an aura of superstition surrounding them (at least historically), and in this saying, the weight and curse of "killing a Chinaman" is great or enormous like killing a wizard, sage, or fairy. -- Thisis0 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I added a few cites to the citations page, good usage ones spanning a while. I read a bunch of kill a Chinaman snippets and only this particular version seemed idiomatic. - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep per superstition > SoP. DAVilla 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have lived in Australia with this saying for over 50 years, and I have never come across any evidence of a Chinese person offended by it. I'm not saying there are none, but they are not common. Most of them have broader shoulders than that. In any case, it is a real saying used by real people. If someone hears it and wants to know what it means, they need somewhere to find out. Keep it. No citation - just 50 yrs of real life experience with the saying. A real Australian. 23:28, 23 Jul 2008 (UTC)

meeting room

Meaning unexceptionable, that is, SoP. Do we keep it anyway? What is the rationale? Is that really clear in WT:CFI? DCDuring TALK 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep, if only for the translations section which needs to be written. To my knowledge there is often a more or less fancy compound used to refer to such rooms. -- Gauss 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep per dining room. Not sure about rationale. It's just what the place is called. When you're looking for a new apartment, you ask for the leasing office. It doesn't matter if that's what they call it or not, that's still what it is. DAVilla 06:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I'd call it a conference room. Meeting room sounds slightly stilted, but I knew what it meant. (And that means it's SoP, no?)—msh210 22:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

B. splendens

This is illustrative of a type of abbreviation common in botany and zoology. It is a context-dependent abbreviation. The meaning of B. would vary according to what genus was being discussed. I would assume that such entries should be deleted on sight or moved to the spelled-out entry name if it does not already exist. Please advise on any better course of action. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak don't know. E. coli should be acceptable though, and several more widely used ones. SemperBlotto 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for reminding me. I wouldn't have deleted that one - almost no matter what was said here. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with SB. There are a few which we should keep. E. coli is one and C. elegans is another, but that's all I can think of. No one says (nor writes) H. sapiens or M. musculus, and Drosophila always just goes by its genus for some reason. I think anything besides the above two should be shot on sight. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. If I come across any marginal cases, I'll check b.g.c. for use outside of technical literature or bring them here. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My experience is that the abbreviations are only used routinely for model organisms whose genus name is long and hard to spell. So, you'll see E. coli and C. elegans instead of Escherichia coli and Caenorhabditis elegans. But each of these is ambiguous, since there is an Entamoeba coli (gut parasite of some note) and Calochortus elegans (a flower). For Drosophila and Arabidopsis, the genus name is used instead. And, as Atelaes has noted, no one bothers to abbreviate Homo or Mus, perhaps because the names are so short anyway. Likewise Zea mays isn't abbreviated.
There is at least one other model organism whose name is regularly abbreviated, and that is S. cereviciae (Saccharomyces cereviciae), or "brewer's yeast". It's abbreviated name deserves an entry as well. --EncycloPetey 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with Atelaes. Check each for cites without context and keep. (A valid cite, imo, would be, e.g., a journal article entitled "Bright red B. splendens", even if its text/abstract starts "Betta splendens...".)—msh210 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's the trick. Quite frankly, you could probably cite just about any such abbreviation. That does not mean that anyone except for the twenty or so people working on the species actually understand it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope I don't correctly understand what you are saying. As I understand it, an implication would be that we should have a sense of "fish" that corresponds to each genus, species, and subspecies of fish for which we could find a use of the word fish that was referring to that type of fish.
This is not idle or facetious. I would expect that I could find a few senses each for "A. palmata", "A. palmatus", "A. palmatum", "B. palmata", etc. I'm certainly not going to cite them myself and would be inclined to RfV each instance. I was trying to make our lives easier, not harder. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the test should be if the abbreviation is used in non-technical publications without expansion on several occasions spanning at least a year; news articles would be good sources of these I suspect. Off the top of my head I'd say that E. coli and C. difficile should have entries, as should the latter's even more abbreviated form C. diff. Thryduulf 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Semi-relevant newbie question, are the things findable through "durably archived"? Conrad.Irwin 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As durably archived as it gets. Now, that's not to say that they necessarily meet CFI; that's a whole nother conversation. But, yes, very durably archived. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We seem to deem them to be. IMHO, the hard part is getting access if not affiliated with a subscribing institution. In practice, I rarely find useful material-in-context from Scholar, much more from b.g.c. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that, in order to avoid misleading the user, we should include all the possible senses of each abbreviation. Thus, based solely on the woefully incomplete coverage of Wikispecies, we should have at least one sense each for Buchnera, Buchanania, and Beaufortia, as well as for Betta. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We run into the problem then of all the taxonomic synonyms, obsolete combinations, and nomina nuda that have ever appeared in publications. This is a door best left closed. Having the entry on Wiktionary would add nothing that couldn't be better handled by a good search on Wikispecies. --EncycloPetey 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Or even a search for splendens on Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkish loanwords from Serbian

jelek; Turkish yelek (vest, waist, waistcoat); originally that word came from Serbo-Slavic obleka (cloth; Gon-bel-Gon basis; i.e. heblek => jeblek = jelek); cf. jagluk from (h)oglavak, a maiden scarf.

kavez; Kavez (Tur. kafese) comes from the Gon-Bel basis; Serbo-Slavic okov (fetter), hvatanje (catch), gvožđe/gvozd (iron), uvezati (fasten); Serbian syntagma "baciti u gvožđa" (to shackle); cf. Serbian gvozd and Hephaistos Ἡφαιστος; Serb. gvožđe (iron) => zvezda (star), gvožđara (iron shop) => zvezdara (the place full of stars) and Gr. εσεσιδηρωτο (overlaid with iron), also Gr. σεσιδηρω-μενοι; Lat. sidereus starry).

kašika; Turkish kaşık (spoon) is not Turkish inherited word. Serbo-Slavic kašika (spoon) is clearly related to the verb 'kvašenje' (wetting, soaking) and to the Serbo-Slavic word 'kaša' (soup; from kvašenica). It is the reason why we have the forms kašika and kovšika (Russ. ковшик) as Slavic spoon).

jastuk; Turkish yastık (Turkmen ÿassyk) could be compared to OE hassuc (coarse grass); maybe it is related to English husk (Serb. ljuska). Nevertheless, there is a more reliable possibility that Serbian jastuk (pillow) is derived from the verb uzdignuti (lift up) or 'istaknuti' (jut, prominent, protrude) and we all know that jastuk (pillow) is a part of bed that is bulged out from the bed surface.

dusek; The Russian word подушка/poduška (pillow) explains the Serbo-Slavic word dušek (mattress), because poduška is derived from Serbo-Salvic podloga (substratum, pillow, background, backing, bedding, basis, floor, bottom), Serb. podloška (pillow, groundwork, pad, bed); it means that 'dušek' (mattress) is an apheresis of the Serb-Slavic word 'po-dloška' (bed). Turkish döşek (bed, mattress) is a clear-cut borrowing from Serbo-Slavic.

butina; Butina (thigh) is also related to above-mentioned Serbo-Salvic podloga (base); the same compund word from which English foot and leg were derived; cf. Ice. fótleggur.

kobasica; Kobasica appeared be related to Sanskrit gopas (shepherd), but it came from the above-mentioned Serbian okov (fetter) and verbs okivati (shackle, band) and očuvati (keep, preserve, beware). Logically, nothing can be preserved if it is not "fettered" or "fastned" or put into a shackles (cage); therefrom, kobasica is a food that can be preserved from decaying for a long period (shepherd's food); cf. Serbian čoban (shepherd), čuvanje (keeping), okivanje (shackling).

odaja; Turkish oda (room; Turkmen otag) is probably related to Serbian odaja (room); but Serbian odaja is just one of the forms of the words as odeljenje (section, department; cf. Ger. Teil, Eng. deal) or odeljak (Ger. Abteil); from the Serbo-Slavic deliti (devide, separate).

vampir; Vampir (vampire) is the only word that allegedly was borrowed from Serbian although that word seems to be more related to Latin vapor (steam); yes, it could also come from Serbo-Slavic upariti (to steam; para steam); cf. Old Russian упирь (vampire); here it would be interesting to mention that English spirit (from Lat. spiritus soul) sounds almost the same as Serbian ispariti (steam out) and ispiriti (to exhale, expire!!).

kutija; Serbian kutija (box) is related to Serbian words kut (ugao), ćošak (ugao), kocka (cube; cf. Serb. ćoškast = kockast /cubelike/), kuća (house).

leš; Leš (corpse) is probably related to Serbian verb 'ležati' (lie down); cf. Serb. syntagma "leži mrtav" (he lies dead)

kovrdžav; Kovrdža (curl) comes from kvrga (bump, nub), kvržica (a small nub), kurgan; cf. Serb. kvrgast knotty (from krug /circle/); opposite to kvrga is jaruga/jarak (ditch, furrow, harrow, Lat. corrugo -are).

čelik; Čelik (steel; kako se kalio čelik; Ostrovsky's novel "How the Steel Was Tempered"); from Serbo-Slavic kaliti (to steel; Russ. за-каляю); Czech ocel (steel); Serb. očeličiti (to steel, harden); okaliti/ prekaliti (harden, steel).

budala; Budala (fool); metathesis from Serbian poludeti (mad, madden, craze), bludeti (wanton); bludeo - poludeo - budala; hence the Serbian adverb podlo (meanly); podlost (baseness).

kapija; Kapija (gate) is from Serbian poklopac (cover, lid), oklapati, za- klapati (to cover, close); Serb. "za-klopi kapiju" (close the gate!; oklop /shell/ => klapija => kapija).

sapun; Sapun (soap); related to Serbian 'sipanje' (pour) and za-peniti (to foam); cf. Serb. sapunati (to soap).

barut; Barut (gunpowder); from Serbo-Slavic prah/porah (dust; Russ. порох); from Serb. prsnuti (burst, break, explode, spray; Lat. aspergo spray); cf. Serb. brašno (flour; Ukr. борошно), Russ. порошок; Arabic barud; Greek πυρίτιδα, μπαρούτι; Aramaic b@rwt, ˁaprā dust; Akkadian eperu (dust; cf. Serbian pra' dust, gunpowder). According to Xurbelanum HSF formula the basis of all the above words is Bel-Hor-Gon (Latin pulvereus!)

džep; Džep (pocket; Arabic jaib); also gajba (cage); cf. Serb. kavez; Ita. gabbia (cage); from the Gon-Bel basis, kibla, kabal, kabao, kofa; from Serbian kupilo (bucket, cupel), okupljati (to gather together); English gap

sat; Sat (Turkish saat; Turkmen sagat; Hebrew sha`ah /hour/)... Aramaic šāˁtā (moment of time) could be compared to the Serbian adverb 'sada' (now); Serb. vreme sadašnje (present tense); Russ. сегодня/ sevodnya (today); South-Serbian секогаш/sekogaš (ever, forever); svaki all, ever; zauvek forever; Latin secunda... I hope, now you are able to understand that the word sat (hour) is a clear cut IE word that cannot be explained neither in Turkish nor Semitic languages.

dželat; Dželat (executioner; Turkish cellat); cf. gallows; OE galga is related to Serbian kolac (pole; cf. Turkish golcü executioner); In this case, dželat (executioner) is the Turkish loanword in Serbian but this word originally started from Serbian 'kolac' (pole, pale). We all know that impaling was the most favorite punishment in Dark Ages. Serb. kolac (pole) => Tur. golcü (executioner) => cellat/dželat (executioner).

tavan; Turkish tavan (ceiling) and Serbian tavan (attic, loft) are very imteresting words because they seem to be related to Serbian adjective 'tavno/tavan' (dark); Aramaic ṭellālā (shade, ceiling; Arabic zallal dark) might be in connection with Serbian/Turkish/Arabic tavan. Serbo- Slavic tamno (Russ. темный/temniy; Czech temný, tma, tajemný, tmavý, temno; Serb. tmina darkness, po-tamnilo darkened) is derived from Gon- Bel-Gon basis similar to the other Serbian words as dubina (deepness), tamnica/tavnica (prison, jail). In case of the Serbian words tavan/ taman (dark) the b=>m sound change is clearly visible. Serbian tavan (loft) and tavanica (ceiling) are clearly related to Serbian tavnica/ tamnica (prison, jail). In reality, ancient man realized that as you go deeper (Serbian dubina) under the ground the environment is getting more and more dark (Serb. tavno/tamno); it means that prison is a dark space as well as it is the space above the ceiling - Serb. tavan (loft, attic).

Finally, if we compare English ceiling and cellar/cell (German Keller basement; from Latin celare con-cealing covering, hiding) we will be able to understand the logic of the development of Serbo-Slavic words tavan (loft), tavanica, tavnica (ceiling), tavnica/tamnica (prison) and tavan/taman (dark; tmina darkness).

Ko je ovaj moj tekst prosledio ovde? Slučajno naleteh. Imam utisak da neko o tome raspravlja kao da je on autor tog teksta. U svakom slučaju, hteo bih to da raščistim. Zar se ovde može postirati i inkognito?
Who posted this article? I have impression that this guy is pretending to be me. Weird, isn't it?
Dušan Vukotić
Ha, now I see. Everyone can write/post here whatever he likes. Wonderful!
Or you are pretending to be him, or both of you are pretending to be someone else, or you are the same person operating an anonymous sock puppet. Regardless, all edits are logged in the page history, so it is possible to verify which account was used to make any given edit. --EncycloPetey 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Why would I be pretending to be someone else? I found this web page a few days ago and I was surprized seing that my name has been mentioned here as if I was a regular Wiki visitor/contributor! Yesterday I registered myself as - Vukotic; I thought (wrongly, of course) it would be necessary...

All of these words have been wrongly placed as having a Turkish origin. Could you please provide the correct etymology for a change for both the Slavic and the Turkish words - which is unmistakably Slavic.

Thank you.

I reverted your edits- I don't know anything about Slavic languages, but I figured that it should be discussed before deleting it. Nadando 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You have shown some word similarities, but that does not demonstrate the direction of the borrowing. If there are similar words in two languages, that does not tell us which was the originating language. Appealing to German, Arabic, and Latin does not demonstrate a Slavic origin either. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

These are not similarities but rather explanations of the origin of the words in question and to other words they are related. By giving you German and Latin cognates I am providing you with further proof that they are part of the Indo-European language family which proves that they aren't derived from a Turkish word as Turkish isn't an IE language. Also all of these words cannot be explained using any of the words in the Turkish vocabulary.

But Arabic and Aramaic are not Indo-European; they are Semitic languages. I repeat: you have listed some words you think are similar; other people may disagree that they are similar, especially since in several cases the meaning is quite different between the supposedly related words. Etymology is not based on similarity. It is based on change through time. You must demonstrate that each word existed in Serbian before it existed in Turkish. At the least you must cite a reliable source. --EncycloPetey 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with any of the Slavic languages? If you are you would clearly see the relation of the words. They are related and thus of the same origin; leš comes from lež[ati]. It's absurd to even question the relation of these words. I don't think that whoever has placed these words as Turkish ('kašika' for example) has provided any proof of any kind as to how it is a Turkish word. All of the examples are clearly cognates to words I have provided. I don't have the time nor the patience to give you a linguistics lecture here. If this site is supposed to help people and provide them with factual information than its clearly far from it. Max Vasmer provides proof on this.

You asked if I was familiar with them, then seem to assume I am not. I have studied some Croatian, Polish, and Czech. I have regularly used medieval Polish records in doing research. I have also done the same for Hungarian, so I am well-aware of the interchange of words between languages in the Balkans. You need not give a linguistics lecture, since your knowledge of comparative linguistics seems dated. It is clear you are only interested in pushing your point of view through handwaving arguments. --EncycloPetey 05:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Gon-bel-Gon :))) ? Oh dear, it's Dušan Vukotić with his brain-damaged "human speech formula" theories. Here is his blog which illuminates some of his naive semantic correspondence theories, and also you might wanna look him up on sci.lang where he's been getting on people's nerves for months (usually he's being ignored/mocked). Just block him the next time he comes reversing widely accepted etymologies and starts to provide his "theories"; discussing with him is pointless waste of time.
(PS, for those interested, his "Gon-Bel-Gon" theory is that all of IE is somehow derivable from about four syllables, two of which are BEL and GON. It's a bizarre mixture of mysticism, unsystematic and very vague sound similarities, and free association of ideas. You can get an idea from these posts: [12] (yes, that's cybalist!) [13]) --Ivan Štambuk 06:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. To the ip user, please do not remove etymologies already in place as you clearly do not know what youre doing. Thanks for the info Ivan. --Dijan 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Noun + particle. We're still down on these, right? -- Visviva 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We keep declined forms in other languages. I say keep. —Stephen 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But as I'm sure you know, nouns don't technically decline in Korean, any more than they do in Japanese; they simply take a range of particles. Just as English has no possessive case, Korean has no accusative case. -- Visviva 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete if I understand correctly that the particle attaches to a noun phrase or other nominal, and not necessarily to an individual noun. (Otherwise no vote: I see no obvious benefit to such entries, but no obvious harm in them, either, and am happy to let y'all sort it out at Dictionary:About Korean.) —RuakhTALK 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Japanese, like Chinese, Thai, and Khmer, does not use word spaces, so it is debatable whether the postpositions and particles are suffixes or separate words. Most authorities treat them as separate words. In Korean, they are suffixes, exactly like the case endings in Turkish, Mongolian, and Finnish. If it were not for the traditional parsing of Japanese as noun+postposition, these Korean words would probably be considered noun cases. And while having terms such as 꿈을 does no harm, on the other hand they are useful because they yield a useful result when you search for them. If you don’t know Korean and search for 꿈을, and if the only entries are for and , you would not know what the word meant. —Stephen 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This last is a valid point; I've been vaguely thinking that we should have a standard usage note (or sidebar, or something) that notes the more frequent (and semi-irregular) particles, so that the entry would also appear prominently in searches for 꿈이, 꿈을, 꿈과, etc. On the one hand, AFAIK Korean grammarians are unanimous in regarding particles (조사) as separate words. The standard South Korean orthography (한글맞춤법) specifically notes particles as an exception to the principle of words being separated by spaces. Samuel Elmo Martin and others even write them as separate words; thus in Yale, this would be transliterated as kkwum ul. So for us to treat something like 꿈을 as a word would be a serious exercise in OR. On the other hand, our target audience cannot be assumed to be familiar with the finer points of Korean grammar, so a templated usage note seems to me like the best approach. -- Visviva 09:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. We treat Korean particles as separate words, consistent with standard Korean grammar, so this is just a multiple word phrase with no linguistic value beyond the sum of its parts. Rod (A. Smith) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate you people. If it looks like a word it should be treated like a word. It's just mean to say "Oh sorry, technically it's not one word according to standard Korean grammar, come back to wiktionary after you've learned it". It's even worse than screwing people on English possessives, at least the 's gives a visual clue. Kappa 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's bad to be mean, but it's also bad to be wrong. Ideally we can find a way to be neither. To this end, I've created {{ko-usage-particles}} and added it to . Does this address your concerns?
FWIW, I was once of the same opinion regarding the major Korean particles (see the early revisions of Template:ko-noun), but was eventually persuaded of the error of my ways. -- Visviva 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A search for 꿈을 only finds that page, it does not find the page. The only way to get to from "꿈을", if 꿈을 is deleted, is if you know enough about Korean and Korean grammar to try dropping the last syllable when searching. This puts Korean generally out of reach to most Americans. —Stephen 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my input. As someone who knows nothing about Korean, I have to say that the difference between 꿈을 and , or rather the lack thereof, is thoroughly confusing. When does one use a particle, and when not? How many particles are there, and how many attach to this word? (Abstain of course.) DAVilla 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Note: see also Dictionary:Votes/pl-2008-06/Plurals of proper nouns.

OK User:EncycloPetey is pulling all kinds of bullshit excuses to try to keep this deleted without discussion. If the community intends to screw over its readership let's have some real debate to show them. Kappa 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my talk page, you'll see there was discussion. It is you who insisted on overturning a deletion without discussion or indeed even looking at the discussion that had happened. Your attitude and language are very unbecoming. Please play nice. I have started a formal discussion below. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK I'm sorry I didn't realize you were having a secret discussion, perhaps because it wasn't advertised. Kappa 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a WIKI. Discussions posted on pages are not secret. The problem is that you didn't look, jumped to conclusions, and proceded to make accusations and use profanity. At what point in this process did I cause you to go astray? --EncycloPetey 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
... where was I supposed to look? Kappa 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If you knew I deleted it, then why not see my talk page? --EncycloPetey 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have waited on this to let my anger subside. Why was it OK to delete this outside of RfD/RfV? I do not believe that a discussion which someone is supposed to find if they happen to notice the deletion is in any way a substitute for the public one. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Administrators have to do this all the time. Not everything which is deleted is brought to rfv/d, nor could it be. If it were, the pages would cease to function, being overwhelmed with junk. People who make a habit of patrolling (as EP does), have to rely on their own judgment to decide what is obvious crap and what is more controversial. There are many difficult decisions, but a good general rule is that if a word is in someway contrary to general convention (as Jesuses is), then it can be deleted on sight. Inclusion of this entry requires a large-scale change to how we do proper nouns on Wiktionary. I'm fairly ambivalent as to what happens, but it's certainly a change. EP was completely in the right on this one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. I delete items that fall within the various categories that we have for expeditious deletion. Anything that I think might be controversial I put on RfV/RfD. I try to not substitute my own prejudices and preferences no matter how superior they may be by dint of my credentials, training, experience, and expertise. I strongly disagree that "someway contrary to general convention" is adequate if it leads to this result. Obviously we have numerous problems with conflict among rules. Our "unwritten rules" ought to have little force. If we cannot write a specific rule that gains community acceptance, then there is no community acceptance and more general rules, principles and process apply. An entry such as this that can be readily cited and is a word but conflicts with some "unwritten rule" which contradicts the capabilities of the applicable template (pl parameter) and WT:CFI. It is precisely because the judgment of even our most veteran contributors is not to be trusted that we need to respect the process. The substitution of insider judgment for a more transparent process is what puts Wiktionary in a questionable position in its handling of newbie contributions. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If we do not allow our veteran contributors to use their judgment, then patrolling becomes an impossible task. It is not perfect, as we often like to overturn previous conventions, but it is the best method we've got so far. For every deleted entry that perhaps should have been left, a hundred that should not waste the community's time get deleted (without wasting the community's time). Without the judgment of veteran contributors, we become Urban Dictionary. I think it a bad idea to criticize an admin for engaging in the difficult and arduous task of patrolling, and failing to conceive of every possible consideration for an entry. If we want to keep edits patrolled, we need to be a bit more forgiving of those rare individuals who actually do so (like EP and SB). Because I'll be honest, I hate patrolling, and while I force myself to do it on occasion, I certainly don't do enough of it to keep our incoming edits under control. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Indulging one's prejudices should not be a reward for patrolling. Frankly, I believe that letting a few arguable cases through is not a waste of time for those who do not patrol. I believe that I have detected a greater tendency to submit some such cases to RfD/RfV and I appreciate that. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, there are no rewards for patrolling, only aches and pains. --EncycloPetey 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Like this, I assume. Patrolling is just supposed to keep the vandals under control, not necessarily enforce unenforceably complex rules. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Patrolling is supposed to make Wiktionary better. Mostly it does consist of deleting ten "Haha, lolzzZZZ" pages in a row, sometimes in consist of purging protologisms, blatant or otherwise, other times it is just a case of keeping things neat and tidy. Anyone has the right to act to improve Wiktionary. If there is no community decision on an issue, then anyone can make up the rules as they go along (otherwise we'd be overwhelmed with borderline cases). If people disagree with your decisions then the rules come under discussion and get changed, otherwise the made up rules get adopted by others and a consensus is formed. You may disagree with people's decision (that's fine, if everyone agrees then boredom ensues) but you have to give everyone the chance to decide for themselves. Conrad.Irwin 00:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK there seems to be support for the idea that borderline, controversial cases should be deleted without public discussion instead of brought to a forum such as this one. I would like it explained to me (1) why someone on the receiving end of this kind of behavior would not simply leave the project or become a vandal. Why would this not be an entirely appropriate response? and (2) why should the rest of the community not get a chance to voice their opinion? Kappa 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, borderline cases should be brought for discussion. The problem lies in distinguishing borderline from not-borderline. i.e. the borderline borderline cases. (1) If they disagree they can (and, from experience, do) ask about it. (2) The rest of the community does get the chance to voice their opinion, hence this extensive discussion. As our patrollers in general do a very good job, for no reward except being moaned at by disgruntled spammers, or picked on by outraged Wiktionarians, I don't think there is any problem in the way things are done. Yes, people have different opinions; No, that isn't a problem. Conrad.Irwin 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
AEL Jesuses

You can say "There were two Julius Caesars, a public Julius Caesar and a private Julius Caesar." When you do this, you "split" the proper noun into two common noun aspects. This means that you are no longer using a proper noun, so the grammar of a proper noun is gone. Normally, a proper noun like Julius Caesar cannot take an article like a, but you can see in the hypothetical situation above, the indefinite article is used. This phenomenon applies to all proper nouns (except those that have an inherently plural form like Alps). The examples I listed above all return citations from Google Books: "A student of Ireland can find three different Irelands..."[14]; "The Three Romes"[15]; etc.

I propose we forbid all "plurals" of proper nouns. This includes "plurals" of countries like Englands, Irelands, Chinas; of cities like Romes, Berlins, Londons; of personal names like Jorges, Anitas, Pauls; and all other such "plurals". I feel the arguments run along the same lines as those we used to forbid the inclusion of all the possessives. Including these should not be allowed any more than the possessive forms, which we specifically voted to exclude.

