Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This is for pages in the main namespace. For all other pages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.

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

Notes

• Terms that failed a request for verification are presumed invalid. They should not be resubmitted as the same term without adequate verification (see verification archives) and do not need duplicate listings here.
• Terms should be listed on Requests for verification if their attestation is being called into question.
• Section title should be exactly the wikified entry title, only. The entry should have the tag {{rfd}} at the top.
• Very blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed (here, nor elsewhere).
• The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor (not necessarily an administrator) may act on the discussion.

---

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
No pages meet these criteria.

August 2007

amati

Sense deleted, discussion archived to Talk:Amati. -- Visviva 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

big O

Sense removed, discussion archived to Talk:big O. -- Visviva 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

textual harassment

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:textual harassment. -- Visviva 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ég heiti...

--Connel MacKenzie 08:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Been deleted by someone already. --Keene 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

legionaire

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:legionaire. -- Visviva 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Biallu Madilu

Transwiki to pedia. DAVilla 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There looks enough there to merit a WP article so a transwiki wont be pointless. Thryduulf 01:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Transwikied. --Keene 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ar-

Copy of entry at -ar-, which latter seems more reasonable.—msh210 06:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave a hard redirect, or nothing? (Shrug.) Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ai Li Bu Li

Supposed to be Chinese, but does not use the Chinese characters. SemperBlotto 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is Chinese and should be moved to 愛理不理 (traditional) or 爱理不理 (simplified).--Jusjih 17:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted after being redirected to proper Chinese title.--Jusjih 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

wàiguórén

A well constructed Mandarin word - but not written in Chinese characters. Can it be saved? SemperBlotto 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated the info from that into 外國人 (wàiguórén). Not sure I used the right format, so a review would be appreciated. Rod (A. Smith) 01:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I always added pinyin transilerations whenever I added hanzi words. You can get homophones and things like that, as well as words that look the same without tone marks. See tianliang. I like having articles for pinyin transilerations. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 20:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep these. bd2412 T 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

do wtorku

--Connel MacKenzie 19:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Prepositions in time expressions are always idiomatic, and even more so in inflected languages such as Polish. A "sum-of-parts" formula would produce "aż wtorek" for this, which would be nonsense. Keep. —Stephen 15:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While what you say about prepositions is true, your conclusion seems to be that all prepositional phrases qualify as entries. I think that since this is a general pattern of usage for time, the meaning should be covered on the entry for do, with appropriate translation listings on the English entries, and (eventually) an Appendix:Polish prepositions. --EncycloPetey 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see the usefulness for a phrase such as "by Tuesday", since the meaning is unexpected based on its parts. OTOH, "to the house" does not present any barrier to understanding and it is clear from its parts. In the case of foreign phrases of this sort, such as Russian на пол (onto the floor), there are frequently special or unexpected difficulties, and I think if someone adds them correctly, they should be kept. Russian на пол is exceptional in that the stress is always on the preposition rather than the noun (NA pol). Hungarian az asztalon just means "on the table" (fixed location), but az asztalra also means "on the table" (movement to), and these are useful because most people are not accustomed to the Hungarian locative case system. When it comes to foreign phrases, I think if someone makes a correct entry, it is probably worth keeping. —Stephen 01:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

give no quarter

Show? Well, it should be covered at quarter, not here. --Connel MacKenzie 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Show no quarter. Expect no quarter. etc. An entry at either quarter, or perhaps no quarter? -- Algrif 11:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How is that to work? Under derived terms, with the preposition linked? DCDuring 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is no quarter also SoP? Although the most memorable sense is "give no quarter" meaning "show no mercy", I'll bet that the other senses are more numerous in the aggregate. I think "no" can validly combine with every other sense. "There was no quarter from which trouble didn't beset them." "They will find safety in no quarter of the city." "No quarter will get you into that sideshow." DCDuring 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Belongs at quarter (it's already there), there are plenty of cites for "asked for quarter", "granted quarter" and such. Neither "give" nor "no" is required. Cynewulf 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Covered by quotations; Could be covered by usage notes if more is needed. "Quarter" is obvious search term. DCDuring 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

hvussu gongur?

--Connel MacKenzie 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it only the question mark that has got you (and frankly I never understood the objection), or are you also nominating how are you, which this is a translation of? DAVilla 06:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is just the bad punctuation in the entry title. I've stopped making individual nominations for these based on your comment. --Connel MacKenzie 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

puuvapaa

? --Connel MacKenzie 01:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The word has been criticized for not being consistent with Finnish grammar and the recommended usage. I agree on that point, but on the other hand it is an established paper industry and trade term used exactly in the same sense as the English term woodfree. Nobody in paper industry uses "puuton paperi" (lit: woodless paper) instead of "puuvapaa paperi" (lit: woodfree paper). Maybe they should, but the point is, they don't. The existence of the professional usage of puuvapaa can be verified e.g. at the website of the Finnish Forest Industry Association (http://www.metsateollisuus.fi). It lists 11 producers of puuvapaa hienopaperi.

Puuton, by the way, means deforested or unforested. Hekaheka 16:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Technical term, keep. —Stephen 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of, really terrible calque but apparently a valid term mentioned for example here. Keep--Jyril 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

y a-t-il

This is the result of inverting il y a; it's a standard way to form questions. (Really, even il y a only warrants inclusion because of its idiomatic sense ago; in its sense of "there is/are", it's just an ordinary use of y avoir, though I'm not opposed to including this sense for convenience' sake.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. An ordinary non-French speaking reader who comes upon this term (which can, by the way, constitute a complete sentence by itself) would be hard pressed to figure out exactly where the "word" starts and ends. bd2412 T 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Otherwise, we'd need entries for every inverted verb-pronoun combination. E.g., our one entry for avoir would expand with seven new entries:

• ai-je
• as-tu
• a-t-il
• a-t-elle
• avons-nous
• avez-vous
• ont-ils

Similarly with every verb:

• parle-je
• parles-tu
• parle-t-il
• parle-t-elle
• parlons-nous
• parlez-vous
• parlent-ils

The formation is completely regular. A learner who doesn't understand French verb inversion should consult a grammar guide. Rod (A. Smith) 17:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Devil's-advocate comment. Your mistaken example of *"parle-je" (the traditionally correct would be "parlé-je", the Academy recommends "parlè-je", and normal French speakers never ever invert a regular verb with je anyway) could be construed as an argument for including such inversions. I still don't think we should, though. (Though parlé and parlè should exist and have these senses, if there are enough cites to pass CFI.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I just now looked it up and confirmed that inversion does not generally occur with je except in literary uses and in very formal speech. [1][2] Still, such details should be confined to the lemma entry, probably supplemented by a French grammar appendix to avoid an explosion of entries. Rod (A. Smith) 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about every French verb, just one of the few fundamental verbs avoir, etre, possibly faire - that's as far as my concern goes. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What about inverted entries for those two plus verbs in the tenses and moods other than present indicative? That should bring us to, what, something like 270 entries for avoir? Rod (A. Smith) 07:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Still a drop in the bucket. bd2412 T 20:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I found this useful as I'm learning French. I heard it spoken, but I couldn't find it in any dictionary. tracker1312 16 January 2008

n'y a-t-il

As previous. —Ruakh_TALK 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. As previous (perhaps moreso). bd2412 T 23:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this just ne + y a-t-il? DAVilla 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as previous. Rod (A. Smith) 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Keeping this would imply that we should have negative entries for every French verb that begins with a vowel. Combined with inversion entries, we'd have to create thirty entries for avoir, including ai, j'ai, n'ai, ai-je, n'ai-je, as, n'as, as-tu, n'as-tu, a, n'a, a-t-il, n'a-t-il, a-t-elle, n'a-t-elle, avons, n'avons, avons-nous, n'avons-nous, avez, n'avez, avez-vous, n'avez-vous, ont, n'ont, ont-ils, n'ont-ils, ont-elles, n'ont-elles. Add other tenses and moods and compound the expansion across all French verbs, and it's clearly excessive. The seven wikilinked forms should suffice. Rod (A. Smith) 17:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thirty entries for avoir? I'd be fine with that. bd2412 T 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On closer reading, I am not suggesting we apply this "across all French verbs", just across "the few fundamental verbs avoir, etre, possibly faire", as above. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep I found this useful as I'm learning French. I heard it spoken, but I couldn't find it in any dictionary. tracker1312 16 January 2008