The alternative is madness. For every Proper noun, we would have a new common Noun section with a definition like this: Rome - Any hypothetical aspect of the city of Rome, whether regional, historical, or cultural. Does the commmunity would want to add a whole section under a Noun header to each and every English Proper noun in the language? --EncycloPetey 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We do it for all plural forms of all other nouns, why make an exception for proper nouns? Conrad.Irwin 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Re-read the discussion above. (1) Proper nouns don't have plurals. (2) Every singular of these "plurals" will have identical definitions. (3) See the discussion on excluding possessives. For (3), note especially the comments about how the -'s attaches to a phrase, which is true of the "plurals" of proper nouns as well. (e.g. Trinidad and Tobagos) --EncycloPetey 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You might as well say it's madness to include plurals of common nouns! Personally it's never been my understanding of proper nouns that they cannot have plural forms. But even if that is the case, that is a problem with our classification system rather than with the words themselves. Manifestly, Jesuses and other similar plurals are in use, and therefore clearly we should have entries for them if they are attested. Why on earth not? All the entries need is a simple {{plural of}}. Widsith 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Proper nouns don't have plurals; only the common noun aspect of a proper noun has a plural. The plural is never a proper noun because it is not a name but a class. Further, all the possessives would need is a "possessive of", right? Yet, we voted to eclude those; we should do the same here. --EncycloPetey 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The word exists. Whether you call it proper or common is neither here nor there. Widsith 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is both here and there. If we have entries all over Wiktionary identifying words as "plural of" something else, and the something else is marked as a different part of speech, the general internet community will think we're nuts (OK, they probably think that already, but why add fuel to the fire). If we add these "plurals", then logically we also need to go through and add all the common Noun snese of these words. Consider: "There's not a London like that anymore." We don't have an entry with a definition that will fit this sentence, because we don't deal in the common noun aspect of Proper nouns. All proper nouns have such an aspect, and it's part of standard English grammar that they can be used hypothetically like this. Any entry and definition would have to have extensive Usage notes and examples to keep people from becoming hopelessly confused.
Further, lots of words exist that we exclude. Existence of a word does not mean we will include it. We exclude protologisms, possessives, many brand names, names of specific individuals, and many more besides. --EncycloPetey 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Prolotogisms aren't words. The justification for deleting English possessives is that they are not actually words, but words plus a clitic. We have a test for whether or not a brand name can be considered part of the language. Kappa 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The thread of this particular line is that we do exclude some words. Can you agree that existence of a word is not automatic cause for inclusion? That is the point I was making just above.
If you note in the other thread above, the "plurals" of proper nouns are formed exactly as the possessives. A suffix is added to a complete phrase functioning as a proper noun. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
suffix != clitic. Thryduulf 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary aims to be descriptive not prescriptive, so why not just say that proper nouns can be used uncountably to describe a specific person, place or thing, or countably in the singular or plural to describe aspects of a specific person, place or thing or multiple specific people, places or things with the same name? Why must we be hidebound by traditional grammars if they do not describe what we observe? Thryduulf 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that would be misleading rather than descriptive. "Proper noun" implies a number of grammatical properties of a word. The "plural" of a proper noun never exhibits those properties; it exibits the properties of a common noun. More importantly, the singular of that plural is also a common noun. If I say "The apostles of Christ included two Jameses, I do not mean that there were two "male given names". I mean there were two "people bearing the name James". This is akin to the use-mention distinction. When James is used to refer to a specific individual, it is a proper noun. However, when it refers not to a specific individual, but to one of a class of such items, then it is a common noun, as in: "Is there a James here?" Notice that in this example, we have an indefinite article preceding the word James, which is contrary to use as a proper noun. It also does not refer to a specific individual, but one of a class, much as: "Is there a doctor here?" If we include the "plurals" of proper nouns, then we have to include, for every given name, the common noun sense of "an individual bearing this name". --EncycloPetey 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we really sure that we want an across-the-board prohibition? Also, would we not want to provide some indication of how a plural might be formed for an entry we call a "Proper noun", especially if it is not by mere addition of "s". For surnames, for example, the plural is very natural and common: "Let's invite the Smiths over for dinner." How would you say that for the "Jones" or "Johns" family? Because we do not have a very effective and accessible presentation of the grammatical "rules" of English, I don't really see how we can rely on those "rules" to make up for entries that are not present or information not present in the entries. It is not as if all grammar texts have identical definitions of "proper nouns". It is even less likely that the senses in the entries we have characterized as "Proper noun" would really meet many of the definitions of "Proper noun". DCDuring TALK 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We went through this same discussion for the possessives and decided not to include them. I have begun an appendix explaining grammar of English proper nouns, but it will need much more work before it is complete. I have not had a suitably long block of time to focus on writing it, since, as you have noted, it is a difficult topic and most grammars I've examined casually skim over the subject without addressing it. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I gotta say EP, that's pretty phat. I look forward to seeing it in the appendix namespace. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think something which should be borne in mind here is the frequency. Common nouns are commonly used in the plural, while proper nouns are only rarely used in plural, and in an obscure function. I see zero difference between this and the possessive forms. It is still a bound morpheme attached by normal rules. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face that this is a clitic or whatever, but it's still a suffix of some type which attaches to nouns (and phrases) in a determined fashion. Now, I don't have much of a problem with including possessive forms, nor do I have a problem with including these common plural forms of proper nouns. However, as EP duly notes, this is a lot of work for little gain. Also, I think that each such form should be subject to rfv, as it is an odd form. Additionally, DCDuring makes an excellent point that we lack good grammar appendices, certainly a current shortcoming of our project. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. EP raises good points, but I'm not convinced. Since indeed every proper noun can be used as a common noun, I don't think it's necessary to include a separate "Noun" section at every proper-noun entry, because an English-speaking reader will see the "Proper noun" section and know what do make of it; however, plurals are different, since you can't visit [[Chinas]] and see a "Proper noun" section. However, I'm not going to vote "keep", because I think that neither Jesus (a certain historical personage) nor Jesuses (two or more of him) meets WT:CFI#Names, and while I don't really mind making a few exceptions, I certainly won't vote to. —RuakhTALK 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The word obviously exists. We aim to include ALL words. Therefore we should keep it. I notice the in Mary, for example, it is defined as a Proper noun, then {{en-noun}} is used to generate the headword. That seems a reasonable compromise to me. SemperBlotto 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So, you want to label it on the entry as a "Poper noun", but categorize it as a common noun? Or are you proposing dual categorization for every proper noun? --EncycloPetey 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The last time I looked {{en-proper noun}} allowed a pl= parameter. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It also allows uncountable, but I cannot think of a single Proper noun that is uncountable. For the typical proper noun, the count is "one". --EncycloPetey 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

delete - and writing a grammar appendix is a very good idea. Hekaheka 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

keep as it is commonly used in such usages as "The square in front of the shrine had many vendors selling plastic Jesuses." not so rare, as can be seen from this b.g.c. search. I also agree with Ruakh's point about the need to maintain access via entry of the plural.
The plural needs to be indicated in the lemma entry.
Further, I would suggest that the RfV process is the means for removing spurious plurals, when as and if they occur.
Most of the "rare" plural forms of proper nouns are much less rare than many of our other entries, including many not marked with rare tags.
The existence of rules that we can effectively render comprehensible and accessible for our normal users, which would truly substitute for the plural entries, has not been established. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Simplest would be to apply the normal CFI, three independent durably archived citations spanning three years. Jesuses meets this trivially, as do many people's names. Some town and city names do not meet this, and it seems dependent on the size of such places - seems to me to be a reasonable metric. Conrad.Irwin 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If we apply "the normal CFI", as you call them, to Jesuses, but the actual CFI to Jesus (a certain historical personage), then we'd keep only the former. Are you sure that's a good idea? —RuakhTALK 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As I haven't read through the CFI in a long time, I just remember the "three independent durably archived three year-spanning cites", If we are looking for that then there is no question that Jesuses would be includable (see google books). But, if there's something else that I've forgotten please correct me. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should also be considering uncountable nouns like alfalfa. These follow a similar pattern, whereby they normally do not take a plural, but can in certain contexts. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
One of my personal hobby horses is uncountability. "alfalfas" would be readily attestable in agricultural literature. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, definitely. I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. However, we really ought to come up with a nice way of noting such things. Because nearly every common noun could have a sense of "a type of xxxx", and yet it seems a bit redundant to note that in every single definition, just as it seems kind of dumb to include an abstract common noun sense for each and every single proper noun. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether the default views of Wiktionary for non-registered users shouldn't have with all kinds of grammar lessons and extensive display of the obvious through templated text and links. Registered users should get a choice of views that reflect what they think they know. Adepts could get a more fine-grained choice like WT:PREFS. Getting rid of the obvious would be a reward for registering and signing in. I don't know what the software prospects are for that degree of control, but a good number of our presentation concerns derive from the broad range of capabilities of our users. I don't entirely believe that Simple is going to fully address the needs of a very broad range of users, as useful as their efforts seem to be. If we had some sense for the realistic time-frame for that degree of customization, we could resolve many of these disputes much more easily. If there is no time-frame, then the disputes are essentially about who the target user is and what capabilities we can assume, all in the absence of any real facts. The current situation gives personal tastes of contributors excessive weight relative to the needs of users. I don't know to what extent this leads us to have something like 1/60th the visits that WP has, but I'd be surprised if it didn't make a contribution. DCDuring TALK 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a couple of extra comments for this already huge debate. 1 – Users shouldn't be expected to know that "proper nouns can't have plurals" – they see a word like this, they're entitled to look it up. How we classify it is our own, secondary, problem. 2 – I totally understand EP's position and I take the point about similarity with possessives. For me the simple difference is that the apostrophe in possessives makes it more obvious that we are dealing with two distinct lexemes, whereas with plurals there's no obvious clue. However, if it came to it I'd rather keep both than exclude this. 3 – Even if in general such plurals are discouraged, arguably Jesuses (and some others) is a special case, because "Jesus" = "artistic representation of Jesus" is so incredibly common in art contexts. Widsith 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
AEL Jesuses again
  • Keep with full support for each comment of Widsith right above. --Gauss 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Admirably said Widsith, but the question remains: How do we format it? Do we make {{en-proper noun}} identical to {{en-noun}}, so that all proper nouns have plurals? Cuz that seems at least a little silly (but perhaps necessary). Do proper nouns only get plurals on a case by case basis? The burden is really on those in support to figure out how this will work, because hasn't anyone thought that it might be just a bit misleading to our readers if our proper nouns have plurals? Cuz proper nouns don't have plurals......largely. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems clear that these should not be linked from the PN inflection line (though I expect that at some point we will need to hash out more thoroughly whether names are always PNs or not). If they exist, they should either be one-way links (Jesuses -> Jesus but not vice versa), or linked only from a usage note in the lemma entry. -- Visviva 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Visviva on this. There are cases where knowing how to form the plural of an item we present as a proper noun is useful. The cases include all of those that form the plural other than by adding "-s" or "-es" or where it is not 100% obvious whether -s or -es is correct and taxons and other words (where Latin or non-English rules apply). It might also be useful to indicate whether (or when) a proper noun takes a plural verb (eg, mountain ranges). To me it seems that how to form a plural is a dictionary question and whether one should use a plural is a question of grammar. Grammar has not been our strong suit and, evidently, does not fit very well into our entry structure. Perhaps we ought to use our entry structure to do well what it can do and not try to make it do what it is not especially well suited to do.
As to Atelaes' question, frankly, the print-dictionary approach (inserting a "-s" or "-es" after nouns that form plurals simply and only spelling out plurals that are "irregular" or where there are alternative forms) devotes about the right amount of space to the task. I also see no reason to show red-links for missing plurals, though blue links for plurals that are entries can show that there might be more to be learned from the plural entry. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, this section is getting too long. I have to scroll up for a half hour just to find an edit button. Anyway, I absolutely agree with Visviva. While some of these plurals might not be a bad idea to have, if we have them, they should be linked to from the lemma in a usage note, or not at all. Anything else would be, in my opinion, misleading to our readers. As to the regularity of pluralization......I don't know if that is really relevant. We certainly don't make a distinction between regular and irregular plurals in our common nouns. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess if our users don't know how to form a plural of a proper noun, we shouldn't tell them because they might use plurals more often than we think they should.
We certainly waste our users' attention with red-linked, spelled-out regular plurals for our ordinary nouns. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to assume from the apparent tone of the above response that it was intended to be facetious. So, the reason we're saying that the "plural" of the Proper noun should not be linked from the Proper noun inflection line, is that it's not actually a plural of the Proper noun. Rather, Jesuses is a plural of a common noun definition of Jesus. If we link the "plural" from the inflection line, it will positively mislead our readers. Think of it this way: we don't list adverb "forms" of verbs on the Verb inflection line; we don't like hyphenated adjective forms of compound nouns on the Noun inflection line; and so on. When the part of speech is different, because of different grammar, we create a new section or even a new entry (in cases where the spelling is different). Logically then, we shouldn't like to a plural common noun from a proper noun section's inflection line. --EncycloPetey 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The first comment was facetious, but it reflected my reading of the direction of the discussion. The second comment on redlinked plurals was not facetious at all.
I had not appreciated until this extended discussion why it is that most dictionaries don't have proper nouns as entries (excepting taxonomic names and abbreviations of proper nouns). Their presentation is almost inconsistent with the manner of presentation of other kinds of words. Part of the problem I have been having is with denigrating the common-noun use of the entries we label as proper nouns. Then, by assumption, we don't need to bother with plurals. I think even the most obtuse of our users would not mistakenly pluralize a word we present as a proper noun, used as such. But a user might want to know how to refer to the Joneses (or is that Jones or Jones's) in writing or whether (or when) it should be "the Andes is" or "the Andes are". If calling something a proper noun leads to us being unable to present useful information, then we should not call it a proper noun. Perhaps it would be better to call them nouns and limit the label proper noun to the senses that are the true proper noun senses (or, less plausibly, show the plural only at the common-noun senses). If I thought that users would find such information in usage notes when our entry layout has trained them to look a the inflection line for a plural, then I could simply have accepted that suggestion without further discussion. I would be disappointed if we could not address this kind of usage question consistent with our overall manner of presentation. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I read this discussion, there seems to be - at least partly - an issue on how to format the Proper Nouns such that the reader gets the information that *plural can exist, but *only exist in very few cases. The template {{en-proper noun}} has already been mentioned: thus I wonder why it doesn't include a "plural" point with the explicit remark "for use as common noun only" (or better formulated)? The plural entries could have a "Noun" header, and the inflection template explains to the user why the PoS's (PoS'es?) seem to differ. I have, however, no comment on whether they *should* be given or not... Just that the issue IMHO *could* be solved. \Mike 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. Perhaps we could work a link in there to an explanation of what's happening, when and why proper nouns have plurals, etc. I could live with that, as long as there's a note of caution screaming at the user, I have no qualms about putting it into the inflection line. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Pending the arrival of the Perfect Solution, that seems like a good approach. Something brief like (rarely plural), with "rarely" a bluelink to a appropriate section in the Proper Nouns appendix, one of the much-anticipated magnum opi from EP. If that is too terse, the (plural for common noun only), with "common noun" bluelinked to the same (not to common noun) would be OK. Perhaps a "plc=" parameter to optionally generate the text on provision of the plural form. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Something like this sounds great imo.—msh210 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 10:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Obviously, this is a no-brainer. It's the plural of a non-proper noun word "Jesus" which can be seen for example in the lyrics of Depeche Mode's "Personal Jesus", or in numerous examples listed above. I've gone ahead and added this to the Jesus entry. I got too restless to cite the artistic representation sense, someone else cite that. Language Lover 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - at least two pertinent senses. People named "Jesus" (of which there are many) and competing conceptions of the Biblical "Jesus" (of which there are also many, as cited). bd2412 T 13:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    Consider, in fact:
    Multiple conceptions of the Biblical figure: 2005, Richard A. Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus?: A Symbolic Reading, p. 165:
    Four portraits or four Jesuses? The first question concerns whether there are four gospels and one Jesus, or four Jesuses.
    Multiple figurines or other physical objects constituting depictions of the Biblical figure: 1996, Rick Reilly, Missing Links, p. 59:
    One Christmas, he talked me into going around town stealing all the baby Jesuses out of creche scenes.
    Multiple people who happen to share the name, "Jesus": 2003, J. P. Mendum, D. M. Bennett, Revelations of Antichrist Concerning Christ and Christianity, p. 42:
    We may perhaps accept the Talmud as authority for the existence of a distinguished Professor Jesus and his pupil James ; but what feature has either of them in common with the Jesus or the Jameses of the Gospels, that would not apply as well to almost any other of the numerous Jesuses or Jameses of the first century ?
    bd2412 T 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruakh again has wheel-warred this entry, removing all meaningful warnings. Nothing I said in my edit was incorrect, nor did I remove any of the citations provided. However, this entry, as it exists now, is purposefully misleading. It promotes a particular point of view with the explicit intent of offending more than a billion people, by its misrepresentation. IF the entry is to be kept, it needs to say why and how the term is offensive. It is not neutral to promote this term as a ordinary correct English term - it simply is not. Since the entry can't seem to exist without meaningful warnings, it should instead be deleted again. --Connel MacKenzie 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you find yourself lying transparently on a widely-read page. Doesn't bother you that most editors realize within a few days here that they can't trust anything you write? —RuakhTALK 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Raukh, what lies? You made this edit to the entry, so you cannot claim that it was not edited by you as you stated [16]. Connel is correct that many Christians are offended by the mere concept of more than one Jesus, just as many Moslems are offended by images of Mohammed, and it is an official and historic heresy. You are splitting hairs in saying that this does not apply to the word that is used to communicate that concept, and are being rude in your response to Connel. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
EP, thanks for your comment. :-)   Connel says "Ruakh again has wheel-warred this entry". Seeing as I've edited that entry exactly once, he can't even claim that I've wheel-warred (except by a very loose definition that construes a single revert as "wheel-warring"), much less that I've "again wheel-warred". I understand that many (even most) Christians would be offended by the concept of more than one Jesus; but most Christians have enough brain cells to rub together and figure out that the word Jesuses does not, in and of itself, imply such a thing. Connel's edit described the word itself as "intentionally incorrect" and a "violent misconstruction", and said that its use must "purposefully offend[]" Christians. Nonsense; none of that is true, and he knows it, and that makes him a liar; and everyone else here knows it, too, which makes his lies very transparent. As I said on his talk page, he can help craft a useful context tag and/or usage note; but lying his ass off and POV-pushing won't get him anywhere, especially since I suspect (but admittedly cannot prove) that he's trying to abuse religious sensitivity to push his usual prescriptivist this-​sounds-​wrong-​to-​me-​so-​Wiktionary-​must-​lambaste-​it-​in-​the-​harshest-​terms POV. (BTW, this isn't a big deal, but I didn't "claim that it was not edited by" me; I stated — correctly — that I hadn't edited it, meaning that I hadn't edited it by the time Connel made his over-the-top edits to it.) Thanks again for your comment; it's good for me to be aware that not everyone sees through Connel's shit. :-/   —RuakhTALK 12:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruakh, our definition of wheel war says nothing about multiple edits. Granted, Connel made a mistake in saying that you had "again wheel-warred this entry" as you had not edited that particular entry before. However, your choice of words ascribes malicious motive to Connel's statement, and your latest response broadens the insult to other users here. Using profanity repeatedly in an attempt to vent frustration will not endear you to anyone. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
EP, our definition of wheel war says nothing about anything like my edit. However, I'm sorry that I insulted you; you didn't deserve the insult, and certainly I was wrong to characterize your bold assumption of good faith as failure to see through an editor's lies. (I can't share your bold assumption in this case — I did my best and failed — but that doesn't give me the right to criticize you for your success.) You're also right about the use of profanity, and thanks for that important reminder. —RuakhTALK 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

buried treasure

Treasure which has been buried; sum of parts, not obviously idiomatic. What was this doing on Dictionary:project-wanted articles anyway? Is there another meaning? -- Visviva 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By my lights, a figuratively buried figurative treasure wouldn't warrant an entry, but perhaps someone thinks so. DCDuring TALK 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the term. It has both a literal set phrase sense and a figurative sense. The literal concept of buried treasure evokes images of pirates and piracy, and of treasure chests. This connotation is not inherent in the sum of "buried" + "treasure". The figurative sense shows up in sources like these: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Buried treasure has at least two idiomatic meanings. 1) A reference specifically to pirate treasure, even out of context—as in, treasure specifically buried by a stereotypical (mythical) pirate, and found with a treasure map (!), as popularized by Treasure Island and probably all pirate fiction since. 2) Like treasure trove, "buried treasure" is also used to refer to any valuable find, uncoviering something that was hidden, buried or not, as in "The best place to look for buried treasure is the library." [24] Dmcdevit·t 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, buried#Adjective can also have the meaning "hidden, concealed." So the figurative sense doesn't seem obviously non-compositional to me. And I have to dispute the association with pirates; a cursory check of b.g.c. shows all sorts of references to buried treasure in pirate-free locations like New Mexico, Oklahoma, and the Sri Lankan interior. (I was rather surprised to find that w:Buried treasure focuses on pirates, as I would have expected more general coverage of the topic.) Seems like this can be (and is) used pretty freely in any relevant sense of "buried" or "treasure."
IMO those who write of "the buried treasure of Jean Lafitte" and "the buried treasure of the Kandyan kings" are using this collocation in exactly the same way. But I could be persuaded otherwise -- is this ever used out of context to refer to specifically to pirates -- that is, where it is not obvious in context that the treasure would have been buried by pirates? -- Visviva 05:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if you delete the article. However, "treasure" has so many different connotations (treasure can mean something different to each person - i.e. gold/goal/knowledge/etc.) Yet, with this definition, I used the common type relating to pirate, and have included a reference to Wikipedia since I retrieved the idea for the definition from there. miranda 05:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your work. I don't mean to disparage this contribution in any way (although I realize it probably seems that way). The entry was quite well-composed, and you are to be commended for filling an open request.
To respond to your point, I guess it's the very fact that "buried" and "treasure" can have so many meanings that bothers me -- as far as I can tell, looking at the various uses on Google Books, "buried treasure" can have any of those meanings. That would seem to make it non-idiomatic. -- Visviva 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the stuff between the lines makes it worth keeping. DAVilla 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I realize that there is a connection between pirates and buried treasure. But is there a connection between the word "buried treasure" and pirates? I wouldn't normally make the connection myself, unless I happened to be on a seacoast somewhere. For example, if my cousin were searching for buried treasure in Indiana, I would assume that an outlaw or a miser was involved, not a pirate. -- Visviva 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
But in that case, you've added context information by specifying geography. In the absence of other context, I think first of the stereotypical image of a pirate's chest. --EncycloPetey 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

he is n

Not a set phrase; arguably a way of saying something. Was this type of entry discussed here? --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at Dictionary:Beer parlour#Gaps in entry titles.. With no resolution, but some forward motion. We don't have anyway of presenting constructions that seems likely to work for non-expert users. Even "one's", "something", "somebody" don't work very well for search though they seem to be deemed adequate as far as they go. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The is merely a use of be, just as tener is used for this in Spanish. The only part of this construction that is constant is the presence of some form of the verb be. The pronoun "he" may be replaced by any other pronoun, a proper noun, or a noun phrase. The "n" can be replaced by any reasonable integer value or by and integral number of years plus subdivision of a year. The entry as it is currently structured is practically useless, and the content should be moved to be. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, even be isn't a constant part of it: google books:"looked twelve". (By the way, the number of years doesn't have to be integral: google books:"she's two and a half".) I think this falls into the category of things that would be great to have, but that just don't fit into our framework of word-indexed entries. Perhaps an appendix of some sort? I don't have a good name to suggest, though. :-/   —RuakhTALK 00:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
But "looked" twelve doesn't mean the parson "is" twelve! Gary Coleman "looked" twelve long after he was much older, so changing the verb does change the meaning. And yes, I know about the "and a half", which is why I said "plus subdivision of a year" (which was intentionally vague to cover a variety of things). We keep proposing appendices, but the name is less important than the writing. Once it's written, we'll have a clearer idea of what's included and can pick a suitable name. Right now it's entirely hypothetical. --EncycloPetey 01:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: "changing the verb does change the meaning": Seeing as changing the subject also changes the meaning, as does changing the number, can you offer a less arbitrary explanation of why be, specifically, is the essential part of this construction? —RuakhTALK 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't be deliberately dense. "X is Y", where X is a specific person or object, and where Y is a numerical value, indicates the measured age of X. That isn't true when you use "looks". When you say "X looks Y" under the previous definition of X & Y, you are indicating an apparent age, not an actual or measured age. --EncycloPetey 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'm being dense, and if I am, it's certainly not deliberate. I maintain that be is not an essential part of this construction; there's a general pattern that ages can be given simply as a number that indicates a certain number of years — for example, by sixteen he means “by sixteen years old, he” — and be is relevant only insofar as we tend to indicate ages using be in English. If you think be should have a sense line pertaining to ages, I might agree; but I think you're being dense if you think that "be twelve" represents a completely separate use of be from "be twelve years old". —RuakhTALK 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I make no such distinction. Phrases like "years old", "days old", "months old", et.c may be added to the expression, but "years old" is frequently omitted in casual speech. --EncycloPetey 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
delete. Everyone seems to agree that the entry is pretty useless, and this entry will be deleted per process. He is twelve always means He is twelve [years old], so a main namespace sense of be seems in order, perhaps something like this:
  1. (Template loop detected: Template:context 1) to be [some number] of years old
    He is twelve. (meaning, “He is twelve [years old].”)
Coolio? Rod (A. Smith) 02:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. Similarly at the other English copula verbs (look, seem, appear, act, etc.):
  1. (Template loop detected: Template:context 1) to look [some number] of years old
    He looks twelve. (meaning, “He looks twelve [years old].”)
  2. (Template loop detected: Template:context 1) to seem [some number] of years old
    He seems twelve. (meaning, “He seems twelve [years old].”)
  3. (Template loop detected: Template:context 1) to act [some number] of years old
    He acts twelve. (meaning, “He acts twelve [years old].”)
Hmm, maybe an appendix is in order, after all. Rod (A. Smith) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As a definition under the entry be, that looks good. --EncycloPetey 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Most children over the age of 5 manage this construction without the use of a dictionary. The appendix might be instructive for us - no small consideration - but probably not so much for our users. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What about adults who have not learned English as their primary language? Many languages do not use the equivalent of the verb be to indicate age. Spanish uses tener, which primarily means "to have, hold". --EncycloPetey 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
They could ask a child. It would be much easier than finding it here. We can't necessarily address every usage question from a dictionary format. DCDuring TALK 02:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the entry at be, should we make something like Appendix:English copula to detail the interesting senses, collocations, and grammar of the various English copula? Rod (A. Smith) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
For consistency, that probably ought to be Appendix:English copulas, since there is more than one such word in English. --EncycloPetey 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Per others, I think that this should be deleted, and there should eb no sense for thsi s.v. be (or n or numbers). An appendix on copulas sounds nice, but we can delete this meanwhile imo.—msh210 21:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with deleting this. DAVilla 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed, please take a look!

I was about to delete this, but is anything salvageable (movable) from among the translations?—msh210 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Entry only says "See yada yada yada". There is no definition and no support as an independent word in the entry. It is not even splled the same as the target entry. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clear from b.g.c that both "yadda yadda yadda" and "yada yada yada" are amply attested. It doesn't need support as an independent word, if it did then all our "alternative spellings" entries would be bad. It's common sense, that if someone is wondering what "yadda yadda yadda" means, there's a good chance they'll look up just "yadda". As for whether yadda redirects to "yada yada yada" or "yadda yadda yadda", that's academic. Probably the only reason the entry wasn't just an auto-redirect, is the good possibility "yadda" could mean something in another language. Language Lover 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But the entry for yadda is labelled "Interjection". It is not an interjection, and it is not a word. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok I went and rewrote it to be self-contained. If it's not an interjection, is it a particle? In any event, it's most definitely a word. Language Lover 05:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Which definition of word applies here then? None of our current definitions apply to this item. It doesn't work as a particle, either, because particles are typically appended to an existing word, phrase, or clause, rather than strung together to assemble a "word". And let me make it clear that I am not being facetious in pursuing this case, but am taking it quite seriously. I believe that it will make a nice reference point for other such situations, so good discussion is to be valued. I know where I stood at the beginning of this discussion, but do not know yet where I will stand at its conclusion. --EncycloPetey 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, the one labelled 'linguistics' applies perfectly well. Maybe it's a US thing and you're UK or Australia or something? Language Lover 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I'm US. (see blow) --EncycloPetey 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't quite fit that sense, because it doesn't "have a particular meaning"; it's part of a larger phrase that has meaning, but on its own it seems that it doesn't. (That's kind of an iffy criterion; does a have a particular meaning in “Veo a ella”? Words don't always have meanings, per se, and sometimes just have grammatical roles. But either way, yadda doesn't seem to have either one.) —RuakhTALK 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As Ruakh has pointed out, either we have a problem calling this a word, or our current definition of word is inadequate. --EncycloPetey 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
When we first wrote this back in early 2006, there was a question about punctuation as well as about how many yadas. It was decided then to put the main entry at yada yada yada and to add redirects from some of the common permutations such as yada yada. —Stephen 06:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if three is any more correct. Two yaddas gets a good number of hits. One yadda? Send to RFV. DAVilla 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep somehow. I agree that this needs to be done better, but it looks like a word, and even a native English speaker would assume it was a word if (s)he didn't know better. Incidentally, however we decide to format this non-word-that-warrants-inclusion-anyway, we might want to use the same approach for misspellings. —RuakhTALK 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to spoil this as a test case, but yaddas are not always found in sequence. I've added some cites illustrating this, based on which I believe we should keep the entry. Also added another POS, but that might be dispensed with; it seems that, much like certain expletives, this can fill pretty much any grammatical role. Maybe we need a ===Placeholder=== POS. -- Visviva 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

کله کیر

It has been at requests for verification before but does not appear to be verified. The English definition has been removed by (talkcontribs) but I reverted and decided to nominate it for deletion, unless it can be verified it should be deleted. 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental meaning is correct, but the question is the semantic level. Literally it says "prick head", but I don’t know if it is used only in a vulgar sense or also in medical jargon. —Stephen 06:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

trundle along

From WT:RFC:

Is this a sum of parts, as in the example sentence given? Or is the example sentence wrong?—msh210 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both. A proper example would omit "the path" from the sentence, but then it's still just use of along as an adverb. You can "travel along (singing a song)", and do many other actions along. The only one of these that I can think of to call idiomatic is run along, which is often used as a mild command to "go away". --EncycloPetey 14:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay; thanks. Moving to RFD.—msh210 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please continue discussion here.msh210 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

delete - mere sum of parts. --EncycloPetey 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. b.g.c. is crazy bad at counting, but trying a few searches, it seems like trundle tends to be used with along, making this a fixed expression. —RuakhTALK 23:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I get the same number of returns on b.g.c. whether I search for "trundle along", "trundle out" or "trundle in". --EncycloPetey 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete Widsith 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It is a phrasal verb. Try using trundle without along and see what you get. -- Algrif 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Googled "trundle along to the" and just to give the first of hundreds:- I worked in Northampton in the mid 1980's and so I used quite regularly trundle along to the County Ground. -- Algrif 18:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, EP has already said above that "trundle in" and "trundle out" are equally valid. Widsith 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Big Delete. "Trundle", as a verb, is mainly transitive. But even when intransitive, most historical usages (in OED and in literary searches) come up without an "along". Consider the following:
The Wheels of Chance by H.G. Wells, Chapter 27,
...Might trundle back there in an hour
May-Day and Other Pieces by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Una,
But if upon the seas I sail,
Or trundle on the glowing rail...
The Weavers by Gilbert Parker, Chapter 23,
She watched the grotesque thing trundle away
-- WikiPedant 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree in a big way. But I don't think they used to wheel themselves to the County Ground. Remove or change the adverb, and you change the meaning. This is the whole point about phrasal verbs. This quote (and it is easy to find thousands more) shows trundle along to mean to go somewhere at a leisurely pace which is a far cry from the meaning of trundle, which has to do with wheels, BTW. -- Algrif 10:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
While I think there is some validity to this point, I note that the OED has "trundle" meaning go/walk with cites back to 1680, including for example Congreve's The Way of the World ("They are gone, Sir, in great anger." "Enough, let 'em trundle.") Methinks we should have a comparable sense at trundle, and that it should have a usage note indicating that this usually collocates with "along" in contemporary English. -- Visviva 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Still a delete. The intransitive "trundle" can mean to move by rolling (on wheels or otherwise) or to walk in a halting, rolling, or leisurely way and both of these senses can be accompanied by a range of modifiers, such as "in," "out," "up," "down," "over," "under," "away," or "toward." In each case, the resulting expression is just SOP. "Along" is not a special case, and I seriously doubt that it is even correct to concede that the intransitive verb "trundle" usually collocates with "along". -- WikiPedant 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I can only agree with these arguments IF, and only if, trundle can be shown to also mean move in a leisurely pace with any reasonable preposition / adverb, and not specific to wheels, which is a very important point. It will have to fit with the quotes (easily found) about ships, yachts, and boats that trundle along to a port or cove, etc. Though I must say, I've never heard of a boat trundling to a port. Another point is that I have to reject any argument about literal meanings. Most phrasal verbs also have literal meanings, which does not detract from their status as phrasal verbs. I also reject the arguments that because the verb can be found with other prepositions it is not phrasal with along, for the same reasoning. But the argument that trundle is very commonly found with along is in fact a supporing case for this very probably being a phrasal construction. As things stand at the moment, anyone trying to understand We trundled along to John's house by looking up trundle is going to end up being worse off than when he started. -- Algrif 11:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the point that it is commonly found with along does not argue that it is phrasal because (as I pointed out above) it is equally common to find the adverb in or out used following trundle. It is also very commonly found as "trundle over" and "trundle back". No one adverb stands out as most common, which is, in fact, a strong argument that it is not a phrasal verb.
As to your entrenched stance and demand for proof, I personally doubt that sea turtles "wheel" themselves onto the beach, or that a memorandum is moved along this way, or that one exits one's car by means of wheels:
  • 2005 — Kim Grant, Kimberly Grant, Glenda Bendure, Lonely Planet Publications (Firm), Ned Friary, Michael Clark, Conner Gorry, Hawaii, p286
    Nowadays it's famous mainly for green sea turtles that trundle out from the sea to bask in the sun after gorging on limu (seaweed).
  • 1995 — Ged Martin, Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation, 1837-67, p107
    When Edmund Head offered to trundle out his favourite weapon, the memorandum...
  • 2006 — Dave Van Ronk, Elijah Wald, Lawrence Block, The Mayor of Macdougal Street, p110
    So from time to time we would pull over to the side of the road, and I would trundle out, ice scraper in hand, to peel ten pounds of bird porridge off the windshield.
It's a shame you didn't take the proactive approach to look for these, because they were very easy to find. The problem is only that we need to amend the entry for trundle. --EncycloPetey 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I did, in fact, take the time to look for these kind of examples too, EP. I agree entirely that trundle needs additional definitions. But that does not stop trundle along from being a phrasal verb, as well as being used literally. You are possibly being equally entrenched in saying that it isn't. What about examples such as-
  • Many of us trundle along through life until we reach a tipping point for our energy systems.
Trundle along through ?? Sorry, but this really is a phrasal verb in these sort of examples. It's a shame you didn't check these typically phrasal structures out. ;-) -- Algrif 15:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What about "Many of us trundle happily through life." Does that make trundle happily a phrasal verb? No. This is a case of along used as an adverb, and I did check these "typically phrasal structures" out. My comments above show that I did (see "trundle out from the sea" & co.), so it's a shame you weren't reading my comments carefully. I chose that example deliberately.
I humored you in your demand for proof, even though (logically) the null hypothesis in a situation like this is that your claim is false, and so the burden of proof properly lies in demonstrating that trundle along is a phrasal verb. You have not proven that it is, and I have provided ample evidence that it isn't. Your criticisms have been answered, and you are alone in maintaining your position this is a phrasal verb. Everyone else disagrees with you in this matter. I consider the discussion settled, even if not unanimously. --EncycloPetey 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't need humoring, nor condescension. Trundle along is a phrasal verb. This is RFD by the way, which is why the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate why it should be deleted. I'm with you all the way on most of the comments, including the fact that the example in the entry is not an example of the phrasal verb. But there are literally hundreds of quickly citeable examples, even though (for some obscure reason) you don't accept them as such.
  • Not-so-wealthy souls can only hope that someone will trundle along to the funeral with a few nice words.
  • Trundle along to February 2005.
  • we trundle along in the trade winds.
  • Civilizations trundle along through many imagined crises but this time we are facing challenges that will absolutely end our way of life within decades.
  • OK, well I'll trundle along down with Nick and a late picnic lunch.

I think it is a big mistake to remove a perfectly good, citeable phrasal verb from the dictionary, while continuing to seriously consider some really stupid (and I know what this word means) entries. You will find some just a few lines below this discussion.

It really is NOT a case of whether you can say "trundle (in, down, null) to the funeral", "Trundle (in, down, null) to February 2005", " we trundle (in, down, null) in the trade winds." etc (Although they all sound very odd, particularly the trade winds one). If it were just that, then we could happily eliminate write down, fill up, close down, wander around etc. The point is that these are all used as phrasal verbs in everyday writing and speech. And so is trundle along. Still, have it your own way. Close your eyes to the evidence. I'll be bringing up (oops. Not a phrasal. Silly me) I'll be bringing write down, fill up, close down, etc. to RFD shortly. -- Algrif 13:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. I'm not saying that other adverbs/proepositions can be substituted to say the same thing; I am saying that numerical "proof" of a verb as phrasal is meaningless. Yes, "trundle" is frequently followed by "along", but no more so than by other adverbs of position or motion. The only argument that has been offered for this item being a phrasal verb is that the combination has some unspecified frequency. My point is that just because two words often occur next to each other does not mean that the combination deserves a dictionary entry.
You're missing another important point. For write down, fill up, etc. the phrasal verb is idiomatic. The verb write down down not mean from the top to the bottom of the page. To fill up something does not necessarily mean that it is filled in an upwards direction. These combinations are themselves idiomatic in a way that trundle along is not. --EncycloPetey 00:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not missing any point here at all. 1. I don't think I ever mentioned numbers, did I? If you refer to the "thousands of easily found examples", it does not mean that I think statistics have anything to do with whether a verb is a phrasal verb or not. 2.To be a phrasal verb construction does not necessarily mean there is any strictly idiomatic meaning. This is why I mention write down and fill up as examples of readily accepted phrasal verbs with a non-idiomatic meaning. fill up = fill. Write down = write. But there are certain characteristics of phrasal verbs which show indivisibility of meaning. Examples such as
  • we trundle along in the trade winds.
  • I'll trundle along down with Nick later.
demonstrate that this construction is phrasal, and is in use. It is well known that even the most respected authorities argue constantly about these borderline cases. My opinion is that Wikt generally includes this kind of thing rather than eliminates. I propose taking this over to BP to try to hammer out some guidelines for phrasal verbs vs. SoP. I will write a discussion start for BP asap (work commitments allowing). I would just like to add one aside:- When I started on Wikt a year and a bit ago, there were only 22 entries in Category:English phrasal verbs. There are now well over 800. Thanks to all the interested collaborators. There are are considered to be something over 3,000 phrasal verbs in the English language in general use, so we still have plenty of work to do. -- Algrif 10:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) Look back at your arguments to refresh your memory. You've pointed at the big numbers more than once in your arguments. (2) You've missed part my last post completely. The phrasal verb write down is idiomatic by virtue of a change in the meaning of "down". Where are you writing it? Down. Obviously that doesn't make sense, because "down" is part of the phrasal verb and not an adverb. The phrasal verb fill up is also idiomatic since a balloon filled "up" is not filled in an upwards direction. How is it filled? Up. Again, it doesn't make sense to ask that because "up" is a directional word, and the filling does not necessarily happen in the direction indicated, not is "up" functioning as an adverb. With trundle along, this does not happen. Where did he trundle? Along. The word "along" fuliflls the function of an adverb and answers the quesiton of an adverb. Your latest supporting examples still do not demonstrate that we have a phrasal verb here. Consider:
  • we sail along in the trade winds. we toss along in the trade winds. we drift along in the trade winds. we [verb of motion] along in the trade winds.
  • I'll stroll along down with Nick later. I'll mosey along down with Nick later. I'll saunter along down with Nick later. I'll ease along down with Nick later.
In none of these examples do we see any of the behavior of a phrasal verb. And, BTW. the discussion in the BP already started. --EncycloPetey 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - trundle should perhaps be a soft redirect to the common form (the only form I've ever heard, in fact) trundle along. If someone said "I will just trundle." or "I'm going to the beach to trundle." they would not (or rather, should not) expect to be understood. While sail, toss, drift, stroll, mosey, saunter and ease are used in English without along, the word trundle (almost without exception) is only used with along. To suggest otherwise, would be seriously misleading our readers. --Connel MacKenzie 23:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. It seems the arguments would have us keep a lot of stuff with "along", but I'm willing to reconsider. DAVilla 05:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete. First of all, the entry as it stands is bad: the definition is arguably for "trundle" alone, and the example given is not for "trundle" + adverb but for "trundle" + preposition, which is definitely not Wiktionary material as constructions of the form verb + preposition cannot exist independently of a noun or pronoun (whether after or before).

But here's the real reason this has to be go. There are a bunch of verbs in English that can be followed by an adverb of place that have the sense of "go in a particular manner/direction". For example, "pop", in the sense of "go quickly", can be found as "pop out to the shops", "pop downstairs to see who is at the door", "pop round to my grandmother's house", "pop it through the hole", etc. Dictionary entries for these sorts of verbs are always for the verb alone; each of the adverbs just qualifies how the verb is being done (mainly, the direction of motion). In all of these cases, "pop" can be replaced with "go" (for the intransitive uses) or "put" (for the transitive uses), and "go downstairs", "put ... through", etc, are neither idiomatic not phrasal verbs for the same reason.

In the case of "trundle", there are plenty of adverbs that can be placed after it: here are some examples from Google (note however that "trundle" is sometimes a proper or common noun or something else in many of these hits, and the adverb is sometimes a preposition, so the numbers of hits are only a guide):

  • trundle around (8260 hits): [25]
  • trundle away (1460 hits): [26]
  • trundle in (26,900 hits): [27] (requires log-in to Google Books)
  • trundle off (11,700 hits): [28]
  • trundle out (6430 hits): [29]

So "trundle along" is by no means a special case of "trundle" + adverb, neither is it a phrasal verb (as it has no meaning beyond "trundle" + "along") and so it certainly should be deleted. — Paul G 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. B.g.c. searches for phrases like "trundling along toward" and "trundling along by" pull up some hits that suggest to me that for some speakers, trundle along is a fixed expression meaning what trundle alone means for others. (Please click through and see if they suggest the same to you.) Connel's comment above suggests that he belongs to the former group; and I think I belong to it as well (this isn't a word I use myself, but when I hear trundle I definitely expect the next word to be along). If I'm right about this, then I think we should keep [[trundle along]] and seek information about what sort of variation (regional?) is at work here. —RuakhTALK 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

scene kid

Is this SoP? Basically a "kid" participating in a popular cultural "scene". DCDuring TALK 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't feel sum of parts to me, though I'm not sure why. In any case, this would be sense 10 out of 9 for scene; no definition specific to music is present in that entry currently. -- Visviva 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much accurate...—This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:22, 14 July 2008.


I think the proper suffix is -stomy (making a hole). The "-o-" is added for euphony. Should we have this as a full entry, redirect, not at all, or what? DCDuring TALK 01:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not this again. I get a headache just looking at that discussion. Agree that this should be a soft redirect to -stomy; -ostomy may (or may) not be a "real" suffix, but we cannot assume that either users or contributors will be aware of this. -- Visviva 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-o- is incidental. The real problem to me was that the more correct suffix -stomy wasn't an entry. I don't want to waste folks' time on this. I suppose having an extra "erroneous" suffix really doesn't matter much since suffix entries are rarely used to support or validate usage (which would be new word coinage). The words will be coined by influence of past practice and, now, the emergence of the word ostomy.
MW online has -stomy, not -ostomy. I'd expect the same from most dictionaries that have suffixes. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to have this as a misspelling of/misconstruction of -stomy entry with a usage note explaining the -o-. Thryduulf+
Likewise for the OED, but the OED has both -logy and -ology, which seems like an identical situation. Similarly for the Collins Concise I have at hand at the moment. Since the business of infixation is opaque even to most native speakers, including many contributors here, I'd say we should have both such forms for every suffix (though the -o- form should preferably be a soft redirect with usage note, per Thryduulf). -- Visviva 06:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

on me

As in "I'm paying". SoP if we have the right sense of on, which would take any noun phrase in this sense. Or am I missing something? DCDuring TALK 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It’s a common idiom. If you didn’t already know what it meant, you wouldn’t guess the meaning from on + me. The beer is on me sounds logically as though I’m wearing the beer. —Stephen 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely a useful expression for a non-native speaker, adds value, SoP or not. --Hekaheka 03:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
But the phrase is not "on me". It is "on NP", where NP could be "me, "you", "him", "them", "us", "Uncle Sam", "the house", "the company", "my wife's family", any personal name, etc. How many of the forms would we need as either headwords or usage examples to capture enough of the searches? On the house should make it on its own merits. I have entered the relevant sense of on. DCDuring TALK 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In which case I think this should be treated as an idiom and redirected to on somebody.
I don't object. All the pronouns should redirect to on someone or on somebody. (Do we prefer "someone" over "somebody") The same effect is accomplished by including all the different likely forms (all those using pronouns) as alternates, usage examples, or citations (in principal namespace). And that still doesn't fully address all the forms. I suppose that if someone searches for a term that has a space in it, we could generate some kind of help screen that informs them of our someone/body/thing lemma format for such entries. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we obliged to included some reference to all the non-idiomatic possible meanings of "on someone" in the entry to "reduce confusion" by showing the contrasts? Is this really an idiom ? To me it is just a meaning of on that is not necessarily in a language learner's experience. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The financial responsibility sense of "on" is a modest extension of the the general responsibility sense of "on", which is, in turn, a reasonable figurative extension (along the lines of "burden of responsibility") of the more physical senses of "on". How many senses of "on" would we want reflected in the "on somebody" and "on something" entries? We would need to make sure that a user didn't think that the financial responsibility sense was the only one that could connect "on" and a person (or other financially responsible entity) That would essentially mean duplicating much of on. I don't see how we can include this without being compelled to include almost any slightly unusual or regionally restricted figurative use of any preposition with its object. Why should we bother having the preposition entries themselves? DCDuring TALK 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yuk, nasty. In that case, we could have "be in something", etc. In any case, "be on someone/somebody" excludes the possibility of phrases like "this is on the company" ( = the company is paying for this). This is just a special sense of the preposition "on", which is where this sense belongs — something like "to be paid for by (the person, people, organisation, etc, following "on") as a treat, rather than by someone else or jointly". Not my best attempt at a definition, but it's something like that. "On the house" is good to keep ("house" has a special meaning here, so this is idiomatic), but on + pronoun needs to be deleted. — Paul G 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed, please take a look!
The last sense of on#Preposition is currently:
  1. Paid for by.
    The drinks are on me tonight, boys.
    The meal is on the house.
Does this need improvement? Or an extra sense? The more general meaning is something like "burdening". For example, "the responsibility for cleaning up the mess in on her." Note the usage examples include the most common objects. on the house is fairly idiomatic though. If we can make "on" good enough, perhaps we can get this to a delete consensus. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The entry at on is quite clearly sufficient. BUT, the Phrasebook argument is strong enough for this entry to be kept for that purpose alone. IMHO. -- Algrif 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Added Phrasebook category. Category has fewer than 100 English entries. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

wait for

(From RFV)

I can see nothing but a sum of parts, wait and for Goldenrowley 03:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have that sense of for, and I'm not sure how it would be written. Waiting for someone does not necessarily mean to wait on that person's behalf; you might even be waiting for someone on someone else's behalf ("my boss asked me to wait for his daughter.") -- Visviva 06:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the comment, two of the definitions of "for" apply after "wait":

  1. for =Supporting (opposite of against).
    I wait for you to love me
  2. for = Because of.
    I wait for love

Goldenrowley 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Abstain. I believe that the relevant sense of for is one that we don't yet have — something like this:

  1. Used to construe various verbs.
    Don't wait for an answer.
    What did he ask you for?
    He was convicted for murder. (We currently have this as an example for the “Because of.” sense, but that can't be right, as “He was wrongly convicted for a murder that never happened” is perfectly standard.)
    I'm looking for my friend.

— but that's no reason to keep wait for. On the other hand, in my experience we're pretty arbitrary about which verbs we take as phrasal and define on their own, and which ones we define at the main verb entry; if we expect our readers to be able to predict this, we might as well give up now on ever having readers. —RuakhTALK 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

An experienced Wiktionary user will try multiple approaches, knowing by experience that we are often inconsistent. A new user is more likely to type in "wait for" (or "wait") than "for", IMO. I am not yet certain that we have fully and accurately defined the senses of "wait for". DCDuring TALK 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

IMO those are not the right senses of "for".
  1. In the first example the emotional content has introduced the idea of support, but that is not common and not relevant to the meaning at hand. For example, in the sentence "I am waiting for the other shoe to drop." the "support" notion does not apply in any way.
  2. In ordinary language "cause" usually doesn't refer to a goal or an event in the future, but rather something from the past. "I am waiting for my hanging for my love." shows two sense of "for", the first is the sense that had been missing and the second is the cause sense.
"Wait for" is roughly synonymous with "await". MW3 shows 10 major senses and 18 subsenses of "for". There are obvious parallels among the senses, derived from a basic spatial metaphor applied in various ways, but they are distinguishable. DCDuring TALK 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree delete. This is just sum of parts, with for leading off a prepositional phrase in the examples above. --EncycloPetey 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think keep, myself. How would you know how to translate it? wait for is a single transitive verb in many (most?) languages. Widsith 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid if we go down the route to say we cannot define "for", then we will have to make entries for things like "hold for", "stop for", etc. I think the word "for" is a word that links the word "wait" with the reason for waiting.. just as it links many other words to their reasons. Goldenrowley 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. To me, wait for sounds obviously more idiomatic than "stop for". The point is that, despite having a transitive verb await, the natural way to express the idea in English is to use an intransitive verb (wait) with a preposition. This is quite unlike the situation in other languages. It is not a matter of "not being able" to define for, but rather that it is more appropriate and helpful to consider this to be a compound verb. Widsith 08:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
For me that's not the issue. We ought to have both the appropriate senses for "for" and whatever phrasal verbs or idiomatic expressions use "for". In gray-area cases I favor being nice to naive users by including more likely-to-be-searched terms both as headwords and elsewhere, in alternative forms, usage examples, and usage notes. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete, and wait on too. If we delete, we need a usage note s.v. wait.—msh210 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, and improve the definition of for. My rule of thumb on deciding whether something is a phrasal verb or just a verb followed by a preposition is whether it can be felicitously passivized. In this way, wait for is very different from, say wait on, which is definitely a phrasal verb. "Yesterday I was waited on by a very good-looking waiter" is perfectly grammatical, but ???"Yesterday I was waited for by a very good-looking customer" sounds quite odd. (It's still better than *"The store was gone to", though, so maybe it's slightly more phrasal than go to, which is definitely SOP.) Angr 17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • wait for cannot be translated by looking up wait and for, because the two words are translated by a single word in most other languages. Using two words is idiomatic English, not to mentiona a common set phrase. Why not have it? Widsith 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I agree with your premise. The correct way to translate wait for is to look up wait, find its translation, and see what preposition the translation is construed with. For example, the Hebrew translation of wait is חיכה (khiká), so you'd look that up, and find that in the relevant sense, it's construed with ל־ (l'-), to, for). Problem solved. Unless you're saying that most languages use different words for wait for as for bare wait; but I don't think you are, and if you were, then it seems like we'd need the translation of wait for at wait in order to prevent confusion. —RuakhTALK 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Er...I'm not sure, until that Hebrew page is created, how clear that will be. From what you are saying, though, I think that case is less confusing than translations which do not take any preposition at all. The French word attendre for instance — to me the defs wait (intransitive) and wait for (transitive) would ideally be on separate lines and link to separate English entries. The English word wait can be used with different prepositions – for, until, about, around, on, up — all of which effectively create very different "indirect" verbs, some transitive and others in-. Now while this can be dealt with through good preposition information at wait (the current entry is nowhere near, btw), I don't see why it's not more helpful to make common collocations such as wait for pages in their own right. As well, if not instead. Widsith 17:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate Widsith's valient efforts to find a perfect translation of words from other languages into English, the primary purpose of English Wikipedia is to define English words and phrases, not to fit what other languages have (that we do not) or to force the translations into English. For example we load English idioms here, we do not load English translations of French idioms (just because they can be translated). That having been said, "wait" implies we are waiting "for" something, in most cases. I never hear anyone "wait from" anything. Goldenrowley 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see how anything I've suggested interferes with this "primary purpose" you are talking about. But whatever, I'm done. Widsith 06:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete with explanation at wait, and possibly splitting translations (if we still do that). DAVilla 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed, please take a look!

I was about to delete this, but is there anything salvageable (movable) among the translations?—msh210 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A sign that something is merely SoP is if it translates literally and nicely into numerous other languages. I don’t know of another language that has this particular construction. English "wait for him" becomes in German "warten Sie auf ihn" (not "warten Sie für ihn"). In Spanish, I’d say "espéralo" (not "espera para él"). In Russian, "ожидайте его" (not "ждите для него"). It’s idiomatic. Keep. —Stephen 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(Further to the above) Also, this phrase can be tricky, because it has different meanings (wait for him vs. wait for him to do something...German "warte auf ihn" vs. "warte, dass er etwas tut"), and the sense "wait for him" has at least two subsenses (await his imminent arrival vs. wait part of a lifetime until he returns from duty or is released from captivity, with an eye towards marriage). —Stephen 23:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
On the flip side, one can also say "he waited three hours for her", or "he waited three hours for her to finish", so even if we keep [[wait for]], won't we have to duplicate all its information at [[wait]]? —RuakhTALK 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of keep the entry for wait of reasonable size, wouldn't it be desirable to have the wait for usage notes and examples separate from any such for wait? Something terse, but not hidden under show/hide, at wait that pointed to wait for would provide users the needed trail to follow. I know that size of entry is not a linguistic consideration, but it is a meaningful practical one for users if we want to give them OED-type depth of information. We haven't solved the problem of how to do that with single large entries. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As a staunch supporter of phrasal verbs, I have stayed away from this discussion because I am not convinced it is really phrasal. But following through the debate it is clear that 1. it is borderline phrasal for a number of reasons (although "he waited three hours for her" is a demonstration of non-phrasal status), and 2. trying to put all those usage notes everywhere would be anything but useful!!. So on the grounds of practical utility for the users, I think we should Keep this entry, with usage notes in the entry itself. -- ALGRIF talk 16:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

June 2008


Five redundant definitions, to my mind. What does anyone else think? Conrad.Irwin 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, rfv for each sense, given the long history. Either it's truly citable or the senses need to be merged so that there are enough cites to cover the overlapping senses. So far there are some uses, but the citation effort seems to have been misdirected. Perhaps the OED is citing some obscure theological sources that have not been scanned and are not readily available to us. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The OED Online gives only two cites for cosmocrat proper — this one from 1820, which capitalizes it, and this one from 1870, which does not (though the OED Online transcribes the latter cite a bit differently from what you see on b.g.c. — it omits the word just — so there may be more to the story). Also, in the same entry, it gives one cite each for cosmocratic, Cosmocratores, and cosmocrators (planets). —RuakhTALK 02:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a rather different mix of citations of uses in "modern" histories that use the word in closely related, mostly non-divine ways. One sense is something like cosmopolitan bureaucrat, another is the B-School "masters of the universe" sense, another is ancient imperial divine king (Nero, Augustus, Pompeii), and a more divine sense, which gets its citations as much from Tantra as Christianity, though they may be separable. Some are a bit mention-y, but not purely so. The senses certainly show a lot of relatedness. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete/Merge. The senses listed for "Deletion" look redundant to me. I don't see anything in any of the supplied citations to warrant these additional "senses". --EncycloPetey 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - each definition adds meaning and depth to the word. The definitions are individually different and each is correct. None of the definitions should not be deleted or merged. WritersCramp 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to RfV. Probably not possible to cite all, but worth a shot. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WritersCramp has done some merging. It looks good to me now, but if someone wants to, the citations page can be rearranged to match. DAVilla 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Looks like spam, but might not be. NZ? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Concise Oxford English Dictionary has now accepted the noun zorbing (since 2002). —Stephen 17:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
We've had it since '06. Maybe zorb just needs cleanup by someone who knows or cares. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The existence of the noun "zorbing" does not automatically imply the existence of the back-formation "zorb", if that is what it is supposed to be. — Paul G 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


rfd-sense Prefix for Canadair aircraft models. We have government aircraft prefixes, but not DC, as in DC-3, for the fabled twin-prop. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm clueless about the topic, so please bear with me. By "we" do you mean Wiktionary? Can you give some examples of "government aircraft prefixes" that we include? What are CL and DC instead? (Canadair used to be nationalized; would that make its prefix a government one, at least during that time period?) Why does this distinction bear on inclusion here? (I'm not saying that it doesn't, I'm just really clueless about this). —RuakhTALK 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The Imperial Wiktionary we, yes. Both are arguably "private". If government enterprises are exempt from our rules on things like trademarks and such, do we have to keep track of shareholdings to know whether an item should be included? How much government ownership would get an entity over the hump? I really hope that government ownership will be a red canard.
DC stood for the Douglas Commercial, Douglas being Douglas Aircraft, the leading commercial aircraft company until Boeing came from their second position at the onset of the jet age. DC-3 through D-10 were their model numbers. The MD-80 is a descendant of the DC-9. US military prefixes are abundant. There are many, many naval ones, ranging from USS, to CVN, similarly for armored vehicles and helicopters. Surprisingly the Air Force hasn't gotten very many of their designations in. I don;t know about the government equipment designating prefixes. Our standards for abbreviations might allow them. The manufacturers' designations seem different to me. Mind you, I'd think we'd be better to have more trademarks, place names, etc. in Wiktionary, but rules is rules. DCDuring TALK 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So are "CL", "DC", etc. assigned by some external authority, or is it just something the manufacturers do? If the former, I'm inclined to think of it as a meaningful and neutral unit that may be worth defining here; if the latter, I'm inclined to think of it as low-grade spam — not a big deal, but not something we'd want to encourage. —RuakhTALK 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And, thanks for explaining so patiently. :-) —RuakhTALK 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Manufacturers. The manufacturer's don't care enough to spam us. But there are plenty of fans for all kinds of boys' toys, especially "heavy metal". I have not been immune to the fascination of some of this. The two-letter airline codes (now augmented by additional codes), the three-letter airport codes, military equipment designations, .... Lists galore. The idea that we limit ourselves to product and brand names that convey more meaning than what they directly designate seems like a good idea, if we are going to exclude brands and company names. I'm not so clear whether we have drawn the line in the same place for abbreviations. It probably warrants some clarification of how our existing standards apply to determine if we need more. I see a lot of low-quality material in abbreviations. Not every government program and agency really merits inclusion of its abbreviation. I haven't seen terribly many RfV challenges to it. I don't find most of the abbreviations on Ullman's not-counted list to be worth fixing. I also don't think we should swamp the RfV/RfD with challenges without clarifying CFI for abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 04:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


rfc hasn't elicited good def in one year. DCDuring TALK 09:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The only usage I know of means "bit of made-up language" (a severely reduced, ad hoc construction as opposed to a complete constructed language such as Esperanto or Ido). Made-up language tests are sometimes used to test language-learning ability. The U.S. Government used to use these tests to qualify applicants to the Defense Language Institute. See w:Artificial grammar learning. —Stephen 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at th WP stub article and the first 2 pages of the 600+ raw b.g.c. hits, it seems SoP to me, but similar phrases have passed RfD. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the definition and removed rfc, but it still looks SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this as SoP any more than artificial intelligence. Since it is used attributively in artificial grammar learning, it should satisfy CFI. I'll try to find a more thorough explanation, since the current definition seems somehow lacking, but I can't articulate quite why I think that. --EncycloPetey 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the current definition simply defines grammar. artificial grammar means "small bit of made-up language, used for testing language-learning ability". —Stephen 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008