Nintendo

Used generically to mean any gaming system? Unlikely. It is a direct trademark reference only. --Connel MacKenzie 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, non-generic. Delete.--Dmol 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Worth keeping nonetheless, at least until 28 September, per our almost-passed and now resubmitted litmus test. DAVilla 10:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Note, however, that even if the new proposed litmus test is enacted, the word will require three out of context uses by three different disinterested authors in three different years. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 08:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In three days' time? Restored. DAVilla 10:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per a) 3 legit-seeming hits for "the Nintendo of" on Gbooks (out-of-context use, arguably attributive), and b) w:Nintendo thumb and G-news archive hits (clearly attributive use). -- Visviva 07:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Arguably? No, those are not attributive. Deleted as it was restored/recreated without citations anyhow. --Connel MacKenzie 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What would qualify as attributive then? A Nintendo thumb is not a thumb made by Nintendo, and when an author writes that "bullfighting... was the Nintendo of the day" he is not asserting that bullfighting was a form of video gaming. -- Visviva 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a fabricated and entirely invalid demand. It does not require citations as it has never failed RFV. If it's citations that you want, then it should be RFV'd. Restored yet again. DAVilla 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with the four cites now given? DCDuring 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Abu-Lughod is clearly out of context. I can't tell with the Gladstone quotation because there is another use on that page (274) and likewise with Meyer on the next page (129) that I can't view. The quotation with "Nintendo thumb" is excellent in my opinion. Much earlier in the book Schneider has a questionable use that might be able to identify it as a game machine, but I don't think it detracts in this case. So overall, although I can't confirm a couple, there's nothing I have to stike any of the quotations either. DAVilla 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see two more Google Book hits for Nintendo thumb, so I wonder if that shouldn't be a proper entry. DAVilla 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

y avoir

"Il y a" is a set phrase in French, just as the equivalent "there is" and "there are" are in English. "Y avoir" is not, and is meaningless as an entry.

Now, the usage notes say that that the subject is always "il", indicating that this is only used in the third person, and gives an example ("Il semble y avoir une problème" ["there seems to be a problem], which is good French). This clearly indicates that the infinitive form, which is much less common than "il y a" and its equivalents in other tenses, should be given as "il y avoir".

"Y avoir" is definitely wrong because makes no sense alone; it requires "il" and must be used with a finite verb that intervenes (as in "il semble y avoir") or that precedes the phrase (as in "pourrait-il y avoir" [could there be]), just as "there be" cannot stand alone in English: "there seems to be"; "could there be"; "I asked that there be flowers at the wedding", but not "there be a problem".

Furthermore, "for there to be" is given as the translation, but this is incorrect. The French for "for there to be" is "pour qu'il y ait", not "y avoir" (nor even "pour y avoir"); as the phrase begins with a subject pronoun ("il"), "pour que" must be used, which requires the subjunctive. The phrase "pour y avoir" means "to have ... to it/them", as in "pour y avoir accès" ("to have access to it/them"). The translation "there be" would be more correct, but as I have already pointed out, this doesn't exist by itself in English.

Perhaps it is appropriate to have "il y avoir" as a cross-reference to "il y a", and maybe likewise for the forms in other tenses ("il y aura" [future], "il y avait" [imperfect], "il y a eu" [perfect], etc), as we already do for the inverted form ("y a-t-il"). "Y avoir" on its own, however, is nonsensical and must go.

— Paul G 10:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree (as you might guess from my having created the entry). "Y avoir" is the infinitive form of this common idiom, and "il semble y avoir" alone gets 884 hits on Google Books. "Il y avoir" makes no sense; it does get a lot of hits on Google Books, but if you go through them you'll see that none are real: all are scannos for "il y avoit" (which is an archaic spelling of "il y avait"), or fragments of "peut-il y avoir", "doit-il y avoir", etc., or pedagogical exercises using infinitives which the student is expected to replace with the correctly conjugated form, or whatnot. "Y avoir" is an impersonal verbal idiom, the only wrinkle with which being that it's hard or impossible to translate because English doesn't have an equivalent (since we use a different construction entirely). You could just as easily RFD the first sense of the verb "rain", saying that it makes no sense and the entry should be at "it rain". —Ruakh_TALK 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not that it matters, but "for there to be" can also be simply "qu'il y ait": "I want for there to be an explanation, but I suspect there isn't one" = « Je veux qu'il y ait une explication, mais je soupçonne qu'il n'y en a pas ». —Ruakh_TALK 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I’m French, and I completely agree with Ruakh: il y avoir makes no sense (the comparison with it rain is very appropriate). And the infinitive does exist. Is this verb always used with il? This is a bit complex. While the y may be pronounced as a separate vowel, il y a is usually pronounced as il ya. And, when pronounced this way, il is often omitted in colloquial spoken French. Although this is spoken French, it is sometimes written and, when written, a ’ is often inserted between y and a : il y a becomes y’a, il y avait becomes y’avait... The reason is that this makes the omission of il easy to understand. The infinitive for this written spoken form is less usual, but also exists, e.g. in the phrase : Va y’avoir du sport. Does this imply that y’avoir might be created as well as y avoir? Probably, but this is much more disputable. Lmaltier 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh. bd2412 T 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul G above says, “"Y avoir" is definitely wrong because makes no sense alone”. I don't agree with that assessment. Otherwise, we have to delete words like "an" and "to". Anyway, I agree with the keep recommendation, as y avoir is clearly the lemma form and we should create the lemma entry there be to help readers understand sentences like, “How many guests will there be in your party tonight?” Rod (A. Smith) 20:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

there be was also used in English, e.g. "there be dragons". Thryduulf 20:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that in the English phrase 'there is', 'there' acts as a subject pronoun. This becomes blatant when you start making complex phrases, as it inverts with the conjugated verb in a question, such as "are there any carrpts for the soup?", or as in Rodasmith's example, "How many guests will there be in your party tonight?". It also acts as a pronoun when substituted into set phrases, such as 'to have + infinitive' to show necessity, as in "there have to be carrots in the soup". It can form compound tenses and take helping verbs, such as "There have been carrots in every pot of soup I've ever made", and "There can be peas in the soup, as long as there are carrots." In all of these cases, the infinitive is simply "to be", with the subject being "there". In French it's completely different. As stated, the subject is always 'il', and the infinitive is 'y avoir'. Though I am not French, in what limited French i know know, every phrase i can think of follows that rule, whether the 'il' is directly stated or not. Keep y avoir, maybe move 'there be' to 'to be'. Phsyron 04:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept per consensus, and because the entry exists on a few other Wiktionaries, including :fr. Translations changed to there be. --Keene 01:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

two

Adjective, in the sense of "two years of age." Obviously covered by the cardinal number, although I'm not sure what to do with the translations. DAVilla 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this ought to be kept. In answer to the question “how old is your child?”, the answer “two” will not normally imply anything other than “two years (of age)” — not two months, weeks, or whatever. However, I think that all such entries should be taken to RFV, being as they’re not much use, and whoever thinks that they’re worth keeping can go dredge up the requisite three citations for them. That should prevent any slippery-slopiness. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And also three, four, five, up to what? DAVilla 13:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Up to whatever number is no longer used in such an elliptical sense, or up to the number for which no editor can be bothered searching for citations showing such use — whichever comes first. Think about it — what harm does it do to have such senses listed on Wiktionary? If someone wants to add such obvious words, why not let him? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Better get crackin: [3] [4] [5] Maybe the digits do deserve special treatment as digits rather than numbers, but there's a reason we call it a cardinal rather than a noun and and adjective.

Still no one has suggested what is to be done with the translations. DAVilla 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t care anywhere near enough to add these, let alone cite them. AFAIC, the translations are the only good reason for keeping this sense. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How about starting a couple of phrasebook entries that can generalize these, for n years old and n-year old? I'm not sure how to title them, however, if "year" is to be omitted. DAVilla 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be preferable, considering that they’re are so completely regular in meaning and unremarkable. Indeed, the problem is in the name — it must be intuitive enough for a person to find it whilst searching for this meaning (to translate, I’d imagine, so we needn’t make it too obvious). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly something like “be n years old” and “n-year old” would work, but “be n”? I don't see how anyone would find that searching. I think they'd almost be more likely to run across it from an appendix article on cardinals. A ===See also=== at year, old, and age would really help. DAVilla 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the existence of an Appendix:English cardinal numbers with links pointing thither from year, old, and age would indeed be good, due to the issues of translations and where to give an entry for the general rule still not having been resolved, it seems our only option is to allow these senses to exist where and how they presently do. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But is it even an adjective, as it does not describe anything. And why does it have a plural in the entry. Delete.--Dmol 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I can say "My sister is two." The adjective two here means "two years old" and describes my sister. Keep --EncycloPetey 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn’t have a plural though; I can only think of one English adjective (manqué) which has a plural. I’ll go replace it with a proper {{en-adj}} inflexion line. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

erm "manqué" currently only has an entry as the past participle of a French verb... Thryduulf 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit hard to cite, but quite fun if the plural works as claimed. DAVilla 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is whence it derives. Thanks for the quotations, DAVilla. I’ve creäted both the singular and the plural entries, and the latter has nine citations. On a surprising note, it seems that most instances of this word’s use do not italicise it — judging from the first page of GBS hits anyhow. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to start with the diereses again?