Same content, different formatting, as Appendix:Glossary of psychiatry.--Daniel Polansky 09:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


rfd-sense: "The material left behind by the retreat of continental glaciers. It buries former river valleys and creates young river valleys. The Driftless Area, a geographical area of North America, was unglaciated for the past 510 million years. Mass noun." Should this be a new entry or is it too encyclopedic? DCDuring TALK 23:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep it, but remove that part about the Driftless Area (which does make the definition sound a bit encyclopedic). There's no need for a new entry.--♠TBC♠ 02:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point

Not an idiom, as the meaning can be deduced by the literal definition of each word (point can mean view or opinion, as in, "I agree with him. He has a point.")--♠TBC♠ 04:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Hard to consider this anything but sum of parts.--Dmol 12:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. An easy case. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This particular phrase is only used sarcastically, as the example illustrates. --Connel MacKenzie 21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I dispute that it is only used sarcastically. I have heard it used mostly in the straight, SoP, sense. Sarcasm alone doesn't give an expression its own meaning. It depends for its force on the inherent straight meaning. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Virtually any phrase like the one nominated can be said sarcastically (I understand you, I know what you mean), but that doesn't really add to the meaning of the term.--♠TBC♠ 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sarcastic only might be legitimate grounds in my view, but I agree that this isn't true of this phrase. We all have our own set expressions, and if Connel claims to only use it sarcastically himself then I have no reason to doubt him, but in general I think the sarcastic use is less common. DAVilla 05:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - only applicable to one of the umpteen sense of point. bd2412 T 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How does that merit inclusion? Irregardless of how many senses point has, the phrase still uses a literal definition of the word, and as such, the phrase is not an idiom.--♠TBC♠ 03:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about this, the particular kind of point to which the phrase refers is one that can not actually be "seen". It's an abstract philosophical concept, so to "see" one's point means something other than to "see" a "point".
That might support keeping this as see one's point, but would not favor keeping the entry under the current name. --EncycloPetey 22:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd support moving it to see one's point. bd2412 T 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing does not always refer to physically seeing something. "To understand" is also a sense for "see". As in, "I see what he means", "I see his rationale", "I see why he did this".--TBC 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of I + see someone's point (with someone = you), and AFAICT usually not used sarcastically (pace Connel). Further, though Jmabel (talkcontribs) is correct in writing, "this phrase is often used as a polite preface to disagreement" (on Talk:I see your point), this is also true of other equivalent phrases with the same basic meaning (I see what you're saying, I get your point, I take your point; even that's true and I agree). —RuakhTALK 05:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. (Not only sarcastic.)—msh210 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom; there is not set phrase since multiple pronouns could be substituted here, and the verb may be inflected: She saw my point; Do you see our point?; We can't see their point; etc. --EncycloPetey 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. SoP. -- WikiPedant 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep as phrasebook entry at least. Highly unusual in that "see" and "point" are not the most common words for the selected meanings, while the phrase is so common as to qualify as a speech act. I don't think moving is a good idea because the latter does not apply in any other frame. ("He saw your point"?) Thus the score isn't too bad on either the never mind test or the "mind was crossed" test. Also, compare to "I get the point." There's an admission of concession inherent in this phrase which is more than a sum of its parts. DAVilla 05:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


This has previously failed with several spelling variations in the past. Resubmitted again without citations, this is a shoot on sight, still, right? Perhaps if more admins paid attention to it... --Connel MacKenzie 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Dictionary:Tea_room#epicaricacy. delete This hasn't yet been shown to meet CFI, despite considerable efforts by several people. We should keep the citations page though, as it does contain useful information. Conrad.Irwin 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am ambivalent about this one, but to be fair it's not true to say that it is "without citations". They are on the Citations:epicaricacy space. Widsith 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It has three cites. It certainly can't be shoot-on-sight. How are the cites unsatisfactory? Groups is going to make many of these words rarely (never?) used in print more likely to find some real usage in durably cited media. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

posthumous execution

There was previously an RFD request on this, but it was withdrawn. I'd like to restore the request, as I think the term is SOP: for example, google books:"posthumous public execution" also gets a few hits, and google books:"execution of his corpse" gets one, and the related google books:"executed posthumously" gets a good number. Also, the current definition makes it sound like this has nothing to do with the normal senses of execution, but as w:Posthumous execution makes clear, the term is used specifically when the body is "executed" in a way that would actually be used for execution — hanging, beheading, crucifixion, shooting, etc. All told, I think this is simply a less-common sense of execute and execution that's missing from those entries, together with a clarifying adjective, and not a phrase unto itself warranting inclusion in a dictionary. (I'm open to contrary opinions, however.) —RuakhTALK 14:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How strange. Ammended execution. DAVilla 06:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


The correct plural is Pokemon (or the official spelling, Pokémon), no? Teh Rote 21:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, but still quite common. Weak keep as a mis-spelling or non-standard spelling.--Dmol 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
From what I gather, Pokemons is a tongue-in-cheek "Engrish" way of referring to Pokemon. Not sure whether or not that merits inclusion, though.--TBC 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Dmol. Circeus 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I might say delete since from my experience (I am a fan after all) this is just an example of "being stupid to be funny" which is comparable to what is done in the following extract from a Will and Grace (the sitcom) script

WILL: [TO GRACE] Hi. [TO PUPPY, PUPPY-TALK VOICE] May I bite your snoots? May I bite your snoots from loves?

GRACE: Please stop pluralizing everything.

WILL: But he's so cutes!

GRACE: Look at mes. I can't believe you are still playing with the puppy. You've been home for 3 hours, and you haven't moved. --50 Xylophone Players talk 20:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

300 googlebooks. RJFJR 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Translingual section (transliteration of a cuneiform sign). If I remember correctly, we don't do transliterations unless native speakers use them. Could be wrong, but I think all the native speakers died well before Latin characters were invented, so..... -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I seem to remember a discussion about extinct languages regularly written in transcription in scholarly works. I think it was a discussion about Egyptian hieroglyphics or perhaps Coptic, but I can't locate it. Anyone else remember something of this that might help locate the discussion? --EncycloPetey 08:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is relevant, but we're currently using transliterations for a number of ancient languages whose scripts are not yet unicode supported, such as hieroglyphics and the Tocharians. However, it is my understanding that this is a temporary measure, until those scripts become supported. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yes, it is typical for Akkadian, or Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform signs to be Latinised and I doubt strongly that the questionmark appearing as ("the Cuneiform sign ? ") could ever be comprehensive for anyone. There are transition rules and lists with original and Latinised signs, but in none of the two or three I had seen were the cuneiform signs digitalised, but instead rendered with the help of images, which are the only sensible way (hitherto) for Akkadian, Ugaritic and Eblaite and since original cuneiform signs are absent from Unicode (now and in foreseeable future) and the Latin correspondence is the only wise to reach the original source (in digitalised texts, printing books is another matter) besides .png, .tiff or whatsoever images, I oppose the deletion. Bogorm 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Cuneiform is present in Unicode, in all it's glorious varieties of signs as they evolved merged to the same code points which should in theory be handled at the font-level (imagine Phoenician and Greek alpha and Latin 'a' all to be handled at font-display level!!) But it will take a lots of time until all the switches inside the {{Xsux}} get proper font support. Ugaritic is also present at unicode (see Appendix:Ugaritic abjad). The policy is to write languges in original script, and creating dozens of ===Transliteration=== redirects for every phonetic transcription of 𒁳 that was reconstructed to be used for writing languages in 3 different families (IE, Semitic and Sumerian which is language isolate) would not be reasonable, as the 𒁳 is already reachable by using usual search on DAB [30] --Ivan Štambuk 23:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not know about which Unicode you are talking, but my OS based on UTF-16 is displaying but questionmarks and I do not dare to know what happens to the users with OS relying on UTF-8, but if you speak of some imaginary UTF-256, yes, perchance the Akkadian and Eblaite cuneiforms may be included there. As for now, leaving the reader with the questionmarks alone and with not image represantation would be too merciless. In addition, Burmese alphabet, wherever I come across it in Wikipedia, is too rendered as questionmarks and I am sure that if Unicode does not comprise a living language spoken by 40 000 000, one should be far more cautious in what concerns ancient ones. Bogorm 08:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Bogorm, you have already established on numerous occasions that you cannot see (or cannot see properly) a great number of scripts that others can. Thus, I think that the fact that you cannot see something is not great evidence that no one can see it. However, with the pending discussion concerning transliterations, I think we should hold off on deleting this. Inasmuch as I would very much like to see this entry go away, if the community decides that transliteration entries are something we want........then I have no power to stop them......much to my chagrin. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I am using a quite modern operating system(from the current decade), live in a European Union state and cannot see this rare, advanced and complicated scripts. Have you ever thought that readers of Wiktionary with even older software should not be repelled from Wiktionary, that in India and Africa there are innumerable users of Windows 98 or Windows 95, when no Unicode was in question at all and that they deserve at least a little bit of mercy from self-conceit users from developped countries (not all of them are such, hopefully you neither) ? Transliteration entries for languages outside Unicode (UTF-8) should at any cost be preserved in order to show understanding for the mentioned users and because one ought not to embrace any innovation and to impose it on others. Bogorm 09:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I can only pity users of Win9x and other non-Unicode OSes. There are several free and Unicode compliant cuneiform fonts available on the Web, one trivial search query away, for anybody to use. There should probably be some kind of appendix discussing these "obscure fonts", where to get them and how to install them, on language-specific basis, and this was already partially discussed in BP for some Old Persian entries. One special problem with cuneiform is that it cannot be really "transliterated" as one sign had lots of (reconstructed) phonetic values in various languages it was used, so what gives DAB more prominence than DIB, not to mention akkadian sequence of dib, dip, dab, dap, tib, tip, ṭib, ṭip listed in the entry? Search on transliteration cupled with the keyword of "cuneiform" or "sumerian" yields proper-script entry immediately, usually as the first search result, so it shouldn't be out of reach of anyone willing to utilize his brain cells instead of figuring out how to copy/paste Akkadian.otf to his %WINDIR%\Fonts folder.. --Ivan Štambuk 10:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

evil laugh

Seems Sop to me. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to me. Villains can be evil, but a laugh can't be by any of the usual definitions. It is a laugh uttered evily, and so does not follow the expected construction. --EncycloPetey 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's absurd. There are all sorts of things which are "evil" in that sense: an evil look, an evil smile; or how about a relieved sigh. This is a standard construction, whereby an action is not the adjective itself, but betrays it in the actor in some way. Delete as SOP. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's called hypallage. Still, it seems like evil laugh is a fairly specific kind of laugh; a laugh can be evil-sounding, or driven by evil, without being an evil laugh per se. (I'd say the same of evil look, BTW, which I think means roughly the same as dirty look, just more intense.) —RuakhTALK 10:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems as if, to avoid the entry being merely SoP, the headword was given only a very specific meaning. It lacks the appropriate context tags and evidence that it is actually used in the way defined. Does this need to be RfVed ? DCDuring TALK 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per others.—msh210 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete as SoP.--Dmol 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Improve the definition at evil. Otherwise we open the door to evil X. -- Algrif 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. Very different from dirty look, which relies on a particularly unintuitive sense of "dirty". bd2412 T 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I believe this to be an idiomatic term. It is being used extensively in online chat communications interchangably with muahaha (*evil laugh*). I'm not sure it would be easy to find find good quotations for this, but nevertheless, I do believe this term has merit and should be kept. __meco 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It ought to be citable in Groups if it has the merit you suggest. Citations illustrating that kind of use would pretty much eliminate any grounds for deletion. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This search confirms it. __meco 08:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Once the sense is cited this matter can be put to rest. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I added citations for the newly created interjection section. __meco 18:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
So the entry and the interjection look good. What about the noun? Anyone? The rationale has to be that it means something more than an evil-sounding laugh, because the individual words combined mean that. Do folks actually refer to the "mwahaha" laugh as "evil laugh"? Do sound editors say "I inserted evil laugh over the fade." DCDuring TALK 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Not quite idiomatic, but certainly something that would go in "Coordinate terms", a little used header. Circeus 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - neological slang without any literary background. Bogorm 22:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Our criteria for inclusion at WT:CFI do not exclude slang or words "without any literary background." I have amended the rfd to rfd-sense because the interjection sense seems to be cited and not SoP as cited. The noun still seems SoP to me, but there may be a non-SoP sense to be provided and cited. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we must reset this discussion. I assume now that there is only a motion to delete the noun sense. Could you set up a demarcation and open a separate vote on it? (Actually, the interjection section was created after this phrase was nominated for deletion) __meco 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually the substance of the original rfd remains the issue. The tag is different to make it clearer to reader and the admin closing our the discussion what is being questioned. I doubt that the discussion will be closed out imminently. DCDuring TALK 11:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have cited it and redefined it in line with the citations, deleting the usage example. Both the original definition and the usage example still seem SoP to me. If they are reinstated. they should be challenged. The sole justificaton for keeping an SoP sense would be to contrast the CFI-meeting sense with the SoP sense to avoid confusion in the user. I don't know that it is a concern in this case. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

point of the compass

I'm not really into what goes as "sum of parts" and not, but for me this really looks like a noun being the sum of its parts. --Eivind (t) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It's not a literal sharp point on a drawing compass; it's one of the 16 cardinal directions marked on a navigational compass. The definition could certainly be improved, but it's not merely SoP. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree .... except that we already have compass point. How about a redirect, if you don't want to delete? -- Algrif 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, no-one said "point" is a "sharp point". "Compass point" is one of the definitons for "point", therefore I reckoned "point of the compass" must be the sum of its parts. --Eivind (t) 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Once one is talking about a compass, then isn't the specific sense of "point" obvious and, therefore, isn't it SoP? DCDuring TALK 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Either keep as is or redirect to compass point. You can’t translate point of the compass into other languages simply by the individual words, you have to look up the specific phrase (or compass point). —Stephen 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
To answer DCDuring's "point". :-) It is useful to distinguish the various meanings of N,S,E, and W. They can be geographical, magnetic, or compass points(for instance). So, although your argument is thought provokingly good, the term compass point is still needed, as there are situations where the compass has not been mentioned. However, I am behind you all the way if we are talking about point of the compass -- Algrif 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • delete or redirect (it's not a set phrase in the way that compass point is). Ƿidsiþ 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

redirect or keep. Point does mean 'a direction,' as in a 'point of sail,' but it's usage appears to be extremely rare in English outside of idiomatic usages. Yartrebo 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Not an IPA letter, but used in some Canadian languages. There's already an article at the correct title ʔ. -- Prince Kassad 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My list calls this a "capital letter glottal stop". If it is used in some languages, it certainly should be kept and explained. Or at the very least, redirect it to ʔ. —Stephen 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's discussed at w:Glottal stop (letter), which confirms it is a valid glyph. Other IPA letter with capital variant are ɛ (Ɛ, Latin epsilon), ɑ (, Latin alpha) and ə (Ə or Ǝ, the schwa). Circeus

August 2008

having eaten one's fill

SoP, even after being put in lemma form. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. -- Algrif 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Idiomatic. Move to eat one's fill. —Stephen 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If the following is a sense of "fill", how is this an idiom?
fill: 1. A sufficient or more than sufficient amount.
Don't feed him anymore, he's had his fill.
There may be some unstated criterion that we should have for idioms, but I don't get what exisying criterion would include this term. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it’s unusual and idiomatic. There are a number of expressions where you can use "one’s fill" this way, but not many. To translate it into another language, you really need to look up the complete term. If you translate eat + one’s + fill into any language that I know, you’ll get nonsense. German would be sich satt essen or abfressen. Russian would be наедаться (where на- gives the sense of satiety). In Portuguese, I’d say comer o que quiser. In Spanish, I think I’d say comer bien or hartarse. In French, it would be manger tout son content. The only one that comes close to the same construction as the English is the German [sich satt essen]] (to eat oneself sated), but translating the individual English words as though they were SoP will always give a bad result. —Stephen 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we need to formalize a translation-target criterion in some way and vote it in. SGB certainly brings it up often enough ;-)) Multiple languages from a single family or uber-family or at least 2 uber-families or 3 families ? DCDuring TALK 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

be bound to

bound to

Both of these seem to be direct consequences of the adjective senses of bound#Etymology 1 and possibly misconstructions. Should they be redirects to the section of bound? DCDuring TALK 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

They need entries, as previously discussed (somewhere), because of the use as an alternative to must in the sense of logical conclusion, where there could be ambiguity with must meaning obligation. The phrase is always in a form of be + bound + to followed by the bare infinitive. It forms part of the modal series. -- Algrif 16:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What I viscerally dislike is the incorporation of what I have learned is a part of the infinitive ("to") into this entry. I find it OK to occasionally split an infinitive in usage, but not to so do in a headword. To me, this is a bit different from phrasal verbs because the prepositions are not part of a PoS as to is part of the infinitive. Without the "to", neither entry would have value, unless we start adding entries for passives (if that is a valid way of interpreting "be bound").
I have an old idioms book that shows "bound to" and "be bound to" at "bound", but I vastly prefer the way Longman's DCE presents it at "bound" with context-like notation indicating the required infinitive, something like what we now have at bound#Adjective. I can't see any reason not to have that at "bound", whatever is decided about these entries. If we help 2 users per entry per year, I'm down with it. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't rely too much on gut reactions. Modal verbs, which is what we are considering here, are normally followed by the bare infinitive. (Example at the start of this paragraph.) So, just as ought to = should and both are followed by the bare infinitive, this is a case of be bound to = must also followed by a bare infinitive. A typical modal structure. The example given at bound Adjective is particularly good one to demonstrate why we need to use be bound to (unique sense; logical conclusion) to avoid the confusion with must (sense; obligation)
I suspect my gut reaction reflects the response of many users. I offer my gut in lieu of any other evidence about user response. My gut is not much cluttered with linguistic knowledge, therefore more qualified in its ignorance to speak for our purported anon user (if that is our target user). ;-) DCDuring TALK 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • They are bound to come into conflict eventually. cf: They must come into conflict eventually.
    I have no problem with leaving the entry at bound Adjective, but to eliminate be bound to is to eliminate the most probable search entry, and leave a verb usage of bound hidden away as an adjective, where it is difficult to find, even when you know it is there.
    To summarise; 1) bound is not a modal verb and as a verb it does not mean must. 2) Bound to is not a modal form, it means tied up with rope to a chair, or stuck to something with glue, and does not necessarily mean must (logical conclusion). But the entry is as it is as the result of a previous discussion about this. I disagree with the result, but that's life on the Wikt! The only way to show bound as meaning logical conclusion, equivalent to a disambiguation of must is the entry be bound to. I refer you to any decent grammar book you care to chose on this one. -- Algrif 12:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think users can be assumed to convert to lemma form for search. Usage examples including the forms of "[be] bound to" would very substantially address the need for users to find the correct entry for "bound" (or the other entries - at least if our search worked a little better. What about "seemed bound to" and its synonyms? I offered Collins DCE's approach precisely because they are a dictionary (albeit a grammatically sophisticated one) rather than a reference grammar book. I think that we need to find ways of presenting sophisticated ideas that represent the best understanding of language and present it so that it is useful for the target user. These entries seemed to me to be a waste. I suppose they might help someone, but they led to neglect of providing useful information at bound. We may just need to have multiple locations for the information and hope that search will find one of them for a user. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    PS, I am unable to locate the previous discussion of this. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't find it either, even though I participated. It was probably a sub discussion. I'll try to find it for you later. I think the entry be bound to should stay, and is useful, for all the reasons I've mentioned. I do not agree that looking up bound is going to get anyone anywhere near the correct meaning of the phrase be bound to = logical conclusion, unless there is is a link from one to the other, of course. And I must question the idea that these entries are "a waste". A waste of what? On that basis, we can have a spree with be able to, have to, ought to, going to, etc. That aside, I am working (using the term very loosely ;-)) on a Modal appendix. The term will be there also, along with some other similar phrases that are used modally. I believe modals are such an important part of English. Native speakers take them for granted, forgetting that they express so much more than just the surface. -- Algrif 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Waste" was my initial reaction. I appreciate the points made, including Widsith's below. I will work to make sure that the component words also contain clues about the phrasal senses, but will be much more selective in my challenges for less usual, long-standing phrasal usages like this. I wouldn't have done so if there were a discussion or a link to a discussion on the entry talk page. Our search engine doesn't even support our needs, let alone our users.
Also, would it make sense to include an explicit etymology section in such entries pointing to the best section of the main component words' entries? I find the logic of language evolution more economical of thought and memory than grammar rules. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that it includes "part of the infinitive" is just a reflection of the way it is used, ie often with the following verb only implied. Consider "Do you think she'll come tonight?" "Oh yes, she's bound to." Ƿidsiþ 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • But consider also "She's bound". The usage, whether you care to think of it as "bound" + "to infinitive", or "bound to" + "bare infinitive" is a modal use of the word which is only apparent in that exact structure. It is much clearer if the term "bound to" is considered as what it is, a modal, and as such, is followed by the bare infinitive. Grammar is "invented after the fact" in an attempt to put order to something that is basically disordered. So this is just the kind of rule that has less exceptions if you consider the phrase + bare infinitive to be a typically modal construction. And from experience working with learners of English, the expectation is just this. Learners check out phrases such as ought to rather than ought. going to rather than going. And so on. -- Algrif 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My view is that we should delete the content at bound to but keep the page and refer people to the appropriate section of bound. To me it seems weird to have "bound to" listed as an "adjective". What about "delighted to", "happy to", "obliged to" etc.? Are these all adjectives? Where does it end? Matt 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
Which is why, in the end, the preferred entry is be bound to, because it is a verbal entry representing a modal verb usage. This entry has nothing in common with the standard "adjective + to inf", because of it's modal sense. -- Algrif 12:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I definitely see where you're coming from, but since "seem|seems|seeming|seemed bound to", "look|looks|looking|looked bound to", etc. are so well attested, I don't think that's ideal. (Not the end of the world — we could create redirects to [[be bound to]], with appropriate usage notes — but not ideal.) —RuakhTALK 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I forget the correct term for these state verbs that can substitute be. Later edit. linking verbs. But that argument applies to nearly all the be + something entries. seems (etc) able to, seem (etc) as cool as a cucumber, and so on. I have often wondered what, if anything, could be done about that. -- Algrif 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Having an entry for verbal "be bound to" makes more sense to me than calling "bound to" an adjective. I confess I didn't notice that "be bound to" was also listed as a part of this deletion request. But is there a fundamental difference between "be bound to" and "be delighted to", "be obliged to" etc.? Or should there (ideally) be separate entries for all these? Matt 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)~.
There is a fundamental difference, yes. I am delighted to attend is a simple SoP statement. I am bound to attend does NOT mean that I have been tied up before attending, nor does it mean that I have made any promise, or any of the other meanings of bound. It means that MY OPINION is that IT IS LOGICAL that I will not miss the function. In other words, it is a modal verb in effect (similar to must), and as such, is not "adjective + to infinitive" and therefore is not SoP. -- ALGRIF talk 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, indeed, it doesn't mean "tied up"! But I don't have any problem parsing "I am bound to..." with "bound" as an adjective meaning something similar to "sure" (a seemingly reasonable extension of its literal meaning). In fact, both Collins and M-W online dictionaries explain the "bound to" usage under adjective "bound". I agree, though, that there doesn't seem to be any other way to use "bound" with exactly this adjectival meaning. Matt 20:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC).
Personally speaking, I don't even think that this adjectival definition is valid. One day (not now) I will argue the case more forcefully. For the moment, just worth noting that "a bound noun" and "this noun is bound" never have the sense under discussion. The same goes for "a bound to noun" and "this noun is bound to" (where the "to" becomes a preposition, doesn't it?, if we are talking about entry "bound to"). It would be interesting to compare how these other dictionaries deal with be able to, by the way. -- ALGRIF talk 11:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


We don't do ISO 639 language codes as entries, do we. Or would they have to be rfv'd? DCDuring TALK 19:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We do, see for example de or en -- Prince Kassad 18:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Should be translingual though, not English. --Jackofclubs 09:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Just a misspelling of mosey. A OneLook search comes up with no hits for this sense. I don't think it even qualifies as nonstandard. -- WikiPedant 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. google books:"mozy|mozying|mozies|mozied along" gets only 3 hits, compared to 665 for google books:"mosey|moseying|moseys|moseyed along". —RuakhTALK 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - we can not afford wasting resources for misspellings made by uneducated people. And the misspelling of a slang word goes forsooth too far. Bogorm 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Is it in use? Yes. Is it citable? Yes (see Ruakh's link above). Is it rare? Yes. But 574 Google web hits, ~ 100 blog hits, and ~ 15 group hits show me that it certainly exists. sewnmouthsecret 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't include rare misspellings. —RuakhTALK 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I want or don't want to keep this term; I just want things to make sense logically. Per CFI, this term is OK to keep as long as it is cited. There is nothing that states we do not include rare misspellings. A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. People may run across it. It is attested and used in permanently recorded media.

Furthermore, when searching b.g.c. for "mozy", it yields 688 hits.

The first 6 pages of hits alone allow one to expand to 5 different adjective senses on top of the verb sense (which I shall add).

Point is, one can't pick and choose which words stay or go because one feels a word is a misspelling, especially when CFI says nothing about it. sewnmouthsecret 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are four spellings: mosey, mozey, mosy, mozy, approximately in that order of frequency on bgc. We should be relieved that mosie and mozie aren't also in use in bgc material. "Mozy" might (barely) be attestable basede on bgc hits, but most hits are not for the verb or anything else that we are likely to feel compelled to have an entry for. "Mosy" is sometimes a last name or a nickname or a scanno. If we don't have explicit standards for what makes something a misspelling or an alternative spelling, the four forms would seem to have equal standing under our policies. "Mosey" is the only one of these that is in the OneLook dictionaries, suggesting that other dictionaries can find a rationale for excluding such forms. At least one "z" form would be good inclusion, because a user might well type "moz" in searching for the word as heard in a movie or speech. "moz" would yield mozey if we troubled to enter that more attestable form. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Our standards are CFI, which don't spell out how to handle rare spellings that may or may not be misspellings. As far as a word's standing, that's why we have tags such as {{rare}} and {{archaic}}, among others. As is often stated, we are not other dictionaries. We can include anything that meets our criteria, which, per CFI, this term does. sewnmouthsecret 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Your comments seem to be at variance with Dictionary:Criteria for inclusion#Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings. —RuakhTALK 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think these criteria are fine as far as they go (not far, IMHO). It would be helpful if we had explicit criteria for when something was definitely an alternative spelling or definitely a common misspelling (or even just definitely common or definitely a misspelling). We could still leave a big gray area for what is not so definite. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the adjectival senses just added to the entry by Sewnmouthsecret seem OK albeit obscure, although I wish s/he had provided a supporting quotation for each. But to suggest that this is a valid alternative spelling of the verb mosey is not credible for me and I still think that we should delete the verb sense. (Pet peeve: Except for slang bordering on nonstandard and words of very recent vintage, I think that it is inappropriate to rely solely or even heavily on g.b.c. hits or blogs. We should rely on writers and sources which are credible exemplars of English usage, which is why I'm biased toward recognized literary sources, academic journals, and prominent news outlets with good standards like Time magazine or the NYT.) -- WikiPedant 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My issue here is this: it seems to me that this is a valid alt spelling of mosey. To say it is not credible for you is to say your opinion is to delete it. I would support deleting it if there was no evidence of use, but there is, no matter how obscure. Opinion should not dictate keeping or deleting a term. To be biased towards any given publication is an unnecessary bias, as new terms, alternate meanings, etc. show up in less recognized sources and are often the bastions of language transformation. I will add supporting quotations for all adjective senses, and I will add quotations for the verb sense as well, as the quotations were already linked to above. sewnmouthsecret 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The citations Sewnmouthsecret has added for the verb are probably adequate to justify retaining that sense, for now. But I wonder whether this rather thin set of citations may be the result of sporadic misspellings or typesetting errors by the authors or printers. (Such things do happen, and they do not really constitute legitimate alt spellings.) I'd particularly like to get my hands on a couple editions of that Zane Grey novel to see if they all really say "mozy". -- WikiPedant 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

hasn't one

Over at WT:RFC#hastn't one, user: has suggested this be deleted. I have no strong opinion either way, but I've brought it here anyway. Thryduulf 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Eek, tag questions! While these are limited in number (they are all of the form auxiliary verb + ["not"|"n't" +] pronoun) there are still a huge number of these, and I'm not convinced they belong in Wiktionary. — Paul G 11:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Idiomatic, keep. Useful and interesting once it gets cleaned up. —Stephen 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In what way is this idiomatic? It is a simple negative question, tagged onto a statement, asking for someones personal opinion. In other words, a simple question. We might as well put ¿O no? as an idiom in Spanish, mightn't we? (He asked, using a tag question) -- Algrif 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If it were not idiomatic, then you should be able to translate it directly into other languages, such as Spanish "¿no ha uno?". And it’s use is not so simple for someone learning English as a second language. I believe the article mentions this in regard to "doesn’t one". —Stephen 15:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere round about lesson 9, Eng L2 learners are taught tag questions. They are questions tagged on to a statement. To allow this entry means that all the following are also OK. am I , aren't I , are you , aren't you , is he , isn't he, are we , aren't we, are they , aren't they , followed by all the positive and negative combinations with do , have , can , could , shall , should , ought , will , would , may , might , must , need , dare. This is a grammar entry, isn't it?. Make an appendix by all means. It would be a good idea, wouldn't it? But we don't really need all those entries, do we? And anyway they should be followed by a question mark, shouldn't they? -- ALGRIF talk 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


"Present participle of 'goat'", says the page, but there is no verb listed at goat.

However, "goating" is a noun (a participial noun, to be precise) according to this page. It's not listed in FOLDOC, where you might expect to find it, and [http::/ onelook] only lists the entry in Witkionary. Anyone have any independent citations? — Paul G 11:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are two senses to the verb to "goat": "to scapegoat" and "to allow goats to feed on". I'd be appreciative of a verification from the OED. I have seen lots of hits on b.g.c. for "goated" and "goating" but need to make sure that the apparent participles aren't really noun and adjective (which they may additionally be). DCDuring TALK 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cited a noun sense of goating. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The definitions can be improved. The sense of "goating" at the link above seems to relate to the "hazing", "roasting", "pranking" sense recorded in fraternity periodicals. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the OED (2nd ed., 1989) has no entry for "goating" nor does it list "goat" as a verb.
By the way, is it possible that the 1918 verb sense added at goat is a scanno for "go at"? "Goat" seems to fit, but is that correct? — Paul G 07:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The OED's varied readers don't seem to have been reading enough boring technical literature and fraternity newletters. I found other quotations that have this verb sense. This one provided, I thought, more context that would reduce ambiguity. Perhaps I was wrong. DCDuring TALK 10:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

servabo fidem

This is sum of parts in Latin, and seems to have been added principally because it is a motto used by a US military regiment. This does not strike me as being worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. --EncycloPetey 03:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For someone who is not versed in Latin grammar, it would probably be very difficult to divine the meaning of servabo fidem from servabo and fidem. If we delete servabo fidem, then we need to put real definitions in servabo and fidem, not just a technical grammatical description and link to the lemma. —Stephen 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
How will adding such definitions help? The form servabo has mutliple meanings, just as the lemma form does. Drowning the entry for servabo with all the possible definitions will not make translation any clearer for someone not versed in Latin grammar. This information would be better included on Wikiquote or Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
That is why it is better to keep servabo fidem. —Stephen 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
By your reasoning, we should have an entry for every sentence and phrase found in the corpus of Latin literature. Reductio ad absurdum --EncycloPetey 21:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Every common or important phrase. My reasoning does not envelope every sentence and phrase, it only includes those phrases that you think are SoP. SoP only works in a language that you know how to put together. servabo fidem is SoP for people who know Latin or at least know another language with similar grammar, but it is not SoP for most Americans. Therefore, if the only reason for deleting it is SoP, then keep it, because for most people it’s not. —Stephen 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
But that reasoning would argue for every sentence/phrase. In order to understand any of them, you might need to know some basic things about Latin. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
So you think that every common or important phrase includes not only e pluribus unum, but also "I prefer to add a little extra salt to my broccoli when my mother comes for a visit"? If that’s what you think, then you don’t understand what I’m saying. —Stephen 12:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
When you say, "For someone who is not versed in Latin grammar, it would probably be very difficult to divine the meaning of...", that applies to nearly every sentences or phrase. The bit about only important phrases and sentences may have merit. There will certainly be people who want to know what e pluribus unum means without having to figure out Latin grammar. But, I am hesitant to accept such a thing, as I don't think a clear boundary can be set. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete. SOP. The meaning seems fairly discernible from the parts. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Coming in to this discussion not knowing what the phrase meant, I first looked up servabo and then fidem. Although the basic idea comes across fine, someone wanting to know what it meant would not be able to get an actual translation without including the phrase. sewnmouthsecret 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
So, would that mean you'd want to have entry for Cuius ducit filiam? --EncycloPetey 02:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, after looking up cuius, ducit, and filiam, I gather it means who/what/which X daughter, X being ducit. So, for right now, I would say include it. sewnmouthsecret 13:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I don't know how I feel about the "common or important phrase" criterion, and I don't know how common or important this really is (~150 b.g.c. hits); so, I'm erring on the side of keep. —RuakhTALK 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This phrase isn't idiomatic in the slightest. It's servabo (I shall keep, preserve) + faith. It's no more idiomatic than comedes pavonem. --EncycloPetey 02:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
When I look up servabo, it has watch over, maintain, protect, keep, guard, save, preserve, and store for meanings. When I look up fidem, it has faith, belief, reliance, confidence, and trust. So, if I were looking up the phrase word-by-word, I could conjecture that it could mean I maintain confidence, or I watch over trust, or I guard confidence. That, to me, is idiomatic. sewnmouthsecret 13:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I caught that, thanks. :-)   —RuakhTALK 02:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
...and you noticed that the b.g.c. hits were all of the form "the motto of X is..." and not one of the b.g.c. hits I saw was in a Latin context? They were all books in English, and the vast majority then immediately told the translation. Such citations are usually deemed not to meet the requirements of CFI. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that they're used in an English context is a major reason I didn't vote delete. Certainly a phrase found only in Latin texts will only be understood by people who understand Latin grammar; but this has been the motto of various groups and persons in English-speaking countries, and contrary to your experience, I found many examples on b.g.c. that used/mentioned the phrase without providing translation. Relevant specialized dictionaries (dictionaries of mottoes, and dictionaries of classical quotations) do include the phrase, and while I realize that their considerations are in one regard different from ours (since they don't have entries for the constituents), they're also in one regard the same (since they're directed at English-speaking readers who would have difficulty assembling the constituents anyway). —RuakhTALK 10:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

as for reductio ad absurdum, see also decus et tutamen nemo me impune lacessit and wth all sorts of other mottos like non inultus premor and w:Category:State mottos of the United States & fluctuat nec mergitur & labor omnia vincit & semper fidelis & non pro nobis laboramus & de oppresso liber & so on and so on and so on... 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

jest at

Most unlike me to challenge a possible phrasal verb. But I think this is in fact SoP. -- ALGRIF talk 11:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Policing the category definitely increases its legitimacy! DCDuring TALK 12:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete; I agree that this does not seem to be a phrasal verb. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess then you can also talk about scoff at, sneer at and take the mickey out of right away, they have been created in the same run by User: / User:All_you_need_is_love. Mutante 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete all. SemperBlotto 07:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

air sport

"any recreational activity performed in the atmosphere" Appears in no OneLook reference word except Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Seems SoP to me unless there is another definition. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs redefinition, not deletion. All terrestrial sports are performed "in the atmosphere". Basketball is not an "air sport" even though players' bodies may lose contact with the ground. Shooting ducks is not an "air sport" even though the bullet may hit the duck in the air. To my understanding, air sports are those that involve some means of human-powered flight, either as the sport in itself (stunt flying, balloon racing) or as a platform from which to perform (skyboarding or skysurfing, group skydiving). bd2412 T 01:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding would fit with the WP stub article, but also with what one might expect the words to mean, just as we don;t think of an airplane as merely a plane (surface) in the air. Give it your best shot. That other dictionaries don't have makes it more important that we do a good job. It might be a valid category, but I wonder whether it is often used and whether anyone wouldn't instantly guess the meaning. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider, for example, someone who doesn't speak English. Might be easy for you to guess, but for everyone? I'll work on it - at some point. bd2412 T 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, we do have watersport (I don't know about defn. 2. But since SemperB put it there, I assume it is correct.) -- ALGRIF talk 10:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a second definition. Single words (former compounds that are spelled solid, like "watersport") are thereby not subject to challenge as SoP. I believe that compelling an English learner to construct the possible meaning of such a collocation is reasonable. It is misleading to treat it as if this were a true idiom. It is the kind of term that is most useful for someone who runs a business serving those who enjoy these activities, such as the apparent spammer w:Airways Airsports. Perhaps it would be useful to put this through RfV to get the cites that would support a meaning, which could then be assessed as to whether it was SoP or not. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: your last sentence: Unfortunately, this never happens. Citing is a fair bit of effort, and editors aren't always motivated to do it in the best of cases, let alone cases of the form, "Let's see if we can get someone to add three quotations for this. Once we've done that, we can decide whether to delete those quotations. Afterward, we can come up with other ways to waste editors' time." :-P   —RuakhTALK 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


I think (s)he means huzzah -- ALGRIF talk 18:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV.msh210 08:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Mis-spelling of alpenglow, despite Mr. Denver's song title. - Amgine/talk 04:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Eurochauvinism? Easily citable. Obviously the etymology is from alpenglow, but, what with the Rockies not being Alps and having plenty of aspen to lend color in the Fall, a new word has emerged. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an RFV issue. If "easily citable", please do. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't like to spend time citing something if there is a non-RfV issue advanced. Since we have no particular rules as to what makes something a misspelling, I am loath to spend time on it until the RfD is resolved. DCDuring TALK 01:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
But your defense is that this is a "new word", which guts the premise of the RfD, and makes it an RfV issue. I looked for citations, and found many for "aspen glow" (with the SOP meaning) but not enough as a single word to meet the CFI. bd2412 T 18:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Cited. News. Belonged at RfV from the gitgo. I don't like the short fuse of RfD items. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I accept the citations, except all but one dispute the given definition. - Amgine/talk 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I struck the POV word. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, most of the citations refer to light/color from trees, not the mountains/sky. At least, that is my interpretation of their context. - Amgine/talk 14:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep per DCDuring's citations. —RuakhTALK 16:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Atelaes. bd2412 T 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Kept.msh210 08:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

easy target

Sum of parts, no? Teh Rote 21:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. It is not the target itself that is easy, but rather that the target is easy to hit, and it's not always a literal shooting at the target. This seems worth keeping along with easy mark and sitting duck. --EncycloPetey 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Our current definition says "easy to be made fun of", which is not the only sense of "easy target"; bgc shows, in its first twenty hits, maybe one or two in that sense. (Note that "an easy target for barbs" in a quotation is not a citations for the sense we have: if "for barbs" is added, then "an easy target" alone doesn't mean "easy to be made fun of".) I think we should delete as SoP the sense EP seems to be referring to above ("an easily hit target"). I also think we should delete as SoP the sense we have, as the "for barbs" part is implied by context rather than being part of the meaning of "easy target".—msh210 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it a bit fast. I have now added it again, but with my own definition. Feel free to improve. SemperBlotto 21:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

short cut

rfd-sense: A very short rendition, or snippets, of a film or play, as used in a coming attraction or promotional video.

IOW, short (brief) + cut (result of cutting). DCDuring TALK 10:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sinhala language

There are 2 separately named categories for this language- Category:Sinhala language and Category:Sinhalese language. The first has no content, so it should be deleted to avoid confusion, or move everything into the other category. Nadando 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete --EncycloPetey 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, and rather delete Category:Sinhalese language or change {{sin}} to "Sinhalese." I'm undecided as to which is better. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This language has a 2-letter ISO code of si, for which we have the template {{si}}. The templates should certainly match, but currently they do not. Template {{si}} says "Sinhalese" while {{sin}} says "Sinhala". --EncycloPetey 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Definition poor. Seems like spam for a Turkish domain. DCDuring TALK 21:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Describes mushroom gills that are in the shape of an arc (arcuate) and run down the stem (decurrent). Couldn't be much more SoP, IMO, but some seem to take that as a dare. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Having a pattern of block-like areas areolate similar to cracked dried mud. cracked SoP DCDuring TALK 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Nothing of note in BGC. nothing of note in BC corpus, nothing in groups...Where did this come from? - User:TheDaveRoss/sig 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It must come from veep + -a. Where the "humor" comes from I don't know. Perhaps some kind of pun. There are Web posters by that name, included someone detained during the Republican convention in New York. In Telegu it is a spelling of a word referring to the w:Neem tree. It also seems to have been used in the 19th century to refer to a genus of stinging insects. IOW, who knows? DCDuring TALK 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


No. There is no such suffix. The combining forms listed here are from + ship, not from ... + manship. — Paul G 08:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By what criteria does one evaluate the "existence" or, more importantly, includability in Wiktionary of a suffix? DCDuring TALK 10:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Do we have criteria for this? The question is also begged by entries such as workmanship or craftsmanship. Are they derived from + -man + -ship or from + -manship? A craftswoman, or craftsperson displays good craftsmanship. But this does not give rise to craftswomanship or craftspersonship. -- ALGRIF talk 12:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The words evolved from adding "-ship" to craftsman etc. The word appeared and stabilized before there was a regular word craftswoman in English. I think a good avenue for exploring this is the word sportsmanship, since the hypothetical root sportsman is not a common English word. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both craftswomanship and craftspersonship do exist. Also, sportsman is, in fact, nearly four times more common than sportsmanship (also consider (un)sportsmanly &c.). I believe an essential criterion for the inclusion of an affix ought to be (by analogy with the “idiomaticity” criterion that we have for words) that its meaning cannot be reduced — in a sum-of-its-parts fashion — to its constituent affixes; in the case of -manship, unless it can be shown that there exist at least three words ending in -manship whose -man æquivalents do not exist, then I believe it should be deleted.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • gamesman;
  • one-upman (though this is probably by back-formation); and,
  • Google Books, unfortunately, refuses to recognise brinkman as anything other than a surname; “a brinkman” yields results chiefly for people named “A. Brinkman” and technical terms named after people bearing that surname (e.g., a Brinkman medium); the world book dictionary lists it, but the results page is blank; nevertheless:
    «Threatening to sue unless something is repaired is a brinkman’s move, as lawsuits hurt everyone involved — except the lawyers. On the seller’s part, the willingness to risk “no sale” can be a brinkman’s move.» — [31];
    «His record shows he is a brinkman. I think he should clearly understand now he is at the brink and he must now seek a settlement.» — [32]; and,
    «But this doesn’t make Galileo a martyr, only a brinkman. When it came to actually dying for ideas, Galileo wasn’t having any.» — [33].
  •  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The recency of your hits indicates a back-formation, which would necessitate "-manship" having existed before brinkman was derived from brinkmanship. bd2412 T 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, not easy to get a citation for a freestanding suffix, but:
    • 1996, Steven H. Gale, Encyclopedia of British Humorists: Geoffrey Chaucer to John Cleese, p. 874:
      Summary Stephen Potter is best known for his gamesmanship theory, a cunning, psychological tactic used to best a competitor, on or off the field. His basic "-manship" principle was later incorporate to include many everyday events.
  • And, there is no "exams-man", but :
    • 2004, Jonathan Silverman, Suzanne M. Kurtz, Juliet Draper, Skills for Communicating with Patients, p. 102:
      This exams-manship history is decidedly different from the focused history that we are talking about in this chapter...
  • Cheers again! bd2412 T 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Examsmanship is valid, considering [34], [35], and [36]. The citation for -manship alone is rather interesting; it should be added to the entry.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Algrif and BD2412. All of BD2412's -shipless examples do seem to meet the CFI, but they're certainly far less common than their -shipped counterparts, and IMHO seem to be backformations. google books:"her chairmanship" makes google books:"her chairship|chairwomanship|chairpersonship" look like Taíno, even though google books:"she was chairman" is not far ahead of google books:"she was chair|chairwoman|chairperson". Also, it seems to be a fixed expression, so to speak: -manhood, -manity, and -manness are all almost nonexistent. —RuakhTALK 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this last point of yours: That doesn’t prove that -manship is one suffix. Due to the esoteric (descriptive) rules of English morphology, certain morphemes are simply naturally prædisposed to be affixed by this or that affix; for example, the en- -en words, as far as I know, form nouns exclusively by the suffixation of -ment, whereas the -less words are almost always suffixed with -ness when nominalised — this doesn’t mean that en- -enment* and -lessness* are English affixes.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but it's an additional reason to keep the entry, just as we keep fixed series of words. (I won't argue that all such fixed sets of suffixes should be included — for one thing, they're not constituents — but taken together with the other arguments, I think it makes a stronger case. Or maybe not.) —RuakhTALK 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • One more note, the 2002 World Book Dictionary entries on brinkmanship and conmanship present the respective etymologies of the words as "brink + -manship" and "con + -manship". Although this is a citation to a dictionary, it is not to the dictionary's definition of the word, but to the use of -manship as a suffix. bd2412 T 00:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Brink + -manship” I can believe, but I reckon they’re wrong with conmanship (which is far more likely to be “conman + -ship”). I get your point though; however, it is not absurd to argue that they’re wrong in according suffixship (  ;-) ) to -manship.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    But wouldn't that be prescriptivism on our part, to decide that a use in print is 'wrong'? Also, I have found another such use in the nifty Rice University Neologisms Database:
    • Quippmanship n.
      The ability to produce a catchy soundbyte, witty remark, or clever turn of phrase. The art, skill, or ability to create a catchy soundbyte, witty remark, or clever turn of phrase. Formed by an unknown word formation process.
      [affixation; formed from 'quip' + 'manship']
      "So far most of our intelligentsia have been more eager to explain what this war is not than what it is. Yet the conflict is not a hash-it-out in the faculty lounge, nor a brainstorm over a headline in the newsroom, nor flashy quippmanship in a political d" -From a NationalReviewOnline editorial by Victor Davis Hanson, on Fri Nov 7, 2003.
    Cheers! bd2412 T 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here’s the deal: I don’t personally object to this entry’s existence. Nevertheless, I believe the principle I outlined above is a good one; what do you all say? As for the entry, I think examsmanship and the direct use count as two of the requisite three citations, so I’m sure we can find another -manship word that lacks a -man æquivalent; perhaps in one of these three lists (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the fact that another dictionary uses it as a word-forming suffix should at least count for a citation. bd2412 T 01:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree (although I’d be open to debate on that, if it is explained to me their reasoning for specifying those etymologies); we don’t consider as citations the fact that a word is listed as a headword in a dictionary. Neither do I think that appearance in an etymology counts as a “use”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    It is exceedingly difficult to find uses of suffixes in the wild. How would you prove that -ist or -ally exist? We don't accept existence as a headword in a dictionary as proof of existence, but the writers of a dictionary would be more, not less qualified in using a word in its natural form, and not as a definition. bd2412 T 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    First of all, whoever wrote that entry isn't actually using the suffix, only mentioning it; it's equivalent to the full sentence, “Quippmanship[sic] is formed via affixation from quip and manship”. Further, it's not a durably archived word list. So it might be usable as a reference, but not as a quotation. (Not that we need quotations for affixes, anyway, provided we have quotations for the words they form.) Secondly, looking through that page, nothing about it suggests that all of its writers are particularly knowledgeable about these things; for example, one of them describes Quick Outtie as a blend of quick and outtie, and another describes Queasishness as the result of zero-derivation because (s)he thinks that -ness is a verb-forming suffix. It's like urban dictionary, where some contributors know a lot and others just act like they do. (On average I'd imagine they know more than the typical urban dictionarian, since they're submitting these entries for an English-slash-Linguistics class, but overall they're clearly not reliable.) Our CFI don't say enough about affixes; I think it's obvious that we can't expect them to be attested detached-ly, since that would be basically impossible (and counterproductive, since that would be a very unrepresentative set of quotes if we managed to find them). —RuakhTALK 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Actually my last comment was about the 2002 World Book Dictionary, which is an actual print dictionary. bd2412 T 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry, long discussion, got confused. So, it is reliable and durably archived — but still a mention. —RuakhTALK 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    My fault, I threw two different thoughts up at the same time there. But the larger point is that it is virtually impossible to find use of a suffix alone in a format that is not simply a mention (try to find such a citation for "-istic", "-faction", or "-atory" ). And yet we include (and must include) suffixes. bd2412 T 19:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think we're basically in agreement. Your reasoning seems to be "it's not possible to find uses of such affixes, ergo our quotations for them will have to be mentions", whereas mine is "it's not possible to find uses of such affixes, ergo we can't require quotations for them", but that's a tiny difference, in the grand scheme of things. :-)   —RuakhTALK 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Whether it's its own indecomposable suffix or a combination of two suffices is academic, subjective and irrelevant. When two separate words are put together to form a new one, the new word warrants an entry; why should suffices be any different? Language Lover 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


  1. Entry originally created by WF.
  2. Bad entry title: only in very extreme cases is the asterix allowed as a page title character. Two has no possible justification, except perhaps to break tools that follow different wildcard syntax (besides the MediaWiki search syntax.)
    1. Some wildcard algorithms treat "**" as line-break wildcard search, while others treat it as pass-through wildcard notation, while others threat it as multi-word wildcard syntax.
    2. Other stream-oriented problems could arise from double character reduction.
  3. Entry currently suggests this is a primary sanitized spelling; in truth it is rare (at best.) No comparative evidence is given to show its relation to, say, "@$#&" or "@#$&" (also bad entry titles.)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep for now.
#1 is a good reason to doubt the accuracy of an entry, but not a good reason to delete one once confirmed, and certainly not a good reason to ban future entry creation by other editors. And to clarify, I don't mean that taken on its own, it's not a good reason; I mean that it's not a good reason, period.
#2 is suggestive, but if a tool is applying wildcard algorithms to entry titles, then properly speaking, the problem is with the tool, not with the title. Depending on the tool, on the problem, and on the feasibility of fixing it, we might decide that the benefits the tool offers outweigh the costs of arbitrarily excluding certain character-strings from entry titles; and similarly, if there were a lot of such tools, we might make a similar decision even if no specific one of them, taken alone, would be worth it. But since you're not actually naming any such tools, nor describing the problem(s) that this entry title causes them, you're not letting us make that decision. (By the way, keep in mind that nothing is set in stone; we can decide to keep this entry for now, and then delete it in the future if and when we discover a problem.)
#3 is an interesting point. I see "bowdlerized spelling of" and infer an "a", but I definitely see how someone else might see it and infer a "the". But, that's not an argument for deletion; it's an argument for cleanup/tweaking/rephrasing/etc. This is a wiki, after all. :-)
RuakhTALK 23:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Concur with Ruakh on all points. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Move to an Appendix - Bowdlerized forms are highly variable and potentially endless. I think it would make more sense to have these in an appendix than in the main namespace. --EncycloPetey 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to fuck, there's no need to include all of these as seperate entries. However this should be documented somehow - an extensive usage note at Appendix:Bowdlerisation linked to from words commonly mutilated in this manner would be ideal - but it'll probably end up being a Usage note in an entry. I have no sympathy with the technology arguments, correctly-written software knows the difference between data and search patterns. Conrad.Irwin 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with an appendix or usage note or some such. The variety of censored forms is admittedly rather vast. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. And the MediaWiki software now allows targeted-redirects (using JScript/JavaScript), so if we want, we can redirect [[f**k]] to the specifically relevant part of an entry or appendix. —RuakhTALK 00:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Authorship is not inherently an indication of poor quality. As has been discussed before, we should not be technically bound from making valid entries. That some old-fashioned search tools may come a cropper on some input might be a reason to give some time for such problems to be resolved, not for an indefinite hold on a class of potentially valid entries. If the definitions said "A bowdlerized spelling", then the last of the original objections would be addressed.
I assume that attestable bowdlerizations would be included in principal namespace, just like any other attestable entry using special characters. I doubt that we would have more than a score of attestable bowdlerizations in a year. I haven't noticed many of them coming up on, say, usenet. Conrad's only-in redirects address the hard-to-attest forms. I suppose that the "only-in" redirect could have a good brief explanation and refer to a full appendix. If internet gambling were not illegal and were it not for "moral hazard", I'd run a betting pool on the number of attestable bowdlerizations we would have. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep if sources for this word can be located via Google Books or print sources. I believe this spelling does appear quite often in the English language. It would be interesting (as we should do for all entries) to find some of the earliest appearances in print of this word. 01:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per others' arguments. --Bequw¢τ 02:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep since it's obviously a fairly common [37] bowdlerization and no severe technical problems have yet been demonstrated. Rod (A. Smith) 03:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, possibly as an appendix "Bowdlerizations of X". Circeus 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly common use. bd2412 T 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, clearly in widespread use. and per Rod A. Smith. Thryduulf 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept by consensus. --Jackofclubs 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

graph cycle

SOP, and not even particularly common. ("Cycle of a graph" actually gets almost as many Google hits as "graph cycle".) —RuakhTALK 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

side wall

back wall

front wall

Someone had marked these for speedy deletion, obviously inappropriate. I'm listing them here, although I personally do not see why they should be deleted. __meco 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitions refer to squash. The phrases seem to be used also in handball, rooms, houses, properties, etc. So if we keep this we'd have to change our definition to "the back|front|side wall of anything" rather than "the back|front|side wall of a squash court" — and it's SoP. Delete.msh210 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. On seeing them here, I instantly knew they were about racquetball. As it turns out, I "knew" wrongly (they were about squash), but I do think we should keep the squash/racquetball sense. We can put something like this:
  1. The wall at the front of a room or building.
  2. Specifically, the wall at the front of a squash or racquetball court, which the ball must hit after each stroke before it hits the floor.
RuakhTALK 23:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if we keep this, I don't see that those are two senses. Why not combine them into
  1. The wall comprising all or part of the front boundary of a room, building, squash or racquetball court, or other enclosed or partially enclosed area.
?—msh210 19:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
They're not two senses, exactly, except that one is a term of art used with a precise and well-defined sense that's hyponym-ish to the other. It's like how at [[set]] we include the math sense, even though that's just a special case of the more general sense. —RuakhTALK 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess so. (See also the two senses of free: "Unconstrained" and "(mathematics) Unconstrained".  :-) ) Weak keep.msh210 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

be sold a pig in a poke

This is entered as a Proverb. I thought a proverb had to be a full sentence. On any other basis it seems SoP. We have an entry for pig in a poke. And it needs cleanup. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to [[pig in a poke]]. —RuakhTALK 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect form-of-a-phrase per Ruakh.—msh210 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