No, I had to dig through quite a number of hits to find unitalicized examples. Maybe without the accent mark it is common not to italicize, but not with it.

Now to look through the plural endings... DAVilla 03:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

“Are you going to start with the diereses again?” — I’m unsure if this is meant humorously. But anyway, apart from the diæresis’s more regular uses (naïve, noöne, reëlect), I do, now and again, throw in the odd diacritic or ligature when it can be used (as in archaïc and cohære) — whenever the whim takes me. Your comment, however, spurred me to add creäture, which I hope you will find interesting.

Maybe I was just lucky with the citations — of the first nine I got which used it as a separate word (not as a phrase like actes manqués), ⅔ were unitalicised. However, perhaps citing from a larger sample would change that statistic. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking up the tangent of plural adjectives. I've often wondered about sport. Example I have a sports jacket and some sports shoes. Any takers?? -- Algrif 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not me. If sport were an adjective which agreed in number (by having distinct singular and plural forms), then you would say “sport_ jacket” but “sports jackets” and “sports shoes” but “sport_ shoe”. I’m guessing that that sense of sport is plural because most sports impedimenta are suitable for use for, or are associated with, more than just a single sport. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I partly agree with User:Doremitzwr. Sport jacket, sports jacket, sport jackets and sports jackets are all fine (in their own contexts.) Likewise shoes, sneakers, coats, uniforms, jerseys etc. However, for the adjective sport is is fair to say that it is "usually" the plural form of the noun that is used adjectivally. The elimination of the "s" seems almost phonetic; done only to reduce sibilants? Glancing at the first few here, I don't see a definitive pattern. Except perhaps that the singular is used adjectivally when discussing the larger sport shoe industry as a whole (i.e. non-specific, multiple or abstract.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the fact that the plural form of the noun sport is most commonly used that really caught my attention. It is almost a rule that noun root adjectives are in singular only. (Eg a five-pound note; not pounds). But it was not much more than a curiosity really. -- Algrif 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We're also in need of an entry for two- (as in a two-part test), though I'm not sure whether we'd want this as an independent entry or not. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

פ-ח-ד

Pushing a POINT? List it under a verb heading, tag it as a root. --Connel MacKenzie 07:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious keep, unless you're also advocating deleting hydro-, re-, -ation, and other word parts. (Actually, I guess you are: your personal policy seems to be that prefixes and suffixes merit inclusion, but other kinds of word parts don't. I don't suppose you'd be willing to enlighten us as to your rationale?) —Ruakh_TALK 19:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This entry is nonsense. Is it supposed to be a prefix? Are "Forms" intended as "Derived terms" or "infection" or "conjugation" or are you just bucking all convention for the sake of bucking convention? Or is it that you feel no one but native speakers of Hebrew should be able to understand English Wiktionary descriptions of Hebrew words? --Connel MacKenzie 23:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you're requesting deletion because you don't like the header. Cynewulf 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Delete and restart the entry coherently. --Connel MacKenzie 01:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that you can't fully understand this entry without knowing at least a little bit about Hebrew word formation; however:

1. The entry for this root is by no means intended as a substitute for entries on specific words that contain this root, and the only part of these entries that would require knowledge of Hebrew word formation is the etymology section. I think that's fair. (It's true that currently they're mostly redlinks; but if nothing else, the list at this page helps remind Hebrew-speaking contributors of words that contain this root and need to be given entries.)
2. Hebrew word formation is not actually that complicated. I mean, the details are convoluted and depend on the individual word (much as in English), but the overall concept isn't. Someone who knows how to sound out Hebrew words but knows nothing else about the language could probably read through some of these entries, and follow some of the links, and suddenly know a great deal about Hebrew word formation.
3. The decision to use "forms" rather than an already-standard header was a difficult one. The problem is that words containing a root are not necessarily derived from the root; many roots are actually back-formations from existing words, and then other words are derived from the root. (For example, Hebrew borrowed the noun telefon "telephone" from European languages. The root t-l-f-n "Forming words related to telephones" was then extracted from this noun, which allowed the verb tilfen "to telephone" to be created. It wouldn't be accurate, therefore, to describe telefon as a derived term of t-l-f-n; but a list of words containing t-l-f-n would not be complete without listing telefon.) We also can't use "inflection" or "declension" or "conjugation" or any such because that's not the relationship between the various words containing a root, any more than "geology" is an inflection/​declension/​conjugation of "geo-" or "-ology". I might be convinced that some already-standard header is acceptable, but I will not be brow-beaten into it. Either you learn something about the topic — which you might find both interesting and useful (you're a Mormon, right? you might like having some understanding of Hebrew grammar as it pertains to what y'all call the "Old Testament", at least enough understanding to be able to make use of an "Old Testament" concordance) — or you can trust my opinion that this is the best way. (I won't be offended, BTW, if you decide to solicit the opinions of other Hebrew-speaking editors; Shai, msh210, and Neskaya come to mind.)
4. As for "prefix": Well, it's kind of like a prefix in English. Or rather, it's almost like the opposite of a prefix: it's the underlying core of a family of words, and prefixes and suffixes and vowel patterns get added to it to form actual words. (Note that roots themselves are not words, as they don't have vowels; you can't pronounce t-l-f-n "Forming words related to telephones", but you can apply a vowel pattern to it, and sometimes a prefix and/or suffix as well, to get a word like y'talf'nu "They will telephone", which is an inflected form of tilfen "to telephone".)

Does that make any sense at all? At some point I'd like to create an Appendix:Hebrew roots (and BTW we can then replace ===Root=== with ==={{root}}=== that links to it, if that will make you feel more comfortable with these entries), and I'd appreciate any input on how to write it so someone can understand it without any prior knowledge of Hebrew. :-)

—Ruakh_TALK 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I most positively am not Mormon. The Mormons I've met are, as a rule, "nice" people, but that is neither here nor there. I certainly have more Jewish friends than Mormon friends. --Connel MacKenzie 01:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2. To follow the precedent of the P-I-E nonsense, the individual roots would end up in the Appendix namespace...Appendix:Hebrew root פ-ח-ד or something similar. (And indexed somehow.)

--Connel MacKenzie 01:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

These are the things that everyone who wants to study Hebrew learns early on. Keep. —Stephen 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish to remind you, that is not our target audience. It is someone who happlessly looks up a term they run across who happens to speak English as their native language. A general use dictionary cannot assume their target audience is a Hebrew student at all. --Connel MacKenzie 01:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Most people who look up a Hebrew term are going to be interested in Hebrew, including the grammar. People who have only a passing interest in a single word, and who have no general interest in the language at all, might look up פחד, but will not be looking at פ-ח-ד. An entry such as פ-ח-ד is understood and expected by the students of the language. People who don’t care won’t search for it or look at it. A good dictionary does not assume that the only people who will look up Hebrew entries will not care about the language and will not know or want to know anything about the grammar. —Stephen 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need a Root header. I think that roots should be listed at the triliteral entry sans punctuation; Ruakh and, reportedly, Shai differ from me, and Ruakh, at least, seems to know a lot more about Hebrew -- at least Modern Hebrew -- than I. (I have had almost no dealings with Shai.) But even if we put the entry at, e.g., פ-ח-ד, I feel strongly that there should be See also root פ-ח-ד atop the page פחד.—msh210℠ 08:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're suggesting deleting the entry; how does that help someone who haplessly looks up a term that we've a policy of excluding? All of our entries require some sort of knowledge in order to use; heck, even saying a certain word is a "noun" is probably useless to many of our readers. (Some television personage said a while back something to the effect of "How can you have a 'war on terror'? 'Terror' isn't even a noun!") What we have to do is provide accurate information that assumes as little prior knowledge as possible while still being accurate. People who don't know the first thing about Hebrew might not get very much out of פ-ח-ד; but I think they'll get the main point, which is that it's used to form words relating to fear. —Ruakh_TALK 02:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! (I don't know where I got that idea from, and I hope you're not offended.) Regarding Proto-Indo-European: this is completely different. Hebrew roots are analogous to forms like English -phobia, that have their own meaning, and are used to form words, but are not themselves words. (Granted, phobia has become a noun in its own right, but this hasn't caused us to delete -phobia.) If you'd like to argue for the removal of entries for English prefixes and suffixes, then yes, we can remove Hebrew roots at the same time. —Ruakh_TALK 02:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. (Well, moderately offended, but I'm not exactly one to talk!)

To clarify: the request here is to delete and restart the entry coherently.

--Connel MacKenzie 02:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you see happening as a result of deletion and re-starting. I think the entry is currently quite good, except that some sort of "etymology" section would be nice. (I look to our Arabic-, Aramaic-, Amharic-, etc.-speaking contributors to add any cognates they know of; unfortunately, the only Semitic language I speak is Hebrew.) If there are any problems with the entry, I'm not sure why you feel they can't be resolved via collaborative editing; delete-and-restart is an extreme measure, IMHO to be taken only when the existing entry is pure vandalism or pure stupidity with nothing of relevance. —Ruakh_TALK 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh. I don't speak Hebrew, but if I was to look up a Hebrew word I would expect the entry to use correct terminology. If I don't know what that terminology means, then I can look it up and learn something in the process, or I can get a basic understanding of the meaning of the word from its definition. I also agree with Ruakh about deleting and restarting, to the list I would add copyvios (which I suppose is a specific form of vandalism), and entries that are completely incoherent (which as all the Hebrew speakers here have said, this entry is not). Thryduulf 13:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I would stick with "Root" as the correct, new, heading. — Hippietrail 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that there should be entries for roots. (See what I did at שמש for example). But I don't know what the hyphens (en dashes?) are doing in the entry title.—msh210℠ 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you did at שמש doesn't make sense to me. I'm leaving a comment at its talk-page. —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded there, but the part relevant to the discussion here seems to be that Ruakh and I agree that triliteral roots should have entries, though we possibly disagree about the titles of those entries and how they should be laid out. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that, Ruakh.)—msh210℠ 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That disagreement started this WT:RFD listing. This has all the hallmarks of nefarious POINT pushing, as it brazenly uses nonstandard entry titles, uses nonstandard headings (root) without any discussion, and uses ridiculous headings like "forms" in lieu of appropriate, reasonable headings like "derived terms." I agree, an entry like שמש is obviously a better place to put such information. The format of how that precisely is done obviously needs to be worked out. If it were just one entry, done as an example, it might be one thing. This, however, is one of many that were created in a similar vein. I don't think it is too great a leap, to say that the contributor did so, with full awareness that the nonstandard headings would be disruptive. The fact that I got a insult immediately in the very first response of this thread, followed by other snide responses, implies the same. And for what? Suggesting that nonsense should be deleted? --Connel MacKenzie 00:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "That disagreement started this WT:RFD listing.": I find it very suspicious that you saw no reason to mention that until now. You're now claiming that there was some logic to your action, and that you decided to keep that secret That makes this WT:RFD listing seem like POINT pushing: rather than starting a discussion about which format is better, you decided to request deletion of all entries using the format you disliked.

Re: "This has all the hallmarks of nefarious POINT pushing, as it brazenly uses nonstandard entry titles, uses nonstandard headings (root) without any discussion, and uses ridiculous headings like 'forms' in lieu of appropriate, reasonable headings like 'derived terms.'": First of all, there was discussion about the "Root" heading, in two separate places: the Hebrew language-considerations talk-page, and the beer parlor, and there was agreement that it was necessary for Hebrew. (I can't take credit for the latter discussion — Beobach972 started that one — but the fact is, it happened.) And anyway — WTF? Your comment makes no sense. Do you know what POINT pushing is? By the way, note that it's a lot of work to create an entry for a root, so I wouldn't have created more than one or two if I'd suspected anyone might be opposed to them.

Re: "I don't think it is too great a leap, to say that the contributor did so, with full awareness that the nonstandard headings would be disruptive.": Well, you're wrong. You constantly make accusations, and in my experience fairly few are accurate. It's really amazing how rarely people accuse you of being a troll.

Re: "The fact that I got a insult immediately in the very first response of this thread, followed by other snide responses, implies the same.": What insult would that be?

Re: "And for what? Suggesting that nonsense should be deleted?": As far as I can tell, you're the only one who thinks this entry (and similar) is nonsense).

—Ruakh_TALK 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my first notion was much better: these belong in the Appendix: namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 00:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to give a reason why. So far your only rationale is to compare these to reconstructed Proto-Indo-European wordforms, which is so obviously a flawed comparison that I find it really hard to assume you're editing in good faith. —Ruakh_TALK 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a curious notion you have of politeness, when in the midst of making numerous unfounded accusations, you blatantly lie, ignoring the points raised. That was not the only rationale given and even it it were, it is not a flawed comparison. The enormous misrepresentation regarding the timing above (lost in the shuffle, for you to what, gloat over?) seems diabolical. Really. You know prefectly well these entries are A) unusable, B) inappropriate in the main namespace (impersonating actual words.) Your description threw me off at first, as well as Thryduulf, Msh210 (who both referred to it as a word) and perhaps Hippietrail and Stephen G. Brown too (their comments are more ambiguous.) Eventually, you stated that these aren't words at all - no one can accidentally look these up, while reading Hebrew literature. The only way they'd be linked to would be someone promoting this invalid entry form. That is, you. A point of compromise would have been to move them to the Appendix, following convention. You don't want that? Well, the [delete] button is looking more and more appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me the diff where I called triliteral roots words? I don't remember doing that in any discussion, nor picture myself having done so, and don't see it in this discussion. In any event, as long as we have the entries, I don't mind if they're in the appendix namespace. Note that the same root has vastly different meanings depending on conjugation-style ("binyan"/"construction") used: this is an argument against counting the roots as words. I must insist on having the entries, but the appendix seems a good enough place for them. Actually, I kinda like he:'s solution: they make each root a category, and put into that category all words formed of that root. Perhaps we should do that? (E.g., category:Hebrew root ש-מ-ר or category:Hebrew root שמר or category:ש-מ-ר (which last would be for words in other languages with triliteral roots that use the Hebrew script, too).)—msh210℠ 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to all: Since the sole rationale for deleting Hebrew root entries is that their entries for Hebrew roots, I'm taking the liberty of removing all the requests below. (I think the requester is simply trolling, but whether or not that's the case, we don't need all these requests listed, as they correspond to the entries in Category:Hebrew roots, so we can easily delete them all if and only if this request passes.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So you've removed RFDs on entries that you've created in direct conflict with existing layouts, conventions and practices. Why? Because you wish to confuse people into thinking non-words are words. And that when described, shouldn't be comprehensible. I do have to wonder about that. --Connel MacKenzie 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew roots are obviously legitimate linguistic entities that merit inclusion in this project, so listing them for deletion is inappropriate. There's discussion to be had about the entry titles and their heading names, so WT:RFC seems in order, but not RFD. Rod (A. Smith) 18:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

change

Verb senses. --Connel MacKenzie 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• merge the two marked senses into the first definition. It is the same sense, but I can see why the definition we currently have was perceived as not quite encompassing those additional senses. Thryduulf 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

5th sense Delete; 2nd sense strong Keep. I always thought it was a good idea to keep transitive and intransitive senses separate even when the meanings of the intransitive could be interpreted as being a implied reflexive "change (intransitive)" is often the same as "change (transitive)" [yourself]. But people "change (intransitive)" as a result of unspecified agencies.

at one's wits' end

Shouldn't this be wits' end? Although the majority of hits will show a form of be at one's wits' end, the fact remains that there are many citations giving: be beyond one's wits' end, have past one's wits' end, get to one's wits' end, be getting to one's wits' end, reach one's wits' end, come to one's wits' end, and so on, and so on. This makes at one's wits' end simply a popular version of wits' end. -- Algrif 10:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be one's wits' end then? DAVilla 23:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to "wits' end". "I'm at wit's end with how to handle an entry like this." I think the "one's" is at least sometimes optional. "Wits' end" would seem how you would find the concept (with the common misspelling "wit's end"). DCDuring 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No matter what happens with this entry we need a "wit's end" entry. I think it's useful to start with the simplest, short idioms, even if they are not so common in that form. If they also include the likely search words, then the users may even find the expressions. I think it makes Wiktionary more useful sooner if we do so. I have nothing against the longer idioms as well. DCDuring 04:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The wits' end entry is cited with three different prepositional phrases from 1699 to 1959. More recent ones are also available. These are all without any equivalent for "one's". This is a building block for the longer phrases. I suppose we could consider whether it meets CfI. Does having this entry change anyone's mind about the (many) longer phrases? DCDuring 05:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