'Crazy English', the brand name of an English teaching method. I can't see a good reason to include this, as it has not developed any wider usage beyond being a brand name. Pistachio 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Not a "real" adjective. No comparative or predicative use, AFAICT so far. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

<math>x</math>-American entries and <math>x</math>-born entries (ex: Sicilian-American, American-born Chinese)

"SoP" entries. Sets a bad precedent for thousands of similar entries (ex. Korean American, Cuban American, Mexican American, and so on). --TBC 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

keep Submit for RfV just like anything else. There are usually important as preferred alternatives to usually non-SoP pejoratives. Usage notes alone on each subject would warrant their inclusion. I would suggest that we should have at least one attestable non-pejorative demonym (?) for every ethnic grouping for which we have a pejorative demonym. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete American-born Chinese and British-born Chinese; keep Sicilian-American and African-American. I'll see if I can dredge up the classic Nelson Mandela quote using "African-American" where an idiot American reporter "corrected" him about the term and Mandela explained that the black people of Africa were not actually African-American. African-American in particular is not sum of parts, since it is not used to refer to Americans of North African descent or to white Americans of South African descent. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that these ought to be treated en masse, as EP's views suggest. There may be very different merits for each. I often find that the effort of citing the entries leads to an adjustment of the definitions that clarifies the usage of the terms. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That logic doesn't really apply to the [[[Sicilian-American]] entry, but I can see why the African-American entry isn't completely SoP. If it's necessary, I'm for separating this request, as per EP's comments.--TBC 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Separate these, per above. Otherwise, keep African-American per EP's Maghreb comment, and delete all the rest unless a good argument is made for any.—msh210 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


We don't normally have entries for specific people, even if their name is the origin of other words (a link to their article on the 'pedia normally suffices). Is this one a special case? Thryduulf 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep, Otherwise we lose Hercules, Zeus, etc. We keep names, we simply do not keep collocations of names which specify certain people (e.g. Isaac Newton). Even if there is only one person who has a name, we still keep it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It's also the origin of the words sequoia and Sequoia. If it is also a given name (used by other people/figures) then it has merit on those grounds as well. --EncycloPetey 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Per WT:CFI#Company names I can find no evidence this has entered the lexicon outside of its use as a trademark. Thryduulf 14:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, does not meet CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, it's now bankrupt, isnt it? -- ALGRIF talk 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has had enough time here if anyone wanted to try to cite it, but wouldn't it be better to send it to RfV? DCDuring TALK 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Famous Buildings and Monuments

CFI explicitly states that entries like "Empire State Building" should not be included. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to other famous buildings and monuments as well. The rationale that these entries should be kept because translations exist doesn't make much sense, since that would merit the inclusion of all famous buildings (including the Empire State Building). --TBC 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep some, but delete others. Should be an RFV matter, primarily. If any of the above are or have been used in an idiomatic comparative sense, those should be kept. bd2412 T 01:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:BP would have been a better place for this actually, since this is more of a discussion on policy (CFI) and it's applications to specific entity entries. That's besides the point, though.--TBC 18:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Procedurally, Golden Gate Bridge does not belong here at all, having passed previously. I have put it in RfV, to determine whether there are citations that might support its inclusion. Perhaps Angkor Wat would get citations that made it includable. The others especially would appear to be candidates for {{only in|Wikipedia}} entries. Alternatively, move individually to RfV, wait a month (or two or three) for the absence of citations to become apparent, then they will be deleted. It seems extremely implausible that a four- or five-word building name would have quotations that would satisfy us. Even the three-word names seem unlikely. I could more easily see us keeping nicknames for these entities, like Golden Gate, Colossus, and Hanging Gardens or hanging gardens. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
So what if it's been nominated before? Consensus changes, there's no policy that prevents an entry from being RfD'd again. Anyhow, deleting the full names and keeping nicknames sounds like a good idea.--TBC 18:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The process and general civility are what keep a wiki from descending into chaos. The clear trend in our policy is toward selective inclusion of entries like this that have some attributive meaning, which is not going to be ascertained in the RfD process. We have separate processes because they involve different kinds of effort and process. Incidentally, if what you want is to change policy or discuss whether we are actually adhering to policies, that would belong in WT:BP (horses for courses). DCDuring TALK 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WT:CFI mentions attributive use, which might be deemed to imply that such entries have to be usable as adjectives. I think the actual meaning of attributive is a bit broader, which possibly should be explicitly included in CFI. For example, Threadneedle Street refers to the Bank of England (which in turn refers to UK monetary authorities and policy) and Wall Street refers to the US financial markets. The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, Number 10, Broadway, Fleet Street all seem to mean more than the places referred to, whether or not they are used as adjectives (and whether or not we have them as entries yet!). I would not expect most of the places in this RfD to meet the attributive test. It is possible that we would want to broaden CFI to include such well-known places, which might emerge from this discussion and the discussion of Golden Gate Bridge on RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
When there are specific translations into other languages for a given building or monument, definitely keep. —Stephen 12:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The translation criterion is not part of any policy, AFAICT. Would the undocumented criterion mean that any SoP translation would warrant keeping the name of the great building or monument ("GBM")? I don't really see why we couldn't be gazeteer, albeit possibly a very selective one. We could provide a service even just by offering pronunciation of place names. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Dictionaries are the principal tool of my professional trade, translation. Encyclopedias are used for information such as lengths, widths, dates, and histories. Dictionaries are primarily for definitions, capitalization, spelling, grammatical information such as tense and gender, and translations. Few paper dictionaries have definitions as well as translations and grammatical notes, but a book of definitions is a dictionary, and a book of translations is a dictionary. What I mean is, no one paper dictionary encompasses all that a dictionary can be, but some dictionaries are for definition (American Heritage, Random House), and some dictionaries are for translation (Vox, Larousse, Cassell, Langenscheidt). Among paper translation dictionaries, there are also different types, due to the physical limitations of a paper book: there are general dictionaries, medical dictionaries, transportation dictionaries, petroleum dictionaries, etc. General translation dictionaries try to include important proper names such as Empire State Building, Eiffel Tower, Slovakia, etc. Some translation dictionaries, mainly those that use a different script or exotic language, try to include other important names...e.g., Chinese has special specific translations for important names such as Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, and a good one lists them.
Since Wiktionary is not limited to definitions à la American Heritage, but includes translations and grammatical info as well, it should fulfill the duties not only of definition dictionaries but also of translation dictionaries, and translation dictionaries, depending on speciality, have entries for names such as Angkor Wat, Golden Gate Bridge, and George Washington.
This is why User:A-cai wrote the definition for the common term 成龙 (chéng lóng), which can only be translated by looking it up in a dictionary. Then someone who doesn’t use Wiktionary for translation purposes deleted the page. —Stephen 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion does not really belong here, it belongs at the BP. It would seem to need a vote to be a valid defense of any particular entry. A vote usually needs prior discussion if there is any potential for disagreement. I have already seen disagreement on this point without resolution. QED. If there is an ongoing discussion at BP, the possible deletion of these specific entries would be held in abeyance. There seem to be two issues which have a little overlap: 1. criteria for inclusion of places and fixed physical structures and 2 the translation criterion for inclusion of SoP and other entries. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe there was some discussion of this on BP, but it didn't result in anything conclusive. That's the problem with BP; discussions last for a week or less before they're forgotten in favor of another issue. --TBC 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If we have something interesting to say about the name (some etymology, regional variations, not-simply-transcribed translations), we should keep the entry (as we exist to describe words). If we have nothing to say about the word (though I doubt this is often the case if we are trying hard enough), replace it with {{only in|{{in wikipedia}}}} and let Wikipedia describe the entity that the word describes. Conrad.Irwin 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

hold one's urine

From RFV:
< mutante_> can hold_one's_urine really be a noun?
< LinkyC>
< Amgine> I... don't think so. I've never ever heard that phrase.
< Dvorty|gone> hold it might be used idiomatically that way, but I don't think that one is really used as such.
< LinkyC>
< Dvorty|gone> And it looks like the page only shows up on cleanup lists and categorizing pages: Special:WhatLinksHere/hold_one's_urine
< mutante_> change Noun to Verb ?
< Dvorty|gone> mutante: yes, and then RFV/RFD the whole thing.  I don't think it's really used that way that much.

Mutante 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of context this sounded odd to me, but I checked b.g.c.; google books:"held his urine" gets 110 hits, and when I look through them, in context they sound quite natural to me. I'll add a few to the entry. —RuakhTALK 16:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Cited. —RuakhTALK 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What was the entry before? Seems painfully sum-of-parts and wildly uncommon. In what way is it a set phrase or idiomatic? Move to RFD and delete. --Connel MacKenzie 00:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RFV passed. Tag will be removed forthwith. Not striking this section, so it won't be bot-archived, and can be moved to RFD per Connel.—msh210 21:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Not set phrase, not common phrase, not idiomatic, not a recognized phrase, only sum of parts - but only then, in a very restricted context. --Connel MacKenzie 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Regarding its commonness: google books:"hold|holds|holding|held my|our|your|his|her|its|their|one's urine" gets 662 hits, which isn't half bad given its fairly limited context. Regarding its sum-of-parts-ness: I see how you could think that, but I think you're mistaken. Note that the term was originally defined here wrongly, and as far as I can tell, no one suspected the right definition until I actually added a few quotations, and looked through other b.g.c. hits, and the correct definition became clear. (The definition originally given would have been accurate for hold it in, though.) I think that if native speakers can't accurately guess the meaning of a phrase, that suggests that the term is not sum-of-parts. Regarding its restricted context: Odd, I'd have considered that a reason to keep the entry, so that we can elucidate that context. —RuakhTALK 14:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

could do with

I've created and rfd'ed this entry, because I'm not sure about it. It is idiomatic as I see it, and entries such as to do with, or can do with, etc don't quite cut it. Opinions please. -- ALGRIF talk 16:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. However, I think the definition might be a bit too narrow; I think “could do with” is often a bit weaker than “need”. —RuakhTALK 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I kept the definition to the minimum until a decision is made. However, you are right in that there is a subtle difference. -- ALGRIF talk 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the sense might be something like "could benefit from". DCDuring TALK 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It is roughly synonymous with "could stand". Is there a sense of stand that is synonymous with do with and benefit from? Even if it were not an idiom we would need for it to be locatable from search, perhaps as a usage example. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The wording would have to encompass phrases such as I could do with some help,-- We could do with some new equipment,-- He could do with a good talking to!,-- The hinge could do with a bit of oil,-- It's ok, but it could do with another lick of paint, I think. Or in the past It's no good to me now. I could have done with it yesterday!.
Then this is going to raise the question of the negative version can / could / do without. and could have done without in the past. Ideas on good phrasing of entries would be most welcome. I could do with some help here :-) ! -- ALGRIF talk 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'm keeping and striking. ALGRIF talk 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I object, strongly. It is not good practice for an active participant in the discussion to take speedy action to kill discussion. There are other approaches to stimulating a lagging discussion. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
In some cases I'd agree, but in this case no one has advocated deletion — not the entry's creator (Algrif), not the person who tagged it {{rfd}} (Algrif), not editor who nominated it here (Algrif), not any of the commenters here (DCDuring, Ruakh, Algrif) — so I think Algrif is quite right to withdraw the nomination. —RuakhTALK 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I now advocate deleting this entry or moving it to a proper lemma entry. I had trouble grasping why I disliked the entry previously. Why should we have a non-lemma entry for this without a proper lemma entry?
As to the process, it potentially could be seen by a neutral observer as illustrating how to manipulate the RfD process: One person makes an entry, RfDs it, and then declares the process over. It has the effect of partially inoculating the entry against subsequent RfDs. That ought to be per se unacceptable. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah. First of all, I've seen no evidence that editors are reticent about re-RFD-ing words that have previously survived RFD; and keep in mind that either (1) the discussion will be archived to the talk-page, and a future editor considering RFD-ing it will see exactly what happened and be able to take that into account, or (2) the discussion won't be archived to the talk-page, and a future editor considering RFD-ing it won't be aware of the previous RFD survival and therefore won't be deterred by it. Second of all, an editor would have to be crazy to list an entry here, and let it sit here for two and a half weeks, in the hopes of preventing future listings. That'd be like inoculating someone against cowpox by giving them smallpox. —RuakhTALK 23:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Idiomatic, an important construction, no good alternative as a lemma. Keep. —Stephen 17:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

The entry is about a proper name, but it's not one that has passed into the common language- it's capitalised which can only refer to NASA's STS, and hence isn't eligible to be here. The uncapitalised version would be perfectly valid however.Wolfkeeper 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep, either as is or move to uncapitalized (if in fact it should be uncapitalized). —Stephen 17:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep but move to lower case. While there is some use of the capitalised form, it is normally reserved for the name of a particular shuttle, such as Space Shuttle Colombia. Should not be deleted, but move to lower case with a usage note for the upper.--Dmol 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep. As Wolfkeeper says, it's quite common (and IMHO more correct) to write "the Space Shuttle", capital-S-es, when using it as a weak proper noun referring to NASA's (even without specifying which exact shuttle is meant). It's like how we can use "the President" (capitalized) out of context to refer to the President of the United States, but ordinarily not to the president of a corporation. My personal preference would be to keep both [[space shuttle]] and [[Space Shuttle]], just as we have both [[earth]] and [[Earth]], [[sun]] and [[Sun]], [[bible]] and [[Bible]], etc.; but I definitely see Wolfkeeper's point, and I wouldn't mind if we instead made [[Space Shuttle]] a redirect to [[space shuttle]], with a helpful usage note like you suggest. —RuakhTALK 23:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it can be used in an attributive sense 'The Space Shuttle Columbia', so it meets the definition of Dictionary:Criteria_for_inclusion.Wolfkeeper 03:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Space Shuttle Columbia is, I think, like Doctor Smith or Mister Smith; we have Doctor in this sense, but, I think, should not, and we lack Mister. But I'm not sure whether Space Shuttle is also used by itslef capitalized. Is this a question for RFV rather than RFD?—msh210 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is also usage like "the Space Shuttle program", "the Space Shuttle booster", and "the Space Shuttle heat shield" which is simply attributive. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find "the space shuttle Columbia", just like "the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan". "Mister" and "Doctor" are formally recognized titles, whereas "Space Shuttle" and "aircraft carrier" are not; I think they are merely there to make sure that the audience knows which thing named "Ronald Reagan" (a formal name) is being discussed (office building, airport, aircraft carrier, etc.). DCDuring TALK 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

defensive line of scrimmage

SoP IMO: defensive + line of scrimmage. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —RuakhTALK 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete per no. Thryduulf 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

clocked out DCDuring TALK 17:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Isn't this the definition of the kind of stuff we don't keep? Also, a number of other contribs from the same editor, such as Bandai. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The two examples you cite are possibly encyclopædic (I'm not up to date on what Wikipedia accept in this regard), but they aren't dictionaric. So delete Myth and Bandai and any others that are just names of software or corporations. Thryduulf 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly will not meet CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 04:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And please can Buckaroo too. Robert Ullmann 13:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of idiomatic use.--TBC 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

clocked out. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

flengja með belti

This is a clear sum of parts, has no idiomatic meaning. Therefore, it should no more exist than an English entry of “spank with a belt”. – Krun 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed, please take a look!


I put this up for rfv a while back but I didn't get much satisfaction. IMO we don't need this at all. Also if this "passes" rfd then please see to the deletion of youkoso(which is only a redirect) and youkai. Discuss--50 Xylophone Players talk 11:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. We certainly need the entry page for the Spanish definition if nothing else. Angr 13:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
PalkiaX50 is referring specifically to the Japanese section. Don't worry, no one's going to delete the entry as a whole, just possibly remove the Japanese section. —RuakhTALK 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese looks very good to me, very useful, and makes finding the correct meaning and kanji easy. As discussed previously, it should be kept. —Stephen 17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
*sighs* But is this not just something like (N.B. this is hypothetical) if you were to put troop at troupe (if troupe wasn't a word)--50 Xylophone Players talk 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed, please take a look!
I know almost nothing about Japanese, and nothing about how it's Romanized, but if accent marks are necessary, then why shouldn't this be deleted (and replaced with {{also}})?—msh210 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Trade name of a product, no attributive use. Robert Ullmann 04:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

cited, IMO. (Should have been RfV'd.) DCDuring TALK 00:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Xbox 360

Trade name.

And others. Pretty much everything created by User:CyberSkull that starts with a capital letter. Robert Ullmann 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an unfair generalization. CyberSkull 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete, also preceding and following. Agree with Robert's generalization. Nothing personal Cyberskull, but these really don't belong here. It is really our failing for not bringing this to your attention earlier, so as to have saved you some effort. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that sounded too personal. I meant that there are others easily found in Special:Contributions/CyberSkull that should also be deleted. Note that Myth et al were listed above. E.g. Pong, Asteroids, Digimon. Should have been noted sooner. There are clearly places that we need to refer to these, as at torrent, but those should simply link to the 'pedia. Robert Ullmann 12:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If "driving a Ford" and similar are justification, then surely "playing on the Xbox" is also OK, and it certainly gets a lot of usage. Ƿidsiþ 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, for Xbox which is now cited; not so likely for Xbox 360. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Another one. Robert Ullmann 04:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the sense at torrent is fine, but should refer to WP. Sense at tracker doesn't look like a separate sense at all. Robert Ullmann 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this entry be modeled on [[Ethernet]]? Are there any facts that would make that impossible? DCDuring TALK 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

plonk in the middle

The term should be "plonk" as an adverb; it is a synonym of "bang", "slap bang", etc, and can be used in other phrases than the one given (eg, "plonk at the start"). — Paul G 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

got it

Is this worth keeping? If so, it needs serious work. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's just an elliptical form of "I have got it", and we have "to understand" under get. This would open the floodgates for phrases like "done it" (task) and "seen it" (film). Equinox 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think got it is worth keeping at least in phrasebook, in the sense of "now I understand." All these warnings of floods and slippery slopes never seem to pan out. I don’t recall any entry that ushered in a flood of nonsense. The only slippery slopes I’ve seen have been in regard to deleting articles, not writing them. —Stephen 22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if it was classed as an interjection Got it! it could be a good solution that would keep all floodgates secured for the time being. -- ALGRIF talk 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Reclassified as interjection. Seems like it needs a {{non-gloss definition}}. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Careful. This is a pro-sentence (standing for "I have got it") not an interjection. — Paul G 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Another reason for my dislike: consider the question "Be nice to her -- got it?". "Got it?" is a phrase on equal standing with "Got it", but here the omitted pronoun is "you" and not "I". Or consider "It's none of your business -- get it?", which has a different tense. To me, these possibilities reinforce the idea that it's just got+it, can be inflected any old way, and isn't a special form requiring separate definition. Equinox 13:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's a pro-sentence so much as a sentence with ellipsis. Would you consider “Going to the store; want anything?” to be a pro-sentence standing for “I’m going to the store; do you want anything?”? —RuakhTALK 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If we are to have this entry, what is its relationship to get it? It seems as if it is just an inflected form. I don't know about the value of "get it" as an entry. The meaning-in-use just seems to be pragmatics, a worthwhile subject in an Appendix, and perhaps worth having a usage note or example for, perhaps an important subject for WikiGrammary. DCDuring TALK 14:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

there's plenty more fish in the sea

I would say that "There are ..." is the correct form, as "fish" is plural here. Of course, "fish" can be a singular noun and still refer to a plurality of animals, but I think that the form using "there's" is merely an example of the colloquial trend for using "there's" where "there are" is required, simply because the former is easier to say. — Paul G 14:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Retain as a hard redirect to the correct form, per Paul G’s arguments.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Retain as hard redirect or delete. More common form is there are plenty of fish in the sea. That would be the best single redirect target for all variants. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Could this be reduced to fish in the sea? sewnmouthsecret 05:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jedi census phenomenon

"A grassroots movement that was created in 2001" -- this is one specific thing, not a general phenomenon that can be seen in more than one event, so I think it's only encyclopaedia material. Equinox 15:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, delete. --EncycloPetey 20:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The phenomenon is that so many people state their religion as Jedi on census forms in different countries, not the "grassroots movement". Should be rephrased but not deleted. Mutante 01:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This is certainly not a term that is relevant in people's lives today. If this is allowed to stay we may as well add every instance of student humour and rename the site to "b3ta". 01:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete.RuakhTALK 14:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
delete, this is encyclopaedic and a much more complete encoplaedic article exists on Wikipedia at this title - which is where it should remain. Thryduulf 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what justification there is in WT:CFI for removing this, AFAICT. Quoting from WT:CFI: "Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept." This would seem to indicate that WT:CFI needs amendment. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you're taking that quote out of context. The next paragraph explains that our entries are for words, not the entities described by those words; for example, we have [[Britney]], but it's not about Britney Spears. The section “Names of specific entities” is a bit more explicit about this (though it introduces the vague and vaguely useless attributive-use criterion). —RuakhTALK 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Context indeed: the entire sentence is: "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places." The following paragraph after that opening sentence talks exclusively about people and places. I'd have to consult my attorney, but I don't think the wording covers the instant case. It should, but it doesn't. It take a vote to amend this cornerstone policy, does it not? Perhaps a "technical" amendment striking everything after "Wiktionary articles are about words." or inserting a paragraph break after that sentence or inserting a "For example" or a would do. DCDuring TALK 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a fallacy to suppose that CFI should cover every conceivable situation. The prinicples are applied to names and places for example, but other entries may have similar principles applied. We have entries for operation, desert, and storm, but we do not have an entry for the encyclopedic subject Operation Desert Storm. In similar fashion, we can have entries on Jedi, census, and phenomenon, without an entry for the encyclopedic subject Jedi census phenomenon. --EncycloPetey 00:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I've learned that whatever the problems of explicit policies and procedures, the lack of them is usually worse. I am simply asking that we not take action without a little more support from our policies than we have. We have the power to amend our policies to display our principles, providing newcomers some useful information. I think a modest amount of transparency befits a part of WMF. The RfD and RfV procedures are intended to limit arbitrary decision making. We should follow them or amend them so that they can be followed by those who toil here, will toil here, or might toil here if we were more transparent. The alternative seems to be an insider-only system, with votes not taken or concealed and decisions made on unrecorded "precedents", extra-Wiki rules and principles, or personal whims.
What is so difficult or undesirable about living by rules that we and our predecessors have enacted and which we can change when they are inadequate or constricting ? DCDuring TALK 02:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% in the general case, but in the specific case at issue, the spirit of the CFI seems clear to me. It would be nice if the CFI were more explicit, but they're not, and we can work with what we've got. (In particular, you seem to be taking the view that an entry is “innocent until proven guilty”, and therefore that we can't delete an entry unless the CFI explicitly mandate its deletion; but I don't share that view.) —RuakhTALK 03:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Why bother having stated policies if we don't actually conform to them? Are they just supposed to be a fig leaf for arbitrary decisions? If we don't correct the written policies when they prove badly drafted, then we have reduced this process to mere voting on a case by case basis, without even a mechanism for learning from the votes apart from our memory. Failing to have the stated policies and procedures conform to our decision making makes it impossible for a newcomer to understand what is going on here at the substantive level. We are failing to teach others how to constructively participate. When mewcomers observe what is going on long enough and the arbitrariness becomes apparent, they may come to see the extent to which our process has become an insider-only game, without information and norms favoring service to users.
It is odd that this should come up in such case. It is because there is no other venue. We seem to only deal with individual cases, claiming success if an entry moves through a request process.
What is the procedure for correcting policies? It seems we do not even have policies on voting. We only have the bare bones of voting procedure. Is there any sense that any of this is important? DCDuring TALK 11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, in the general case I agree, but in the specific case, I think deleting this entry is conforming to the CFI. Should we make them more explicit about this? Sure, why not? But that's not a matter of "correcting" them, as they're not currently wrong (at least, about this). —RuakhTALK 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted.msh210 07:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Without a duodenum - It looks like a valid word, bu only one hit on Google Groups. --Jackofclubs 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and RFV.msh210 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Procedurally, we have no explicit justification for summary deletion. But there are only 6 Google web hits: 3 on wiktionary; 1 on free dictionary; 2 on lists. The one group hit seems legitimate, but that seems to be all there is. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the only groups cite is just someone being more imaginative than usual. We should be able to use RFD (or probably {{delete}}) for that which is blatently going to fail an RFV. Conrad.Irwin 00:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, fine, perhaps we should.—msh210 17:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Seriously outside of sci-fi perhaps what wouldn't have duodenum? XD It really is kind of funny to think of some creature (that should have a duodenum) not having one!--50 Xylophone Players talk 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • [38]msh210 17:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • *sighs* There are some really strange things in this world and that is one of them...--50 Xylophone Players talk 18:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted.msh210 07:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