putasse

Not a real word, the word putassier exists, but putasse is just a cross inbetween pute (whore) and pétasse (bitch). The suffix -asse has a negative unclean connotation associated with it, but real words can't be created simply by adding it to the end of an existing word. It's a bit like how scumbag exists in English but whorebag doesn't. Jackaranga 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK. It was added by a long-term vandal (Wonderfool). Most of his edits are fine, but he throws in the odd bad one for fun. Deleted SemperBlotto 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Undeleted; this term does seem to be real, albeit quite rare and seemingly dated or archaic or obsolete. If you'd like to request that it be verified that this term meets our criteria for inclusion, please do so at Wiktionary:Requests for verification. —Ruakh_TALK 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-entering it with actual citations is one thing; restoring a vandal's version is quite another. Don't do that. --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that whorebag does exist in English, actually. --Ptcamn 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to find citations for this word in Google Books. Is the author a "criterion for deletion"? Note that, on the French wiktionary, Wonderfool (Foumidable in French) proved a valuable contributor, never blocked (even when he wanted to be blocked). He left the project because he now lives in France, without Internet (that's what he explained when leaving). Lmaltier 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would be nice, if, in reality, he had moved there. Both times he deleted Main Page here, he was drunk (or so he said.) If he gets help (attends AA for a year?) then perhaps I personally would be willing to give him yet-another chance...but I can't speak for anyone else who (daily) blocks his sock-puppets here. As far as his "dodgy" edits, no there is no reason to keep them or restore them. --Connel MacKenzie 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lmaltier: note that he is still on the same net: a UK ISP. He has an interest in French (and always has AFAIK), but doesn't live there, at least not anything like full time. I would be very happy if he would stick to one account, never using socks, and would respect blocks when he does something obnoxious. But I don't think he will. Perhaps I should ring him and ask? ;-) Robert Ullmann 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Foumidable has just reappeared on the Wiktionnaire. But my point was that only the contents should be considered before deleting (or not). Lmaltier 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is perfectly valid in French. See fr:putasse for a begin. --Pampotte 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

木偶奇遇記

? --Connel MacKenzie 02:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Over 150,000 Google hits, and how would someone know what it meant in English if it were not in a dictionary. —Stephen 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a book title! It isn't just sum-of-parts, it isn't just promotional, it isn't just a complete sentence on its own...it is nonsense. Do we include any sentence that gets a moderate or not-so-significant number of web search hits? That is beyond silly! --Connel MacKenzie 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - just a book title. --Etoile de mer 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Defining all book titles in all languages does not fall within our mandate. -- Visviva 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete although a translation of Pinocchio would be alright and could mention the full title within that article. DAVilla 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts. bd2412 T 15:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

木偶奇遇记

--Connel MacKenzie 02:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. —Stephen 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as above. -- Visviva 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as above. DAVilla 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as above. bd2412 T 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

迪斯尼樂園

--Connel MacKenzie 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. —Stephen 13:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, we don't have an entry for Disneyland yet but we should... there is plenty of lexical interest there. (see for example [6]). -- Visviva 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

MiG

This is more of an encyclopedia entry. MiG is a Russian aircraft company, I don't thin it belongs in a dictionary. Cheers, JetLover 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? If so, then delete, but I always thought it was a type of jet (i.e. Russian but no more specific than that.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. TLA. bd2412 T 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't a TLA...that would be MIG. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 03:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are few hard and fast rules for acronyms. I do think of TLA's as being more as you say, and strictly initialisms in fact. Still, it's hard to see how that's the tipping point of the argument. DAVilla 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Although I don't think that the MiG heading is a good idea, with Mig or mig making a lot more sense. MiG can only really apply to the company, whereas mig or Mig applies to any of their aircraft. (Unlike in the west where aircraft are given more specific names).--Dmol 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. No objection to keeping this at Mig, but obviously delete MiG. --Connel MacKenzie 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the formal and technical spelling of a MiG aircraft is MiG. The spelling Mig is informal and seems to be becoming less usual. See for example the list of MiG aircraft at w:MiG#List of MiG Aircraft. —Stephen 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, MiG is the most common (and correct) capitalization. -- Visviva 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI: MiG comes from the names of the chief designers Mikoyan and Gurevich. Soviet Union did not have companies in the Western sense of the word and the airplanes were named according to the designer. Later, when the original designers retired the teams originally led by them continued and gave the original name to their airplanes. Tupolev, Yakovlev and Antonov are also designers. There were several generations of MiG's during four decades, such as MiG-15, which was made famous in the Korean War, and MiG-21 in the 1967 war between Israel on one side and Egypt, Jordan and Syria on the other. Technically speaking MiG is the original spelling, but also MIG and Mig have been used by the Western press unaware of the background. Hekaheka 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TV Guide

POV pushing to spam Wiktionary with trademarks. Confer #TV guide above. --Connel MacKenzie 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, common alternative form. -- Visviva 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, simply because in the US, any TV paper, no matter how it is branded, is almost always generically called the TV Paper. — This unsigned comment was added by Sewnmouthsecret (talk • contribs) at 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

Are you sure you wrote what you meant to? (Specifically, did you perhaps mean to end your comment with "the TV Guide" rather than "the TV Paper"?) —Ruakh_TALK 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant TV Guide. sewnmouthsecret 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep (but perhaps with a lowercase "G"?) per above. bd2412 T 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

background music

Simple sum of parts? Or is this also a set phrase? Rod (A. Smith) 00:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it a set phrase. --EncycloPetey 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, although the def is very poor. Background music implies music playing in a public area such as a hotel foyer or bank, not just music that happens to be some distance from the hearer.--Dmol 06:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have improved the definition and linked it to -pedia. Probable keep. SemperBlotto 07:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better. RFD withdrawn. Rod (A. Smith) 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucky Charms

--Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per revised CFI:

1. • 2001, Paul Kafka-Gibbons, DuPont Circle: A Novel, p. 12:

     He holds a bowl of Lucky Charms in his left hand and extends his right. "I don't usually eat these. Nita was having some." "I do," Louisa says.

   • 2002, Daisy Hernández, Bushra Rehman, Colonize This!: Young Women of Color on Today's Feminism, p. 362:

     I'd eat two bowls of Lucky Charms and the next thing you know, I'd be sticking the spoon down my throat.

   • 2005, Nedra M. Shivers, Redeeming Daddy, p. 1:

     I don't give a damn where yo' Lucky Charms-eating ass came from; just get yo' leprechaun ass up front to the visiting room now!

   • 2007, Rhonda Pollero, Knock Off, p. 28:

     One of the greatest joys of living alone is the complete freedom to eat Lucky Charms by the handfuls straight out of the box.

• bd2412 T 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

full motion video

Sum of parts, not idiomatic, not in widespread use, obvious. --Connel MacKenzie 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno about "not in widespread use", but I don't think it's "sum of parts", "not idiomatic" (at least, if it's a real phrase, I think it's an idiomatic one), or "obvious": I had no idea what it might mean until I clicked the link, and even then I had to read the definition twice to understand what it was saying. And even now I don't understand what the name has to do with the concept. (Maybe I'm just missing something? I almost never play video games, unless you count FreeCell, so am really quite clueless about this sort of thing.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is idiomatic (nothing about "full motion" suggests "pre-recorded" or "pre-rendered", which is what distinguishes FMV from non-FMV) and in widespread use (it gets 1.14 million Google hits and 713 Google Books hits, and that's not including its abbreviated form). Was it opposite day when Connel nominated this? --Ptcamn 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Today is opposite day. (So yes, it was.) Delete (i.e. keep). DAVilla 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Μάγνητες

Bad redirect. --Connel MacKenzie 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the article it points to, Μάγνης, is valid. - Gilgamesh 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Peugeot

--Connel MacKenzie 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you know the right pronunciation, the right plural, the right gender, the right capitalization of this word, in all languages? If not, where do you think you can find this (linguistic) information, but here? None of this is provided in the current version of the page, but this will be added some day (if the page still exists). Lmaltier 18:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Keep. —Stephen 18:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this argument would also seem to support the inclusion of every proper noun in existence. -- Visviva 08:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete the company sense as purely encyclopedic; possibly RFV the vehicular sense (I found it surprisingly difficult to find any cites that meet the proposed criterion, although I suspect they are out there somewhere). -- Visviva 08:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep car type, (maybe merge company name into it as etymology) and add Proper noun as a French family name.--Dmol 10:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would want to delete all brand names, but we seem to have an entry for every American make of car, BMW, Volvo and probably many others, so why not Peugeot? Quite seriously, shouldn't we take a policy against all brand names with exception of some rare cases where they have become to mean something else like "to hoover" in England? Hekaheka 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Would inclusion in fiction be an indication of the extent to which a brand name had become part of general culture? With all the scanned material, pop fiction is a window into the center of society. DCDuring 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, 697 b.g.c. hits (fiction only), first one in 1949 in a John O'Hara novel. That's not bad. DCDuring 05:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

bul

The completely non-Wiktionary format is used because...? Probable copyvio, IMHO. --Connel MacKenzie 05:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• The only source is the one stated, in my native Dutch, which accounts for all data (there is even slightly more) except the etymologies themselves (but includes grouping as such). It is printed in a quite different format, which spreads the data over different lemmata, using Roman and (for sections) Arabic numerals, etc.

If this is a 'candidate for deletion', then you better suggest to pull the plug on the whole site, the vast majority of entries I've read is worse, especially content-wise, and (completely or partially) unsourced. Fastifex 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. So tell me, are you including only data found in other sources exactly, but with unusual reformatting? Copying text from a book published in 1969 is never OK here. --Connel MacKenzie 09:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC) OK, technically, you can enter such data after 2050...unless the copyright laws change again before then. --Connel MacKenzie 09:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The formatting is a bit odd, but "completely non-Wiktionary" seems a bit of a stretch. You have to be fairly immersed in our way of doing things to know that it's always Etym1-POS-Etym2-POS-Etym3-POS, even when POS-Etym1-Etym2-Etym3 would be much simpler and more intuitive. -- Visviva 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But Fastifex has been editing here since 2006, and should kow better. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The question of copyvio can only be judged satisfactorily by a third party who has both high reading proficiency in Dutch and access to the original text. I, of course, have neither of these things, but I would note that it is quite possible (and even recommended) to use the information in monolingual FL dictionaries as a basis for a thorough English entry without actually translating the source language entry (translation *would* violate copyright). When contributors do so, it is greatly in the interest of the project that they be open and honest about the source of their information, and that such openness and intellectual honesty be encouraged. Had Fastifex omitted the source of the entry, we would have lost potentially valuable information. -- Visviva 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your assessment. Using information from a published source, once it is translated by the user to create new information, should not infringe on any copyright. So an editor could read information in a Dutch-only dictionary, translate the contents into English himself, and write a translated entry for Wiktionary (citing the source) without violating copyright. However, a systematic use of that dictionary to create many such entries on Wiktionary is equivalent to publishing a translation of that source. I beleieve that would constitute a copyright infringement. Publishing a translation of someone else's work is not legal. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

à ... près

--Connel MacKenzie 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's the first time ever that the word circumposition is applied to the French language. Nonetheless, I feel this is OK, and that there are good reasons for this page. You can say à deux minutes près, à un mètre près, etc. The only problem is with the title, but I cannot find a better one. The solution of explaining this circumposition in à and près is possible, of course, but I would not delete this page. Lmaltier 17:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly redirect it to près. —Stephen 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we do with ne . . . pas (and similar)? SemperBlotto 07:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See the correctly laid out entry at ne. --Connel MacKenzie 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hummer

Ahhh, let the SPAM begin! The lovely proposal to rape WT:CFI is having strange side effects...this one is asserted as a generic sense (but not entered at the lower case version.) So, it is either wrong, or it is wrong. Bravo DAVilla. --Connel MacKenzie 08:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It has specific translations in other languages, and it is common that many people call any vehicle that looks similar to a Hummer a Hummer. They may be using the word incorrectly, but that doesn’t stop them from doing it. —Stephen 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the proposed CFI, three independent non-contextual citations please. Here's one to get you started:

1997, Douglas J. Preston, Lincoln Child, Mount Dragon p. 212:

• The storm reached the middle Jornada desert and Mount Dragon at seven o'clock in the morning, fifty minutes after Gilbert Teece, senior OSHA investigator, had driven off in a Hummer with his fat briefcase, heading for Radium Springs.

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this citation is invalid. The first mention in the book is on page 22, where it states that a Hummer is "the civilian version of the Humvee". DAVilla 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another cite that is utterly out of context:

2004, T. Mike Childs, The Rocklopedia Fakebandica p. 136:

• The upshot of all this is that if a rogue Banana Split decides to rampage off into the woods, the beach, or through a stream, you'd better damn well have a Hummer at your disposal if you even want to think about catching them.

Cheers again! bd2412 T 03:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to verify the context of this since the Google Books page is intentionally blank and the Amazon listing isn't viewable. If there is discussion about vehicles prior to this sentence, then it could be presumed that a Hummer is an offroad vehicle (as opposed to, say, a helicopter). So it's possible that the citation would not count. DAVilla 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's one more, although the follow-up sentence may provide too much context for it to be used.

2006, Ellen Hart, The Iron Girl, p. 315:

Last fall, Cordelia had traded in her old black Buick for a used Hummer. She might go broke putting gasoline in the thing, but in a strange way, it suited her.

Cheers once more! bd2412 T 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That it guzzles gas doesn't completely explain how it suits her, although it does imply that it's a large vehicle. In the previous paragraph Cordelia refers to her vehicle as a "War Machine" that scares other vehicles she pulls up behind. That's how it suits her personality. In all I would say there's enough context to understand the author's intent, even if "Hummer" is an unknown word, provided the two can be linked.

How narrowly does the type need to be defined? It can't be confused for a tank because she drives it fast on the freeway. It might be confused for a truck of some kind, but that's not really a problem. The reader doesn't need to know any more than it's a large road vehicle. Anyway, Hummers are trucks, aren't they?

Incidentally, my comments here refer to the word as a brand name, not as a generic, and accoding the proposed criteria that looks likely to pass. DAVilla 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So your citations exemplify that it is never used generically, right? Those quotations each name a specific product, as that product. (Therefore, the entry's definition is wrong?) --Connel MacKenzie 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The CFI does not require "generic" use. Attributive ≠ generic. The Banana Splits quote, at least, is so out of context that it expects the reader to already know what kind of thing a Hummer is (i.e. a kind of thing that you could use to catch an offroading puppet). Hence, it uses the name to refer to the attributes of the thing. bd2412 T 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You point out an interesting error in WT:CFI. At WT:CFI#Names of actual people, places, and things, it says "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." (Bold text in original, underlining added.) Yet when it was discussed (and Dmh pressed his POV after everyone else was bored beyond tears of his rant,) at Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion#Attributive sense?, the wording was about attribution. That is, a devastating error has crept its way into WT:CFI, probably encouraging the sort of nonsense going on now in WT:VOTE. (Compare, if you will, our definitions for attributive and attribution.) Note also at that time, the simple absurdity (that was understood conversationally) of even considering promoting products and companies by spamming Wiktionary with entries for them. There isn't any hope of Wiktionary ever being maturing into a usable, generic dictionary, if you (plural) continue in this vein.

That aside, I don't see how your citations show that "hummer" (let alone "Hummer") is "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." --Connel MacKenzie 06:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (edit) 06:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, tell me you don't know what "Hummer" means. bd2412 T 07:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you that the "Iron Girl" citation gives up too much context. But here's another:

2007, Rhonda Pollero, Knock Off, p. 4:

His latest toy is a black Hummer. A freaking Hummer! I shook my head at the thought. Who needs a Hummer in the flattest state in the country?

Now, can you tell me from that whether a "Hummer" is a car, a helicopter, or maybe even some kind of satellite dish? The author thinks you already know. bd2412 T 07:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a great quotation! DAVilla 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "The CFI does not require 'generic' use. Attributive ≠ generic.": I disagree. To me it looks like the CFI do indeed require generic use in order for a trademark to be included. (Also, none of your quotations is using the term attributively, in the linguistic sense of "attributively", and going by the example it gives, it seems to me that the attributive-use C'onFI is using it in this linguistic sense.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a sentence that would constitute attributive use of the name of an object? Part of the problem, I think, is a dearth of examples. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't think attributive use is sufficient for a trademark; I read the current CFI as requiring generic use. But to answer your stated question, Hummer sees attributive use in phrases like "Hummer fever" and "Hummer loophole". Does Hummer in either of these have "a widely understood meaning" (as would be needed if we did apply the attributive-use criterion)? I'm not sure. Further, it seems like the CFI actually mean "widely understood, non-literal meaning" (like how "New York delicatessen" doesn't just mean "deli in New York"), in which case I don't think that would apply. —Ruakh_TALK 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply can't rationalize any definition of attributive use which would eliminate most nouns from the dictionary. Can you find an attributive use of escalator or acetaminophen along those lines? bd2412 T 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The CFI don't require attributive use for words like escalator and acetaminophen; the attributive-use criterion only applies to "[n]ames of actual people, places, and things". (Might you be confusing the attributive-use requirement, which applies only to proper nouns, with the use-not-mention requirement, which applies to most words brought to RFV?) —Ruakh_TALK 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But is this a proper noun, or just a capitalized one? -- Visviva 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, that's irrelevant for determining whether to include it, as it's a trademark, and the CFI specifically state, "To be included, the use of a trademark or company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word) has to be attested" (emphasis in original, clarification in original). To be honest, I'm very confused by the path this discussion has taken; I feel like I've entered the twilight zone. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are citations for this as military slang for the HMMWV going back to the mid-80s, when said vehicles were first entering production and the civilian Hummer was only a gleam in an auto executive's eye. So it appears that this is an interesting case of a quasi-generic term being trademarked and then re-genericized. (although I'm rather skeptical of the "re-genericization", even if this can be made to meet the revised CFI). -- Visviva 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have added three senses which seem to meet CFI without much question: as an older term for a Humvee, as a capitalization of "hummer" (in the hummingbird sense), and as a surname (though perhaps this last one should be filed under ==German==). Assuming that these senses are suitable for inclusion -- or that at least one of them is -- would we not be doing our readers a disservice by omitting the sense which is prevalent in current English ... the sense which they are most likely to encounter out of context? -- Visviva 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is ideal, but for the "Humvee" sense we can have a usage note that mentions that this sense became less common after Hummer was trademarkinatized™ in reference to a similar civilian vehicle. (Connel might still consider that spam, but I don't see a better alternative, and least until the current brand-names vote has passed.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too, and if CFI reform fails (again) this may be the least-bad option. But it still seems to be a disservice to the reader. One generally expects the distinct meanings for a word to be presented in the customary numbered list, and "Usage notes" to contain more detailed information about the use of the word in specific senses and contexts. Putting a whole new sense in "Usage notes", particularly when that sense is the most common one, violates the principle of least astonishment at the very least. -- Visviva 13:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The complete page doesnt need to be deleted in any case, cause Hummer means lobster in German anyways. So the discussion is just about keeping the car sense or not. Mutante 06:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