not guilty

"Found innocent of a crime; receiving no sentence for a crime." SoP. Actually isn't it just wrong? DCDuring TALK 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It does have specific legal meaning (compare e.g. not proven in Scots law). Equinox 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
What would that meaning be? I believe it to mean not + guilty, where guilty has a legal sense. The Scotch verdict statement "not proven" is almost identical to the actual meaning of "not guilty". It certainly does not mean "innocent" in a precise sense. There may be a sense in which "innocent" is loosely used to mean "not guilty". Sentencing is a separate matter again. One can be found guilty and receive no effective sentence. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have converted this to a noun entry, but am still unsure that it is not SoP. The definition I came to without looking at guilty#Noun seems to me as close to SoP as could be. It is possible that there is a popular adjectival meaning of "not guilty", erroneous legally, that means "innocent". That is, that many speakers believe that a person found "not guilty" is innocent of the charges. But even this seems SoP to me, though clarification might be a worthy rationale for an entry. DCDuring TALK 00:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Initial survey:
  • Black's gives 4 senses, all of which appear to be nouns, and most of which would be excruciatingly painful to cite.
  • WordNet gives 1 adjectival sense ("acquitted").
  • MW3 (online version) gives 1 allegedly adjectival sense, with a non-gloss definition.
  • Macquarie (online version) gives 2 noun senses, one for the plea and one for the verdict.
  • Something which calls itself the "Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law" [39] gives the same two noun senses as Macquarie
  • Other dictionaries (RHU, MWC, Collins Concise, DCE, OED) do not include it.
  • In casual speech, I have heard this used as an interjection (meaning "I didn't do it!" or "Don't blame me!"). This would be challenging to cite.
It seems to me that the POS question here is rather fraught. Most adjectival uses are really just not+guilty, as in "The defendant said he was not guilty." But something like "he was found not guilty" does seem adjectival. It would be interesting to see if any linguistic scholars have tackled the issue of what part of speech the plea itself is (an adverb, perhaps?). Cheers, -- Visviva 01:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I had noted the lack of unanimity among dictionaries. That some had an entry for it has given me pause. We may have to let this ripen a little here. It may need some thought about definitions and even PoS. Cites can stimulate thought. A plea seems like a quintessential speech act. A formal plea is given in answer to a question like "How you you plea?" (adverbial answer) or "What is your plea?" (nominal answer). But the plea could also be in the form: "I am not guilty, your honor" (adjective). DCDuring TALK 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Did some citing... curiously, I was not able to find any clearly nominal use of sense 1 (plea), outside of quotation marks, although I did find two entirely unexpected senses in the process of looking. -- Visviva 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind sum of parts. It is idiomatic. No one is "found innocent". Ƿidsiþ 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Keep. I have hoisted myself on my petard. Procedurally, I did not let the RfD for the adjective run its course, partially because I thought it was just wrong. Now, I am not even sure about that.
I have taken a stab at the adjective with two senses: legal and non-standard. Non-standard in this case would be semantically non-standard, so the context tag may be inappropriate. Would the same idea belong in a usage note instead? DCDuring TALK 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Aramaic section. This entry, with the definition “God” failed RfV already, so its reëntry without citations warrants its deletion.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure what the story is; 334a added that and then re-added it, and I've never had a reason to doubt his/her Aramaic contributions. msh210 added the {{rfv}} tag and RFV listing, and I've never had a reason to doubt him, either, but he didn't explain why he listed the word. I'd rather it not be removed until 334a and msh210 have had a chance to comment. —RuakhTALK 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s fine. I just listed this to follow procedure, and because it seemed dubious to me that a word meaning ram and stag in Hebrew should mean God in Aramaic.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The Aramaic, if real, would be related to Hebrew אֵל (el), god, G-d). Which sounds plausible to me (not that I know much about Aramaic), though it's not specifically supported by my Hebrew dictionary, which lists only the Akkadian cognate 'ilu', nor by [[he:אל]], which derives it from the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon. (Likewise, note that English surgeon and French surgeon are unrelated; the English is related to French chirurgien, and the French to English surge. This sort of thing is all the more common with short words.) —RuakhTALK 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
S’pose, but they’re definitely in the minorities. BTW, how many languages are written in the Hebrew alphabet?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
In English and French, they're in the minority, but with Aramaic and Hebrew it's a lot more common, because of the way the alphabet works. (Practically any string of letters is a word. In Israel, they have to play Scrabble in English. It's a real problem :-P ) As for your question: almost all the Jewish languages: all forms of Hebrew, all Jewish forms of Aramaic, Yiddish, Ladino, Jewish Arabic, Jewish Persian, etc. (There are exceptions, though: Judeo-Malayalam is written with a version of the Malayalam script.) Also, a smattering of non-Jewish languages, such as certain non-Jewish forms of Aramaic. And it used to be commonplace among philologists to approximate languages with well-known scripts of related languages, so European scholarly works from a certain time period include many examples of Arabic words written in Hebrew letters (though these are mentions). And of course, just about any word from any language is subject to occasional Hebraicization, just like with Romanization and Cyrillization. —RuakhTALK 15:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is apparent that the situation is very different for the Hebrew script! One lives and learns…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
In re informing 334a and msh210 of this, thus giving them an opportunity to comment: done and done.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true, איל in the sense of "God" is etymologically related to the Hebrew אל, and the -eel ending is found in Arabic as well (e.g. إسرائيل, جبرائيل, عزرائيل/عزرایل). Likewise, it can also mean "stag" in the same sense as the Hebrew word (see אילא for the Aramaic entry, and compare Arabic ايل with the same meaning). It's a case of two separate etymological sources merging into one (like the English word "bat", where "bakke" and "batt" became homophones). I think it would be terribly unfair to delete the definition of "God" in Aramaic based solely on the assumption that it's incorrect because it means "stag" in Hebrew. It's also worth noting that I did not merely just add the definition back in; the request was to verify the sense, and I changed the definition from "God" to "God, the single god of monotheism." --334a 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m not proposing that the Aramaic entry be deleted because of its homograph’s meaning in Hebrew; I nominated this for deletion because policy dictates that I do so: if a word or sense fails RFV, it should not be reëntered without evidence to support its inclusion; if it is reëntered without said evidence, then it should be deleted without another attempt at verification. (Technically, policy dictates that I could have just deleted the section, rather than bringing it here to be discussed; however, in the interests of good faith, I decided to requæst its deletion formally instead.)
The definitions “God” and “God, the single god of monotheism” are, for all intents and purposes, the same sense; changing the wording of a definition when the referent is the same is not a valid loophole in the verification process. To retain the Aramaic section of this entry, you need to satisfy WT:CFI; i.e., you must satisfy one of its four criteria for attestation — unless you can cite an applicable exception or wish to argue that one should be granted.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. All arguments presented thus far are moot. The entry was rfv'd, and cites should be provided for it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Or cite, singular, if it's from a well-known work, such as the Talmud or the Zohar. —RuakhTALK 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I just now saw the request on my talkpage that I comment here. I requested verification because I had never come across the word and because I know אלהא has the meaning ascribed to the word under discussion here. (Of course, that doesn't mean that this word hasn't got the same meaning — synonyms exist in all languages (I guess) — but it does seem to me to make it less likely.) If an Aramaic expert insists in good faith that the word is correct, I certainly don't mind its being kept.—msh210 16:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. :-)   As you know, Hebrew has an analogous pair: el (Kel) vs. Eloka. Given the strong historical influence between Hebrew and certain forms of Aramaic, especially when it comes to religion, it would almost be surprising if Aramaic didn't have analogues for both words. (Not to say that the analogue for el would have to be איל.) —RuakhTALK 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I did some digging and found that איל is a chiefly Syriac spelling, and other spellings follow the Hebrew אל. I've also noted that it differs slightly from אלהא in that it can only be used as a proper noun ("God") instead of a common noun ("god"). Historically, I guess it's cognate with אלהא and therefore would have originally meant "god" in the general sense:

  • In the Peshitta, Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, the saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is rendered with ܐܝܠ (or איל). You can view parts of the Peshitta at under "Interlinear NT". Granted, the Peshitta may not be as well known as the Talmud or the Zohar in the West, but it is a very important book in various Eastern Christian denominations and would definitely fall under the well-known work category.
  • J. Payne Smith's A Compendious Syriac Dictionary lists "God" as a definition and mentions that it's frequently used in the composition of names.
  • The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon lists ")yl#3 N --> )l N", which basically is אל <-- איל, meaning one is another spelling of the other. It can be viewed here along with the other definitions for that spelling, as the fourth definition under "stag" and above "aid". --334a 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
"Peshitta may not be as well known as the Talmud or the Zohar in the West" - au contraire, it is! Talmud is well-known, but I(from a EU-country) know very well about Peshitta too, but nothing about "Zohar", here is the first time I encountered it. Peshitta and the works of Saint Ephrem are the foremost literary works in the Aramaic language. Bogorm 08:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been from my personal experience that the Peshitta is not as well known. Obviously, if you're more familiar with the Syriac than works of Jewish literature, then you probably might not know what the Zohar is. But, if I may be so accurate in guaging the fame of a work as to use the method of google hits, we see Talmud at 3,710,000, Zohar at 2,720,000, and Peshitta at 238,000. --334a 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good enough to pass for me. However, I'll leave the actual closing to someone else. However, I would officially like to request the Syriac spelling. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. --334a 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The Syriac(Estrangelo) spelling is the main spelling (and thence indispensable), just like Cyrillic and not Arabic script is the main script for Tajik lamguage. Already discussed here. Bogorm 08:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kept, tag removed.—msh210 07:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

twisted in knots

I don't doubt that this phrase can be used, but is it an authentic idiom or set phrase worthy of a dictionary definition? Seems more like just an unremarkable SoP construction using established senses of "twisted" and "knot". -- WikiPedant 05:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

delete Might be good in a usage example at knot or twist. DCDuring TALK 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Is "in knots"/"in a knot" an idiomatic intensifying adverb? Not sure how a figurative sense of "knot" appropriate to twisted in knots would be written. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Idiomatic? No, I wouldn't think so, not anymore than "in pieces", "by steps", or "in thirds". A knot can be any hard lump, such as having one's muscles in knots, which is figurative. --EncycloPetey 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't have that sense. DCDuring TALK 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Its idiomatic... most in America (US) understand that people who say it do not think their stomach is LITERALLY in a knot just that it feels that way. Also a non-native speaker would never guess "anxiety" ^confused and busy^ from the sum of parts. Goldenrowley 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC) For record I have a small problem with the sense of "confused" but its well-known phrase for anxiety. Goldenrowley 03:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

come to a conclusion

This is mere sum of parts, yes? One may also "come to the conclusion", "arrive at a conclusion". "reach a conclusion", etc. --EncycloPetey 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete, a.k.a. move to [[conclusion#Usage notes]]. —RuakhTALK 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete, usage note or usage example at [[conclusion]]. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete. -- WikiPedant 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Ruakh, DCDuring.—msh210 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Initially, I'd said "Keep", but now delete, as I've added a definition to [[come to]] (reach)- it appears there are many thing which one can come to.

Deleted and example sentence added to conclusion.—msh210 07:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

broken English

SoP: broken + English? --Hekaheka 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete We even have the right sense of broken with a usage example including the term. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep-ish. Strikes me as a set phrase, although it's never been 100% clear to me whether that is enough in itself to satisfy WT:CFI. -- WikiPedant 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Rereading WT:CFI and Dictionary:Idioms that survived RFD, the words "set phrase" do not appear there. If they should, they should be part of a rewrite that gets voted on. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The waters are muddied--or, perhaps, the plot is thickened--by the usage note in the WT defn of set phrase, which includes idioms as a subset of set phrases. So it seems that some set phrases are idioms (and, therefore, satisfy CFI) and some are not (and, therefore, ...?) -- WikiPedant 22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Logically: 1., not all set phrases are idioms. 2., idiomaticity is required to meet CFI. Therefore, being a set phrase is not sufficient to meet CFI.
The idiomaticity tests provide plenty of opportunities for arguing that a given collocation meets CFI as an idiom, but no one has seized them. DCDuring TALK 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, DC, I get what you're saying: Forget about set-phrasehood; just worry about idiomaticity. My problem is that their entanglement just seems to go on and on. Some set phrases are not idioms, some are sort-of wannabe idioms, and some are idioms; but many, maybe all, set phrases (including broken English!) seem to me to satisfy some of the rule-of-thumb tests for idiomaticity at Dictionary:Idioms that survived RFD, such as the "Egyptian pyramid test" or the "In between test." -- WikiPedant 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, I could live with any solution that ended up being voted on and made part of WT:CFI. That means something operationalizable, yet flexible. Only such a solution will avoid Wiktionary decisions from appearing somewhere on the spectrum between arbitrary and elitist. I thought that the idiomaticity tests gave many ways for something to be included. Evidently many are not satisfied with that level of inclusiveness when it comes down to cases.
I do not think that a real-world institution such as Wiktionary can necessarily rely on academically defined, theoretically pure concepts. At best it can work with the experimentalists' versions of those concepts. More realistically, it needs to further simplify so that tired, busy humans can implement decisions. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but needs to be rewritten and expanded. --Ptcamn 13:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that you believe that the "keepish" reason seems strong enough to warrant a "keep"? DCDuring TALK 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I would weakly support this, except that it allows entries for broken X where X is any one of over 2,000 languages. Aaargh! -- ALGRIF talk 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment If we keep this I see no good rationale for deleting broken Norwegian and a few others I can think of off the top of my head... __meco 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - this is a meaning of broken, and can be used before any language name: "broken French", "broken German", "broken Japanese", etc. --EncycloPetey 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)--50 Xylophone Players talk 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think that there would be 800+ raw bgc hits for "broken French" (700+ German and Spanish; 600+ Arabic, Italian, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese; and 100+ for Norwegian) vs. 2400+ for "broken English", but there are. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring (15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)).—msh210 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per EncycloPetey (17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC))
Delete per DCDuring; it is English that's broken. Equinox 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Set phrase. Meaning is not the same as "bad English" "poor English" or "uneducated English". —Stephen 21:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me but might I ask did you read DCDuring's first comment? broken English=broken(the sense tagged to say that it is related to languages)+English.--50 Xylophone Players talk 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Read it, completely irrelevant. It’s a set phrase. Definitely a keep. —Stephen 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Help me out. Why is "set phrase" a relevant criterion? AFAICT by reading + searching, "set phrase" is not part of CFI, the legitimizing cover for all of our RfD decisions. See above for the simple logic of idiomaticity and being a set phrase. DCDuring TALK 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I would not be bothered if this were Deleted. (But Stephen – dude, help me out with #wait for above!). Ƿidsiþ 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Stephen that we should keep set phrases, but I think EncycloPetey, DCDuring, and Equinox have shown that this isn't one. (E.g. in that "his English was broken" gets 128 raw b.g.c. hits, all seemingly in this sense.) —RuakhTALK 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain how being a "set phrase" is a sufficient condition for meeting CFI, as currently written? It might not be a bad criterion for us to vote on, mind you. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
CFI says it requires "idiomaticity", and implies that that means "the property of being an idiom"; but if you read its examples, I think it requires something in between. (I think CFI's definition of "idiom" isn't much stricter than my definition of "set phrase".) —RuakhTALK 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
"His English was broken" is not a set phrase, but broken English is. Your definition of set phrase is clearly different from mine. For one thing, set phrases are often given a place in dictionaries. No dictionary will have an entry for "his English was broken", but my Simon and Schuster’s International has broken English (inglés chapurreado), Cassell’s German dictionary has gebrochenes Englisch. broken English is a set term that one would expect to find in a good dictionary, and a term that no experienced translator would attempt to translate into any other language without looking in a dictionary or similar resource to see the proper idiomatic equivalent. —Stephen 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Three questions, that are really one question:
  1. Do your dictionaries have separate entries for broken English as for broken, or do they treat broken English under broken?
  2. Do your dictionaries have entries for broken French etc.?
  3. Do your dictionaries include the relevant sense of broken in addition to an entry for broken English?
My overall question is, do your dictionaries have entries for broken English because they think that's really a set phrase that needs its own translation, or are they simply using the example of “broken English” to clearly disambiguate the relevant translation of broken? If the latter, then I think Wiktionary's already got that covered through our system of define + exemplify + translate + link to full coverage of translation. :-)
RuakhTALK 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Paper dictionaries may have either of two different styles, either (1) listing these terms in a running paragraph under the head noun, or (2) as fully separate entries. The cheaper the dictionary, the more likely it is that all the related terms will be listed in paragraph form under one head word. The purpose has nothing to do with linguistics or semantics, but is only used to save space (this is fine for the occasional user, but it’s murder on regular translators who are forced to pore over the articles laboriously searching for the pertinent term hidden somewhere in the foot-long paragraphs). My most expensive dictionaries which are designed for regular professional use, such as my Dictionnaire technique du pétrole and my English-Spanish Pan-American livestock dictionary, squander the space in favor of a user-friendly format where all the entries are treated separately. Since Wiktionary is not confined to paper, we don’t have to worry about trying to save column-inches of space, and all such terms should be treated separately. —Stephen 05:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I still see no reference to "set phrase" in WT:CFI. Arguably, then, it is completely irrelevant to the question of deletion.
Wiktionary (and Wikipedia) stand bravely alone among the real OneLook English references in having an entry for this.
set phrase offers two definitions. I can't determine the operational meaning of the first sense, so I use the second. I would accept an operationalized version of the first definition.
Using the first sense, as I understand it, wouldn't the following example indicate a lack of "setness"? "Caruso's recording, sung in a broken American English accent, has become a collector's item." DCDuring TALK 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
"broken American English" is not a set term...broken English is a set term. It’s not unusual that you can do various things to a set term, but doing so usually results in something that is not a set term. "Yellow shirt" is not a set term, but everybody knows the common English term for English that is mangled in a foreign way, or broken English. Sodium carbonate is another set term, in spite of the fact that you can have sodium bicarbonate as well as carbonate of sodium. Set term doesn’t mean fossilized or petrified. —Stephen 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that it's not a set term. I can say "He spoke in English that was halting and broken." --EncycloPetey 05:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Stephen: What is your definition of a set term. It doesn't seem to correspond to either sense in the entry. It seems not to have anything to do with the potential for varying the structure, using synonyms, etc. How could someone recognize a set phrase of your definition? Is it completely ineffable? Could we identify such phrases experimentally, as by asking 50 uneducated native speakers some set of questions? Is there a way to establish objective criteria that we could actually use? DCDuring TALK 12:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Compact Oxford gives a definition: "an unvarying phrase having a specific meaning or being the only context in which a word appears." Wordnet gives "idiom, idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase -- (an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up)". Wiktionary's definitions seem idiosyncratic and technical. Stephen's definition seems ineffable or, rather, has yet to be effed. DCDuring TALK 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone came up with the idea that a set term must be invariable and not dividable, which is convenient but arbitrary. To burn down is a fixed term, even though you can say "burn down the house" or "burn the house down". I got my degrees in linguistics and foreign languages over 30 years ago and I have worked in the industry ever since, applying what I learned then. I’ve translated hundreds of thousands of pages, looking up millions of words and terms in thousands of different dictionaries over the years. I don’t think about definition anymore, it has become second nature for me. When I want to look up a term, I always know whether to search for the whole term or look at the individual words. This rule of invariability that you are applying is faulty. As I said, I concern myself with translations, not definitions, but I’ll try to verbalize what I do in this case subconsciously.
If there is a specific thing or action, there is a term for the thing or action. Ideally the term is one word, but frequently it is more than one word. The customary term for that thing or action is a set term, regardless of whether it is one word or more. A hamburger is a specific thing, and hamburger is the term for it. If, instead of hamburger, we had all decided to call that item a "Teutonic sandwich", and "Teutonic sandwich" became the customary and usual term for it, then "Teutonic sandwich" would be a set term, in spite of the fact that you might vary it in ways that the one word hamburger cannot be varied: "this sandwich is Teutonic", a "Teutonic with cheese sandwich", and so on. That specific thing would still have the customary name of "Teutonic sandwich", and "Teutonic sandwich" in that hypothetical situation would be a set term. You would not look under Teutonic and then sandwich to piece together what that dish is, you would look for the full term "Teutonic sandwich". If you add a different thing to the hamburger, such as cheese, and if you consider it as separate from the hamburger, then you have a hamburger with cheese. This not NOT a fixed term, because it is a phrase made up of two terms referring to two specific things, hamburger and cheese. Since cheese has now become so common on a hamburger, we have developed the word cheeseburger for it. If, instead of cheeseburger to refer to this one specific thing, we had decided to call it a "Teutonic cheese sandwich", then "Teutonic cheese sandwich" would be the customary term for this specific item and it would be a fixed term, even though it would be possible to stick other words into the phrase under some circumstances. The customary term for the specific thing is a fixed term, one word or not.
It does not matter if a specific thing or action is referred to by a one-word or multiple-word term, and it does not matter if the multiple-word term can sometimes have other words interposed, it is still a set term. There are many languages that, contrary to English, regularly use single words to refer to complex ideas, multiple things or actions, mixtures of things and actions. They are the synthetic and polysynthetic languages, such as the Algonquin, Athabaskan, and Eskimo-Aleut languages, and also languages such as Finnish. The fact that one word can be the equivalent of a complex clause or sentence in English does not make the word a set term. By the same token, in analytical languages such as English and Vietnamese, having a multiple-word for a specific thing does not mean that the term is anything less than set, in spite of the fact that, having multiple words, it is sometimes possible to stick other words in the middle of it.
broken English is a specific thing. Semantically speaking, it would be perfectly logical for there to be a one-word term for the phenomenon, and if there were, it would not be questioned. But, English being as analytical as it is, this specific defect is customarily referred to with the term broken English, and broken English is a set term, in spite of the fact that you can also have broken German or say that one’s English is broken (although I have never heard or read "Engish is broken" before now). It would also be very logical if we had a single term to refer to the condition regardless of the language, instead of our actual "broken English" and "broken German", but language is not always completely logical or efficient, and in this case we have a fixed term that applies only to English.
This is the best I can do to describe how I process terms automatically. It may not be crystal clear or cleanly expressed, but it’s the best I can do. The arbitrary rule you’ve been using as a razor to determine set terms is easy to apply but it is faulty and shuts out a great many valid terms. A thing or an action has a name, and that name is a term that we should have. —Stephen 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to add to Stephen's excellent analysis – the key concept to consider is not set term, but whether something is idiomatic or not. You will notice the definition of idiomatic has nothing to do with being sum-of-parts or not, but rather to do with whether a particular phrase is "characteristic of a given language". Terms are idiomatic not because their meaning is difficult to understand (it often isn't), but because they are uniquely common collocations of words that sound natural in English. Ƿidsiþ 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. Unfortunately, for those of us who don't have thirty years' experience, it's not obvious how to tell whether something is a set phrase by that definition. (At least, to me it's not obvious; maybe everyone else is set now. :-P ) Perhaps we should use a variant of the lemming test (the "if your dictionaries jumped off a cliff" test)? This also raises questions of how to cover such terms; it seems silly to try to define broken English as anything but “broken English”, and even the most comprehensive of monolingual English dictionaries, such as the OED Online, don't include it, even as a sub-entry under one term or the other. (For example, all the OED Online has is the relevant sense of broken, with definition “of language: Imperfectly spoken, with the syntax incomplete” and three quotations.) Perhaps we should take this to the Beer parlour? —RuakhTALK 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There do seem to be some matters for the Beer Parlor. 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. That explanation of "set phrase" is an example of what makes Wiktionary rewarding for someone like me. It it difficult to have the benefits of participation by volunteers if there are no operational criteria. Would it be possible to operationalize the criteria at all? Perhaps, by creating a set of criteria that would make something definitely a "set phrase" and another set that would make something definitely not a set phrase. Grey-area cases could be handled by grey heads. Perhaps we could get the greatest leverage from the mix of volunteers we have that way.
I also remain unclear as to how "set phrase" is incorporated into WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Good analysis, Stephen. Partly how I look at "chunk theory". Most ideas in English, and other languages, are expressed in chunks, or groups of words that have a particular significance to a native speaker. (Not all chunks are set phrases or idioms, but all set phrases and idioms are chunks.) This particular chunk highlights a persistent problem which literally plagues Wikt. I refer to legal precedent (wow. not included yet!) where the inclusion of broken English means the automatic precedent for all other broken X to pass CFI. Is this really the case? OK. We can find plenty of cites for broken French and others, but that does not mean that broken Serbo-Croatian is going to make it, because of the lack of usage evidence. But contribs will continue to argue the case for inclusion on the grounds of precedent.
On the other hand, Wikt, being an online data based dictionary is used differently. I always bear in mind the example of how to teach a student how to find don't look a gift horse in the mouth. The answer is to look first at horse. But Wikt is different. If it was a paper dictionary, the answer to "broken English" would be to look at "broken", as per OED. But Wikt isn't a paper dictionary, and so the entry at broken English should be valid as a "chunk", or set phrase here, but there should also be an entry at broken similar to the OED. And, yes, it's clear that this needs to be hammered out at BP, to make CFI more relevant to usage. -- ALGRIF talk 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the OED disagrees with you. The OED is not shy about having lots of subentries; indeed, in many cases an entry will contain a list of subentries that only mention a term's existence, leaving it to the reader to infer its meaning. But in the case of broken English, it doesn't even do that; it only defines the relevant sense of broken. —RuakhTALK 15:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That's just what I meant. They only have the sense at "broken", but Wikt should have both entries IMHO. Also, being a limited-to-paper dictionary, of course they only make mention of some uses in sub entries. Wikt can be much better than that, if we can address the problem of precedent. -- ALGRIF talk 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think their paper-ness is the issue. They define the relevant sense of "broken", and provide two quotations that contain the phrase "broken English" (plus one with "broken English and Dutch"); if they genuinely thought that "broken English" was a "set phrase" or a "chunk" or any other such, they'd have included it, simple as that. If we add [[broken English]], I don't think we should kid ourselves that it's because we're comprehensive than the OED in terms of our monolingual coverage of English, or English set terms, or any other such. It would be because the entry is useful to translators, and that's it. —RuakhTALK 01:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I see we are most likely in agreement then. We are both thinking about Wikt being useful. In fact I believe that most contribs are thinking about the same thing. I just happen to think that two entries; one a "broken" (sense) and one at "broken English" would be the most useful way to deal with this in an on-line paperless dictionary. And that CFI might possibly need to be modified a little as a consequence. Nothing more. -- ALGRIF talk 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that "broken English" is an example of an expression that we would want to make sure appeared in one or more usage examples if it did not appear as an entry. I don't think that the OED "accidentally" included "broken English" in their entry for "broken". At some point it may be highly desirable for such expressions to have their own entries.
The usefulness of a term for translators could become an explicit criterion for inclusion. I wonder whether there is a class of entry we should have for useful "objects of translation". That a given phrase is useful in that way is evidence that there is a thought-unit or "chunk" that it represents. Such "chunks" might be proto-words of some kind. Usefulness to translators and "chunkiness" are not now part of CFI, however. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

best friend

"Someone considered to be one's closest companion." This gets 67 million raw google hits, gotta be a set phrase? --Hekaheka 22:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a chance -- This is as sum-of-partsy as it gets. -- WikiPedant 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It’s pretty much SoP, but also a set phrase. It isn’t as tight as many set phrases, and not idiomatic (notwithstanding the word friend itself), so this one isn’t very important. If someone has gone to the trouble of formatting it properly and supplied a good definition, it is completely harmless and probably worthwhile. Delete if it is badly formatted or defined, otherwise keep. —Stephen 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep, if that exists here, because best has a specific and unusual sense (one's closest friend may not literally be the "best" one) and I believe people tend to utter the phrase as an indivisible unit. Equinox 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per Stephen and Equinox. (I'm not sure about Equinox's first point — the same applies to good, of which best is simply the superlative — but I agree with his second.) —RuakhTALK 23:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you like the indivisibility test, Ruakh, but does this one really pass it? To adapt your example from broken English above, can't we say, "I have lots of friends, but that friend is my best"? -- WikiPedant 23:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think we can. I'm having difficulty testing this on b.g.c., but from what I can find, it seems that people generally repeat the word "friend", as in "Must we choose between which friend is our ninth best friend and which our tenth?" and "We’re asked which friend is our best friend, not which are our three best friends." (The former isn't a perfect example, because it's "{ninth best} friend", not "ninth {best friend}", but still.) I did find one hit that didn't repeat the word "friend", but I don't think it meant "best friend": "And which friend is the best? He who comes to one's aid more and is more a helper in hardship." —RuakhTALK 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Ruakh, I think that the last e.g. you give ("And which friend is the best?") can easily be read with a sense appropriate to serving as a counter-example to your point. And I still think the e.g. I fabricated above is a perfectly valid construction. Here are a few more violations of strict "indivisibility" which I've just found quickly rummaging through classics online:
"The Apparition of Mrs. Veal" by Daniel Defoe.
Mrs. Bargrave, you are not only the best, but the only friend I have in the world.
"The Deserted Village" by Oliver Goldsmith.
Indeed several of our best and wisest friends concur in the opinion.
"For Better or Worse" by W. W. Jacobs.
"We--we called to see you about a dear old pal--friend, I mean," continued Mr. Wotton; "one o' the best. The best."
Emile Gaboriau » The Champdoce Mystery » Chapter XXX. The Veiled Portrait.
Like a noble-hearted gentleman, he withdrew at once, and today is my best and kindest friend.
Mark Twain » "On The Decay Of The Art Of Lying."
The Lie, as a recreation, a solace, a refuge in time of need, the fourth Grace, the tenth Muse, man's best and surest friend, is immortal.
Allan Quatermain by H. Rider Haggard: Chapter XIX. A Strange Wedding.
Sir Henry Curtis is the best and kindest fellow and friend in the world.
Doing further rummaging generally on the web, it doesn't seem to be terribly unusual at all to stick one or more adjectives between "best" and "friend," especially such obvious ones as "male" and "female." Even if "best" and "friend" are very frequently conjoined, I don't think there's any real semantic superglue between them. Oooooh, this is fun. Could do it all day. -- WikiPedant 01:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete per WikiPedant's quotations (or at least some of them). I hope you're happy. ;-)   —RuakhTALK 04:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. We don't have a sense at best or good that means "close," and I don't think we should, since I can't think of any other case where such a meaning would apply. More to the point, "best friend" does not exactly mean "closest friend." "Being best friends" implies a certain relationship which may not actually be unique -- one can, paradoxically, be best friends with many different people, or one can have many friends with varying degrees of closeness, but no best friend. So I fail to see how this is sum of parts, except perhaps in some abstruse Aristotelian way. ... WikiPedant's examples are very interesting, but I think they show only that "best" and "friend" can be used together without specifically signifying "best friend." For example, "the best friend I have" may not actually someone I am "best friends" with. Straying from the topic, I note that "being best friends" outnumbers "being worst enemies" by ~600 to 0 (the one hit for the latter is a red herring), although "best friends" is only about 5 times more common than "worst enemies" by itself. So if this is deleted, IMO we should definitely have an entry at be best friends, since AFAIK that phrase always applies specifically to this relational state. -- Visviva 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
With this explanation I might understand having an entry for best friends, because it seems to have some idiomatic content. But you have not yet explained how "best + friend" differs from the expression "best + shirt" in the sentence "I put on my best shirt." It does not necessarily mean that it was THE best shirt, but only one of your many good shirts. I still say delete. --Hekaheka 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I can think of one: best mate, but that's just a Commonwelath variant. --EncycloPetey 06:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep because of it's not-quite exactitude of meaning. I think of this as a set phrase which is used to indicate closeness (as stated above) and that we are the best of friends, and possibly (but not definitively) the best friend. -- ALGRIF talk 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. googling "is another of my best friends" gets loads of examples, BTW. -- ALGRIF talk 15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Visviva. Revise definition to include senses other than the SoP definition that is the sole one at present. I don't think that anything like this sense of "best" comes up, except in phrases which we would probably agree are idiomatic like best man and best boy. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Idiomatic. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think it is idiomatic. To invoke Hekaheka's e.g., above, "best friend" is like "best shirt"--it's always somebody's best friend or best shirt (mine, hers, yours, etc.). My best shirt is simply my superlatively good shirt. and my best friend is simply my superlatively good friend. Quite literal. Nothing idiomatic about it. Like Hekaheka, I too still say delete. -- WikiPedant 17:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Two thing that I have discovered that may shed light on this both illustrates that pragmatics may be involved in making various collocations involving "friend" special in some way.