7-11

Spam. --Connel MacKenzie 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Used generically to reference any ol' convenience store:

1968, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, p. 368:

• The 7-11 store is a conveniently located "quick-stop" store in Blacksburg and consequently caters to a large proportion of the local inhabitants.

1983, New letters / Kansas City, Mo., University of Missouri-Kansas, p. 9:

• I mean, you might as well turn the whole house into a 7-11.

1997, Brady Udall, Letting Loose the Hounds: Stories, p. 16:

• A scholarship from UCLA, a boring job at an electronics firm and suspicious looks from the clerk whenever I go into a 7-11.

1999, Vic Armijo, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Cycling, p. 104:

• These days, a cyclist in bike shorts can walk into a 7-11 or bagel shop without drawing a second glance.

2004, Simon Frith, Popular Music: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies p. 380:

• It is likewise inappropriate to sink into prolonged intramusical contemplation when one is squeezed into a 7-11-type convenience store.

2004, United States Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, To Do No Harm: Strategies for Preventing Prescription Drug Abuse, p. 279:

• My patients are NOT lying on the couch collecting welfare but rather helping you when you buy a car, go into a 7-11 or build a house.

2006, Jerry Van Hoorelbeke, Underworld Secrets: Hoffa to Las Vegas, p. 514:

• I finally pulled into a 7-11 store and bought a bottle of mouthwash so we could both rinse our mouths out.

Cheers! bd2412 T 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this could pass as a brand name with the right quotations. I know it's used generically as translated in Mandarin, and possibly in English by the foreigners in Taiwan. I don't think I used it generically before I was there because I was catching myself doing so and trying to avoid it. I'm not too sure how to judge that a term has become generic. The 2004 Simon Frith is clearly not. The 1999 Vic Armijo and 2004 US Congress quotations look really good to me, though. DAVilla 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It’s an enduring bit of Americana and an important element of our culture. Keep. —Stephen 01:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly known people (including members of my family) who use this generically to refer to any convenience store (particularly the old-fashioned kind that don't sell gasoline). But that's a difficult thing to demonstrate in print, since the ol' lowercase test, which seems to be the only test of genericity widely accepted here, doesn't apply. Mild keep in any case; enjoys a cultural-linguistic status unrivalled among convenience store brands. Maybe not as iconic as apple pie, but certainly as American as McDonald's and Wal-Mart. -- Visviva 06:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I've certainly heard the generic use. In southeastern Pennsylvania people use "Wa-Wa" (the dominant local convenience store in the same way. They could say "Run down to the Wa-Wa and get more beer" when they are referring to a "7-11". Religions, governments, corporations, and professions are all changing the use of words intentionally and otherswise and language speakers accept some changes and reject others. This looks like it has been accepted. DCDuring 11:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"They could say "Run down to the Wa-Wa and get more beer" when they are referring to a "7-11"." WRONG! convenience stores dont sell alcohol of any kind in Pennsylvania.--72.191.31.112 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Moosehead Lake

A fairly obscure tourist attraction? Perhaps if it gave some explanation of why it is called Moosehead lake? (The WP page doesn't seem helpful either - apparently a fairly direct copy of a "Chamber of Commerce" web page for the region?) --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, with extreme prejudice. I don't think having the etymology would help (although it might be enough to justify a transfer to Appendixdom).-- Visviva 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

General dictionaries such as Random House include important proper nouns such as Moosehead Lake (which is one of the largest natural lakes in the U.S.), Lake Baikal, Mount Everest, the Rockies, etc. Moosehead Lake is a significant geographical feature. Keep. —Stephen 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must ask you for some clarification on some points: #1) What dictionary includes "Moosehead Lake", #2) Largest? By what reference? In comparison to the Great Lakes? It isn't even a dot on the map. #3) In what way is it important? It does not appear on w:List of lakes by area nor on w:List of lakes nor anywhere here. #4) You did see w:Talk:Moosehead Lake, didn't you? Try this: go to w:Greenville, Maine and near the top-right, click on the globe (exactly on the globe) to the right of "Coordinates". Can you see this lake? Without zooming in a lot, I cannot. How is that "one of the largest" anythings? I think comparing it to Mount Everest is a bit too much of a stretch. --Connel MacKenzie 08:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I already said what dictionary includes "Moosehead Lake", the Random House. As for "one of the largest", Wikipedia states: "varying in size from one acre (4,000 m²) ponds to Moosehead, at 74,890 acres (303 km²) one of the largest natural freshwater lakes in the United States." One of the largest does not mean the largest. Comparing it to Everest is not a statement of its size but of its relevance. If everything has to be the size of Everest to be included, that means we have to take out car, pencil and just about everything else. By important, I mean that it is important enough to be included in the Random House, whereas Forney Creek that runs behind my house will not be found in any dictionary that I have seen. The inference is that Moosehead Lake is a significantly important feature, while Forney Creek is not. —Stephen 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's do the word moosehead, but delete Moosehead Lake as a place name. Compare to Lake Tahoe. Goldenrowley 00:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

look up 'moosehead lake thoreau' on google and tell me it has no significance.

Adidas

Just spam. --Connel MacKenzie 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree - deleted --Williamsayers79 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That was rather hasty. Neither of you are proponents of brand names. The entry has been restored.

Please provide a reason for your deletions, and please preserve quotations even if the entry is deleted. DAVilla 16:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

delete The word is only the name of a company. It has no special usage such as something like hoover for example.--Williamsayers79 13:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about as an abbreviation? ;-) bd2412 T 04:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the initialism. Once someone points out that the letters are the initials of the phrase "All Day I Dream About Sex", you'll never see the word again without that fact coming to mind. You'll see what I mean :) 87.114.156.2 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

bepaalen

bepaalen is not correct in Dutch, bepaalen should be removed — This unsigned comment was added by Polyglot (talk • contribs) at 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

google books:bepaalen suggests that this may be an obsolete spelling. I don't speek Dutch, though, so I'm probably missing something. Rod (A. Smith) 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Dutch I can confirm the only correct spelling at present is "bepalen", it can only exist as either a typo or a very old (pre-standardisation) spelling- even in the early official spelling "bepaelen" would have been preferred, so deletion is justified Fastifex 07:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. It's not even slang. People don't use it ironically, they use it ignorantly. — This unsigned comment was added by 98.195.197.99 (talk) at 2007-09-17T23:00:54.