  1. The phrases "my good friend" and "my best friend" constitute 40% of the occurrences of "good friend" and "best friend".
  2. "better friend(s)" occur much less often relative to "good friend(s)" and "best friend(s)" (even after removing "my good friend(s)") than "better car(s)" relative to "good car(s)" and "best car(s)".
As to the second point the key difference between cars and friends is that friends have feelings. "Better" explicitly introduces the idea of comparison, in which someone is better than someone else. Even the winner seems to be belittled by the comparison.
The first point reminds us that the expression "good friend(s)" is probably often used in dialogue with the friend(s) present.
I would expect that the pragmatics of the common situations that use this expression may have given it a very common special meaning. Although in other cases I have argued that pragmatics can often invest a word or phrase with meaning but that such meanings do not belong in a dictionary, here the base meaning of the word "friend" forces the pragmatics to the fore. Perhaps what this expression needs are some non-gloss definitions that highlight the special uses that it has. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I reiterate. There are loads of examples of another of my best friends which indicates that "best" is not being used as a superlative. Superlatives are de facto unique, which is why they are usually preceded by "the". So how can this phrase be considered sop, if one of the two words is being used idiomatically? -- ALGRIF talk 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Superlativeness does not necessarily entail uniqueness. My unabridged Random House gives the first meaning of "superlative" as "of the highest kind, quality, or order" and the WT's defn1 for superlative is similar. It is perfectly acceptable to speak of my most treasured books, my happiest moments, and my best friends without conceding that any member of these sets is less than superlative. They are all of the highest kind, quality, or order. So I too reiterate -- there's nothing idiomatic going on here. "Best friend" is an entirely literal SOP construct. -- WikiPedant 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing that keeps superlative adjectives from modifying plural nouns. It is the uses of the term that are not purely descriptive that make me think this should be kept. At most one of the citations (by Defoe) above is a possible non-descriptive use. I think it is an empirical matter whether there are usages of this collocation that would warrant an entry. The entry as it stands does not warrant inclusion. My keep (above) would also require a move to RfV if citations and a better definition (possibly non-gloss) are not forthcoming. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done a little bit of revising and citing, though I'm not sure it will really change anyone's mind. Here are couple of additional thoughts I've had:
    • It is quite difficult to distinguish the idiom here (if there is one) from simple sum-of-parts usage, and I expect that we don't all draw the line in the same place. For instance, I would unhesitantly say that a person who says "Some of my best friends are [...]," absent unusual context, is simply combining "best" and "friend." On the other hand, someone who said "Both of my best friends are [...]" is probably using the term idiomatically.
    • This entry meets the lemming test, as it has a subsense (2.b.) in the OED entry for "best," and its own entry in WordNet. Too lazy to check others ATM, but I expect most dictionaries include it in some way.
    • The concept of the "best friendship" has attracted some attention from social scientists, particularly in the field of child development. For example this one, and quite a few of these. These scholars seem to be referring to something very distinct, though it is possible that the subjects of their research do not share their terminology. -- Visviva 16:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
To me, some of the citations:best friend suggest that one can have friends without having one or more "best friends", suggesting that it is something distinct from a grade of "friend". One can have context-specific best friends. There is also a mutual relationship of "best friends", which seems be something distinguishable from the plural of "best friend".
These are not the most common uses of the term, which is more SoP. We do often have an entry for the SoP meaning if there is a non-SoP meaning. There are also some uses, probably included in the SoP sense, that imply that a person ranks close friends (first-best, second-best). DCDuring TALK 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: mutual relationship of best friends: the same is true of friends (as in, "I'm friends with him"). It's even true of bad friends. —RuakhTALK 10:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete superlative of good + friend, ordinary usage as per WikiPedant's quotations. Moreover, if it were idiomatic, it should not be present in almost all languages(de: bester Freund, ru: лучший друг, ja:仲好し小好し, here the word for good, 好し, repeated twice, fr: meilleur ami, Icelandic: bestur vinur, Danish:bedst ven), therefore this hypothesis does not hold. Should we make entries for all of them, of these ordinary constructions? Bogorm 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - people can have more than one "best friend". We don't say favorite friend. --Jackofclubs 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Along with what JackofClubs just said, other idioms are also derived from "best friends" such as "best friends forever". Also, you can talk about having a best friend. This is logically nonsense, since logically one always has a best friend (except arguably if you have zero friends). Yartrebo 02:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kept.msh210 07:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Very slender usage Goldenrowley 04:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ROM image

Sum of parts: it's an image (computer file) of a ROM (chip with a program on it). Equinox 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

human trafficking

Note: the title of this section was previously trafficking in human beings. The title was changed when that entry was moved. —RuakhTALK 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

4-line mini-encyclopedia article. SoP, non-idiomatic. Prime candidate for {{only in}} WP, although perhaps at human trafficking. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tightened, cleaned up, and moved to human trafficking. -- WikiPedant 07:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
To be SoP, it would have to be human + traffic + -ing. But traffic is defined as an illegal trade in goods. Also, there is a connotation here: transporting humans isn't in itself illegal; but if one traffics in fish, it implies that the trade or transport of the fish is illegal. (I'm not proposing fish trafficking. :-) Of course, the idea behind human trafficking is that the humans are treated as goods. I'd keep this, as a bit more than SoP, and a useful place to link WP and provide translations. Robert Ullmann 13:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The entry seems fine where it is with existing def. Needs to be watched to protect from noble-cause PoV push. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have it watch listed. Reverted some a little while ago (as you know). Robert Ullmann 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


First name of two fictional characters in Tolkien's works (the son of Thorin I and the father of Gimli). It is not the name of an entire race (like hobbit) and they are not even major characters. Equinox 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be shown to be used in multiple sources that don't set forth the source. Oh, I checked, it can't. There's a Gloin Gulch in Ohio (no relation to the character), and both Gloin and M'Gloin appear occasionally as surnames (no relation to the character). But zero references to a fictional Gloin outside of the literature of the fictional universe. bd2412 T 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Internet typo for shit. If this was actually popular with the kids, it would at least be on Urban Dictionary. The etymology also suggests someone was seeking publicity by having coined a word. Equinox 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, I agree with Equinox on this one.--50 Xylophone Players talk 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, despite the glorious history of the entry (transwikied from WP in june '05, almost three years in quarantine (aka namespace Transwiki), approved half a year ago and probably identical with an article of the same name which was deleted on 18 November 2005. Perhaps we should wait with the deletion until next week's tuesday?) -- Gauss 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted.msh210 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

why the hell not

This is a composite phrase from why not and the hell (intensifier). I don't think it's any more worthy of an entry than why the hell, who the hell, why in hell not, why the fuck not, etc. Equinox 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I can't think of any good reason why the hell not. -- WikiPedant 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Neither can I. Do we really have to wait a full month?? -- ALGRIF talk 12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete There is no formal requirement of waiting a month on RfD. There is for RfV. Personally, I think it's good idea to wait either a month or until there are at least three (five?) unopposed "deletes" expressed, unless it is out-and-out vandalism or garbage. I don't know that it is worthwhile to keep items that long. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom.—msh210 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted.msh210 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

commit a bill

SoP. 1st sense of commit in our def. Synonyms possible for bill ("draft", "proposal"). DCDuring TALK 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So it means to give someone a dollar to hold in trust? I would never have guessed that, but it’s as good as anything else I can think of. If you don’t know what it means, you can’t make a reliable guess just by looking at the definitions for commit and bill. Seems cryptic to me. —Stephen 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Are we to have entries for all collocations? I don't know the right assumptions to make about our users' abilities to make inferences from context, but I suspect that they can make some successfully. They need to be able to use context information to reduce the combinatorial explosion of possible entries. We could make Wiktionary quite unmaintainable by including SoP collocations. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Just depends on whether we want to tell people what something means. If commit a bill is a term of art in business or some industry, it’s one that I don’t know and would not be able to figure out by looking at the individual words. As far as I’m concerned, if someone has written the article with a reasonable definition and formatting, it should stay. Its presence does not mean that one or some of us should make a project out of finding any other collocations. It’s useful, it explains a term that I with my university education could not figure out, and there is no reason to take it as a mandate to add other collocations. —Stephen 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


WMF Jargon. --Jackofclubs 10:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Move to some appendix. DCDuring TALK 18:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It claims to be WMF jargon only, so I guess delete; otherwise, I'd be happier with a RFV.—msh210 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

soft redirect

WMF jargon. --Jackofclubs 10:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is used in non-Wiki environments. Just adjust the definition. SemperBlotto 10:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


WMF jargon --Jackofclubs 10:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This makes me want to ask: is there a special rule of "notability" (or what not) for wiki jargon? The fact that a "Wikimedia jargon" template exists suggests there is, yet most of these wiki terms would be rejected out of hand if they belonged to any other subculture than the wiki one. Perhaps there's a rule about this I haven't seen yet? Equinox 22:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Move to appendix. Prior practice had some wiki jargon included. It was subsequently voted that they meet CFI. There is an appendix for them. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Brer Rabbit

Does this meet our CFI? --Jackofclubs 06:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How does CFI apply to folk characters? DCDuring TALK 12:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox are used in other texts assuming the reader understands the characters and the moral of the story. Here's one that it took me 5 seconds to find ---
  • For the time being Gordon Brown has decided like Brer Rabbit to lie low and say nuffin'. --- ALGRIF talk 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

dead dog

"a thing of no worth" A metaphor used in the Bible. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless, like many Biblical metaphors, it finds out-of-context use in Modern English. —RuakhTALK 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

on course

purportedly an idiom. But see course#Noun. DCDuring TALK 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sense (among others) seems to be missing at course. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

penalty goal

Certainly not specific to just rugby, but this seems like mere sum of parts to me. --EncycloPetey 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a SoP to me as well. Delete. --Hekaheka 09:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete With that definition it certainly seems SoP. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven’t read it yet and, knowing nothing of rugby, I have trouble imagining what it could mean. If one team commits a certain offence, is it that the opposing team is given a point on its score as though it had made a goal? Or is it that the opposing team is given the chance to try for a goal by kicking or hitting the ball from a certain distance without interference from the penalized team? —Stephen 17:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
For such a question I'd recommend WP or the rulebook. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You mean use Wikipedia as a dictionary. —Stephen 20:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I wasn't sure of the meaning until I looked at it. Seems to have been added by Wonderfool, but that's OK. SemperBlotto 08:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


The Spanish section was requested for deletion last year - A brand of beer from Guatemala. --Jackofclubs 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

delete. I find no evidence this has entered the general lexicon. --Bequw¢τ 04:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


This time around, I'm adding the first English definition too - a brand of Californian wine. --Jackofclubs 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:This one should perhaps be RfV'd as a brand name that might have enough attributive use for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It has already passed RfV. What grounds for reopening? DCDuring TALK 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

addressographs plural of addressograph

Addressograph looks like a brand name or something. Does it meet CFI? (Otherwise we should delete the plural). RJFJR 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Added entry for addressograph. There is attributive use. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


Not an infix. Not a likely term for searches. content meaning at to. Or is this the prototype for a new class of entries? DCDuring TALK 10:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who requested it (at [[Dictionary:Requested entries:English]]) and am not the one who fulfilled the request, I feel a bit guilty saying this — but I think you're right. —RuakhTALK 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The "not-an-infix" point, if true, would just mean it would need a different PoS. We have many terms that are unlikely search terms. I'd be surprised that all and only the senses at [[to]] applied to [[-to-]]. I really could see a case for the entry and it would be a prototype for a new type of entry or, at least, some new material at [[to]]. DCDuring TALK 02:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a phrase template of sorts, "X-to-X" (or "X-to-Y"). Did we ever come to a decision on how to handle these? IMO there's no particular reason to have them in mainspace, since no one will ever search for either "-to-" or "X-to-Y" as such; but an appendix would be a nice supplement to the entries for individual phrases. -- Visviva 03:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
For years, the consensus was to entry the most common form of "X-to-Y" as an entry, with other relatively common forms redirecting to it. AFAIK, the only issue questioned, was if the links should be "hard" or "soft." But each pattern and the entries resulting from that pattern were always to have individual discussions. --Connel MacKenzie 15:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it would be an interfix (and not an infix), if anything. Secondly, -to- seems better explained as the product of turning phrases into adjectives; e.g., a ground-to-air missle is a missle fired from (the) ground to (the) air. Agreed?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

semisweet chocolate

Sum of parts? Conrad.Irwin 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Has a specific regulatory meaning in the US: w:Types of chocolate#United states. -- Visviva 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I hate to ask, but as applied to chocolate, doesn't semisweet have a specific regulatory meaning in the U.S., and doesn't semisweet chocolate mean simply “chocolate that is semisweet”? —RuakhTALK 05:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Seemingly not a regulatory meaning, but I'd agree it has a colloquial one. Seems like a SoP to me, but, then again, I'm not in the food (or food law) field.—msh210 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm, that link is dead (viz, was temporary). My intent was to show that the part of the Code of Federal Regulations that deals with food labeling refers to "semisweet chocolate" but never just "semisweet". Search for "semisweet" at .—msh210 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

political label

A term used to categorize people based on their political beliefs or tendencies. SoP, IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the current definition is correct (I've never heard of this term before), this is not sum of parts. The intuitive meaning is that it is a means of organizing something to do with politics, but the stated meaning says implies stereotyping and negative connotations. Also, using 'label' to mean a group is not common as it usually. Perhaps someone else knows more about the term, but I would be hesitant to delete it. Yartrebo 06:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

accumulation of energy

SoP, IMHO. Extracted from accumulation. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • So why did you add it? You're just wasting time and resources. (You got the plural wrong as well, but don't bother correcting it just yet) SemperBlotto 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I extracted it from an entry to expose it to others on this page. I wanted to expose it to the opinions of others because my judgment is fallible. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC) This does indeed appear to be a sum of parts. Replacing parts of the phrase with synonyms (ie., a 'buildup of potential') does not change the meaning and the meaning can be derived from the individual words. I suggest deletion. Yartrebo 05:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

accumulation of degrees

SoP. Extracted from derived terms at accumulation. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

go for a drive

SoP. [[go] [[for]] a [[drive]]. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, it is definitely SoP "go for" + a (noun = activity) eg a walk, a run, a stroll, a ride, etc. BUT is there any evidence of idiomatic use as in OK "Fingers", get in. We're gonna go for a drive. meaning, "you're going to get taken to a quiet place an be shot for what you did"? I'm saying this tongue in cheek, but it could be real. -- ALGRIF talk 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we have the right sense of go for and I didn't find such a sense when I looked on OneLook. As for the other sense, I'll make sure that it's in my Dictionary of Stock Phrases for Authors of Fiction, forthcoming, Dark, Sturm, and Knight Books. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

derivatives market

SoP. [[derivatives]] [[market]] DCDuring TALK 10:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and these probably too: stock market, money market, futures market, commodity market. They are all listed as related terms under financial market. Maybe that should go as well? --Hekaheka 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. "Derivatives market" is in no OneLook dictionary. All the others are in multiple dictionaries. I think that in the case of the ones that are in other dictionaries there are definite non-SoP aspects with regard to the items on the market. Eg, the stock market sells more than stock and not all kinds of stock. In all cases the dictionary terms seem to refer to the markets that have publicly advertised prices set at least daily. The term derivatives market seems to refer to any market on which any derivative is traded, including the infamous credit default swaps. The "financial markets" seems to some kind of personified aggregation, to judge from the media. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason for derivatives market not being in other dictionaries may be simply that it is a newer phenomenon. I don't see any fundamental difference with, say, futures market. --Hekaheka 06:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Some of the markets seem to differ from those we have included: currency market, gold market, overnight funds market, options market, securities market, Eurodollar market, swaps market, swap market, commodities market. (Bond market could be added to the blue links.) Some are old, some are new, some are red, some are blue.
This is the definition shown: "A market where various financial derivatives are bought and sold." I rest my case. Further, I doubt that an accurate definition could be provided that was not SoP. DCDuring TALK 12:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The definition is far from perfect, but that wasn't my point. The point is that the term itself is not materially more SoP than the others that I mentioned, nor is it necessarily less SoP than the red links which you listed. The definitions for money market and commodity market simply list examples of what is traded and futures market repeats the definition of a financial future and combines it with the word market. Both "improvements" can be easily done for the definition of derivatives market. --Hekaheka 13:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
We cannot run this process relying on hypothetical definitions. We need to assess what we have. I have been reviewing our business, finance, management, and economics. If I can improve an SoP definition, I try to do so. I can't for this one. Perhaps someone else can. If no one can come up with a definition that is not sum of the parts and not encyclopedic, then it ought to be deleted. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Strongly agree with User:Hekaheka on this one. Obviously in widespread use, not sum of parts; colloquially it has enormous connotations beyond the literal meaning. But withing the finance industry, the meaning is probably more specific than we should guess at. Not sure how this could ever be construed as sum-of-parts at all. --Connel MacKenzie 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not RfV. If it has connotations, let them be laid out as a non-gloss definition. If we don't have anyone who can do it, perhaps it can't be done. If we can't recruit anyone with more expertise and experience in this field than I have, then we may not have the ability to make good on the "all words in all languages" claim in this area yet. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


SoP in its context. DCDuring TALK 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not convinced of this. I read financial documents from time to time, but if I encountered this in context I would definitely have to stop and think about what sort of "quote" (and what sort of "driving") might be involved, and I might even reach for a dictionary. Also the distinction between quote-driven and order-driven markets is not apparent to the lay reader. IMO this passes the prior knowledge test, so I vote keep. -- Visviva 07:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


E-net_Assignment_of_dec'08_for_NCC_student Talk:E-net_Assignment_of_dec'08_for_NCC_student Security_issues_related_to_a_wireless_network

Not dictionary material. Maybe I've gone soft. A few years ago, I would have deleted it on sight. Now I don't know, maybe there is another project where this actually can belong and this user merely made a mistake by posting it here. I took some effort on his/her part to create it, so much is obvious. Polyglot 07:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If sole copy was put here by mistake, is user likely to find it again? I think not. DCDuring TALK 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Redundant sense tagged but not listed. This particular spelling is a very common typographic error in the English language...obviously more common as an error than as a "real" word, yet our entry indicates the opposite. --Connel MacKenzie 15:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

delete. Added common misspelling. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Sense "Highest point on the roof, represented by a horizontal line where two roof areas intersect, running the length of the area" redundant with older sense "The line along which two sloping surfaces meet which diverge towards the ground" imo.—msh210 21:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Consider the hypothetical example: "The chimney was located at the west end of the ridge." It is possible for the context to pertain specifically to a roof, without allowing for additional interpretations, yet without mentioning a "roof" explicitly. --EncycloPetey 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The existence of the fairly common term [[ridge vent]] makes me think that the word has a sense that might specifically refer to a roof. The first few OneLook dictionaries I looked at seem to have more than 4 senses, including one that mentions "roof". The entry needs clean-up at the definition level. (For example, a ridge is never a "point"; a line does not "represent" a point; a single point does not run the length of the roof.) DCDuring TALK 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hassidic Jew

SoP: Hassidic+Jew.—msh210 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s a set term. Keep. —Stephen 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Keep. bd2412 T 08:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Adjective. Attributive use of noun, I think, though def. is not exact match. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The use of the word curry in the West Indies is different from that in the Indian subcontinent. It always comes before the noun (e.g. curry goat) and seems to be used as an adjective. The dish seems to use different spices (I am not an expert, only having eaten curry goat once (and survived)). SemperBlotto 08:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That raises the question of a split in the etymology. DCDuring TALK 10:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic civilization

Hellenistic + civilization surely. The definition reads more like an encyclopaedia entry more than a proper definition as well. Thryduulf 15:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ƿidsiþ 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • delete, but we don't have that exact sense of Hellenistic. Should we? Is the term used that way in some context? DCDuring TALK 16:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


I tried to add a new word and it showed up as 'saint&'. Could someone help me to delete this? Thanks.

When this happens, you can add the code {{delete}} or {{speedy}} without making a specific request. The best way to produce the right spelling for unusual diacriticals and scripts is to edit a page to produce a link, such as your User page. Then folow the link so created and create the entry. --EncycloPetey 20:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

composite number

Valid, but we already have the adjective at composite. That makes me think that this is a "sum of parts". On the other hand we seem to have prime number despite prime, so I'm not sure what policy might dictate. Equinox 01:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s set term, keep. A "yellow building" is SoP, since every native English-speaker knows what it means from its component parts and because it is not a fixed term. Most people do not know what a composite number is, even considering the parts, and composite number is a set term like prime number. —Stephen 02:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If "composite" actually had the mathematical meaning implicit in the term in other applications, Stephen and I could have our customary disagreement about such cases. The applicable sense of composite doesn't seem to carry over to other terms, afaict. composition has much more general meaning in mathematics of which this entry could be deemed a case, but I doubt that we could write a usable definition of such a general sense of composite that would help someone encountering this term. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep the word composite with this meaning comes from a shortening of composite number. It would be very odd to delete the antecedent term and have no entry for it. (Aside: Wow! Stephen, DCDuring, and I all agree on an issue!) --EncycloPetey 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It's a valid term that is used heavily by schools to mean any positive integer that is not prime. It's not only a real term, but it's fairly heavily used. Yartrebo 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

thousand one

I'd rfc'd this, but EP suggested deletion and creation of an Appendix on number-word formation. I agree, though I am not sure that anyone would ever use the Appendix. The entry definitely seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Native English speakers might not use the appendix, but there are lots of fiddly spelling and hyphenation issues for English names of cardinal numbers that non-native speakers would find very useful to have an explanation for. There is also grammar to consider, since these words can function kind of like adjectives (but are not comparable) and kinds of like nouns (but the "plural" forms aren't used the same as the singular). --EncycloPetey 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't and didn't doubt the utility of the information. I doubt only that it would be found, except by a user being given the link, probably in response to an inquiry. We would need to have a very explicit and elaborate effort to provide hooks for such content. Right now I suspect (are there any facts?) that new users never find appendices that contain what they need. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
2 cents..I try to put an appendix link under See also, or Usage notes, or whatever is the most useful placing. That way, the user will find the info. In this instance, "See also" in the entry number, and perhaps in specific entries such as one and hundred etc. -- ALGRIF talk 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we have a suggested layout for number words (and similar classes of entries, like letters, numbers, symbols) that contain such items as these links? Are there particularly good examples of any of these? We also by now must have guidelines about criteria by entries of the various kinds are to be excluded or included. I have had trouble finding them. Or do we just leave it bots and existing RfV/RfD? DCDuring TALK 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The templates I set up for {{cardinalbox}} and {{ordinalbox}} were designed to clearly display an Appendix link in cases where an appropriate appendix exists. There are examples on the talk page for {{cardinalbox}} of what this looks like. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


See the tag in the entry for more, but also I can understand having ti to show how ignorant people often fail to indicate the critical tonal differences between the pronunciation of two things that would seem to be pronounced in the same way but surely we do not need full word "improper Pinyin" entries.--50 Xylophone Players talk 12:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

would to

"Adverb" This seems like a misconstruction. I would think that the structure is "would" + ("to" + NP) + subjunctive clause. NP is some power, natural or supernatural. "Would to Wales that there were a WikiGrammar for entries like this." Should this be a redirect? To would? I seem to recall that someone intended to do modal verbs up right. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already expressed my suggestion that the entry may be preposition on Talk:would to. The supernatural power is given as example in Citations:would to and I oppose vehemently the deletion, since this meaning of "would to" has nothing to do with the habitual use of "would" and I, as a non-native speaker, needed to look it up in Webster's dictionary, which has been cited as a source. That is my second reason to object against the deletion. Bogorm 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) That someone was me. Would to God that I could find the time to finish just one project, at least! But I must admit I hadn't included this usage in my notes. I will have to think about what it is, exactly. "Would" not followed by a bare infinitive. Hmmmm. Perhaps this entry should remain simply because it is an unusual structure, and has a specific, possibly idiomatic meaning. -- ALGRIF talk 18:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems that sense 6 of would#Verb has the appropriate sense of "would". A synonymous usage is "I hope to" + [power] + subjunctive clause. The construction appears in the first non-archaic definition of would on MWOnline. The "to" in this is just a preposition. The prepositional phrase is completely optional. I assume that this is a relic of a once-standard construction, perhaps in Middle English. Is it? DCDuring TALK 19:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. But [[would]] should do a better job explaining this construction; a reader coming across its sense 6 could be excused for not understanding why we call it a verb (answer: because there's an implicit "I", which can be made explicit, and other subjects are possible as well). —RuakhTALK 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

MWOnline's is a bit better than ours. It's too hard for me. Let's copy all this onto Algrif's talk page and let him sort it out. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Having checked around, I have to agree that this is a Delete as the "to" is simply a preposition linking to the optional object. See, for example Revelation (Apocalypse) 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would' thou were cold or hot. Or from Shakespeare Would thou were clean enough to spit on. So would + (optional "that") + subject + subjunctive is the basic structure, and should be correctly entered into would. It is possible to insert a phrase "to + higher power" into any such clause. -- ALGRIF talk 11:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
would looks good. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tuesday blues

The Tuesblues bit is definitely made up, but Tuesday blues itself seems citeable. Some uses refer to the comedown after a weekend on ecstasy. Equinox 18:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found