The English Wiktionary includes obsolete spellings. Many of the books returned in the search above use that spelling. Rather than delete the entry, it should probably just be marked as {{obsolete}}. Rod (A. Smith) 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The two native speakers and anon (above) seem to be saying that even when obsolete, it was an error. But the books.google.com citations I've peeked at don't seem to be scanning errors (even if the majority of them are 200 years old.) I know Omegawiki has some pretty strict policies about misspellings in regulated languages. If it is officially recognized as a misspelling there, it should be tagged with {{misspelling of}}, not just {{obsolete}}. Alternately, it could be deleted with the deletion comment "Misspelling of the Dutch word bepalen." Normally, in cases like this, we should defer it to the Dutch Wiktionary...and nl:bepaalen does not exist. --Connel MacKenzie 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Dutch Wiktionary currently has only 26,687 entries in 304 languages, so it probably has little if any more coverage of Dutch than the English Wiktionary (which has 5,698 Dutch entries). I wouldn't be surprised if the Dutch Wiktionary lacks common obsolete spellings. Mark as obsolete but keep. Rod (A. Smith) 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the first official Dutch spelling reform was in 1804 and that spelling before that time was not standardized. Most of the Google Book hits for bepaalen are from before that date, so I added ===Usage notes=== with {{nl-usage obsolete spelling}}, which can take a date parameter to help us document dates various Dutch spellings became invalidated by spelling reforms. Rod (A. Smith) 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you work thoroughly nowadays. In contemporary Dutch it would never be possible for this word to exist. When split in syllables, you get an 'open' syllable which already makes the vowel sound long, so there is no need to double it up. Vowels are only doubled in closed syllables when they need to sound long. (To make a vowel sound short in an open syllable the consonant behind it is doubled, which happens to close the syllable). If one considers English like this with the open and closed syllables, pronunciation starts to make a lot more sense all of a sudden. (Not that it ever becomes entirely logical, though) English and Dutch are very closely related. Polyglot 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry for forgetting to sign before

Great work! Keep as an obsolete spelling. DAVilla 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please delete this page. I am a native speaker of Dutch and I can confirm that this word is not an obsolete spelling. It is a clear mistake not even worth a redirect. Annabelleke 10:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Taser

Why would we have separate entries for Taser and taser? This is a word which certainly appears to have entered generic use (witness the widely reported "tasing" of a student at a UF event). Cheers! bd2412 T 06:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It's an alternative form, at the very least. Of course it is also trademarked, but as you've noted elsewhere, that in itself need not concern us. -- Visviva 07:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

True, as an alternative form. But isn't use usually non-capped? bd2412 T 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally regard the capitalized variant as an error, outside of Wiktionary. Since it is so obviously a variant of laser, I assumed it was generic years before learning of its trademark status. (That is, the day before yesterday, I did not realize it was a trademark.) How do police departments word their competitive-bid requests for quotations? "High voltage electric stun-guns?" "Non-lethal weaponry?" I don't think Taser has any merit as an entry here, but the generic taser does. --Connel MacKenzie 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The lowercase is more common but not overwhelmingly so. In fact 4 of the first 10 hits on b.g.c. for "tasered" use capitals: Amoral America, Congressional Quarterly, Emergency Department Treatment of the Psychiatric Patient, Excited Delirium Syndrome ... and I think that we can at least agree that the verb form is generic (right?), so this indicates that even apparently generic uses are frequently capitalized. (NB: the rate drops somewhat over subsequent pages, but still I get 9/34 total b.g.c. hits for "tasered" which are actually "Tasered.")-- Visviva 12:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I doubt it could be cited as a brand name. DAVilla 04:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a verb form for taser but not Taser? "The police tasered the protester." RJFJR 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Taser should not be deleted but just converted to "German noun, m" for taser and be sorted in Category:de:Weapons. Mutante 10:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Taser is widely used in the Australian media, although taser is also used it seems less common. The link [7] has about 15 examples of Taser in the article. Search news.com.au for more examples.--Dmol 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, even by the DAVilla standards, that would only be one citations. No, the entry for Taser should not have an English section; the entry belongs only at taser as that is used generically. --Connel MacKenzie 04:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But as I noted above, there are abundant citations even for the verb as "Taser"/"Tasered"/"Tasering" ... and the verb certainly appears to be generic. Is there any reason for rejecting this as an alternative capitalization? The only reason I can see is that the brand name is capitalized; but that is really putting the cart before the horse. If people sometimes capitalize this word, we should reflect that fact. -- Visviva 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's silly. I am not claiming that it is used generically. It is USED, whether it is used correctly or generically is not relevant.--Dmol 07:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? It is of paramount importance to this RFV. If it is used only as a product name, that is one thing; if it is used as a word that is quite another. Apparently, it is used generically, but the citations are unclear because of the capitalization/brand name issue. --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia

Completely invented artificial "word", without any actual meaning. The definition is just fantasy, and the way the word is formed is not even valid, transforming also words into unknown prefixes ("hippoto-" and "monstro-"). The word "sesquipedialan" is tentatively possible, to mean something this would be 1.5 foot long, but such usage of "pedalian" to qualify something byits length in feet is unverified. Then what would it mean with the suffix "-phobia"? To qualify someone "that hates every monstruous thing that would be one and half foot long, and would look like an hippopotamus"? Just a joke, but not even a good one. If we leave this word, what will be the next longer word also invented without any meaning? Remove it, otherwise there will be competitions to fill the wiktionnary with many invented wordswuthout meaning. And fatally we'll get tons of "words" like "sdelifolisdijafesidujugufomilasiajiominsijuvojerjuirerguikwandofevrekwidinofwonfubia", completely random...90.45.113.92 06:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: for those looking for long words, start with "anticonstitutionally" (same meaning in French, where it is the longest accepted word with wellknown definition and usage). 90.45.113.92 07:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn’t refer to "monstrous things that are one and a half feet long that look like a hippopotamus", it means monster words that are a foot and a half long that remind one of a massive, scary hippo. I don’t know when this word was coined, but it’s been around for a while and is widely recognized. It isn’t useful for anything except as a party joke, but it’s probably in the language to stay. —Stephen 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, or possibly transfer to an appendix on "long words invented for the sake of length" (not sure what to call it). This brazenly fails CFI, which is a pity seeing that a great deal of work has gone into the entry. -- Visviva 07:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain this passed WT:RFD in ages past. This pretty much defines the outer limits of the (collective) sense of humor for Wiktionarians, no? --Connel MacKenzie 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a killjoy, but do have qualms about allowing purely humorous entries in the mainspace. Would be quite happy with a move to Wiktionary:hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. -- Visviva 18:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think someone should find the previous RFD discussions first. --Connel MacKenzie 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that would have been for the hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia spelling? DAVilla 04:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Drat, no, not Talk:hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia (although that is helpful) but rather, the RFD discussion about it, where the decision to keep just the one, was. --Connel MacKenzie 04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was a discussion here, from back before the great decapitation. Interestingly that resulted in keeping only the entry for the spelling which is now a redirect. Odd... but at no point can I see that anyone has shown that this word is actually in use. The only possibly CFI-valid cites I can find myself are from Usenet, and I'm not sure they are actually independent; one form or another of this word has been on this wiki since 2002, and (as argued on the pp talkpage) people may have picked it up from us. -- Visviva 05:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should exclude a word just because we apparently created or popularized it, as long as it does in fact now meet CFI. (But I've no idea about which of those clauses, if any, is the case.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it meets CFI, then certainly it should be here. (I would paraphrase my delete vote as delete unless cited, but have profound doubts about citability.) On the other hand, if gaming the system isn't grounds for strong suspicion, I'm at a loss to explain why santorum was rejected. -- Visviva 13:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is a "shock" term, it isn't funny...this was (before the joke got old years ago) moderately amusing...but neither vulgar nor offensive. I don't see any cites for this spelling, but the correct spelling has [8], (use + mention,) [9] (hrm,) and [10] (hmmm,) for starters. --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. #16. --Connel MacKenzie 07:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Which just indicates that, thanks to this entry, thousands of people are getting exactly the wrong idea about a) whether this is a real word, and b) what Wiktionary is... do we really want this to continue? -- Visviva 13:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have a standard tag or message for words that are primarily discussed rather than actual used (which covers most -phobia words). The thing is, it's possible for these to then be actually used and become "real words". Some of the collective nouns for animals apparently went this way.

Oh, and keep. --Ptcamn 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I partly agree with User:Ptcamn on this; it would be nice to have a uniform method of dealing with "contrived terms." But keeping them (heavily tagged) would probably just move the debate from RFD/RFV to RFC (or something else, specifically for disputed tags.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is one of a very small number of "fun" words that should be in Wiktionary because people will want to look them up. --EncycloPetey 03:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. All words had to start somewhere. There are cites here, and people will want to look it up, if for nothing other than the fun factor. sewnmouthsecret 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or rewrite into something that doesn't pretend this is a word. It's a contrived term and the citations are all contrived too, none of them actually convey meaning. Kappa 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia It's a real word, it's in the freaking Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English. It's just like "degreelessness". That's a word, but it has a stupid meaning too. How about we throw out all of the long words? They have no use anyways, there's shorter synonyms for them. We're not going to, because those of us who are higher educated need more specific words to better describe what's going on. 65.183.172.216 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked on Google and I know the statistics (44,000:80), but why isn't this word spelled "hippotAmonstro...." instead of "hippopotOmonstro...."? DCDuring 01:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means, keep as common misspelling of "hippopotamontrososesquipedeliphobia". And let's not miss any of the other misspellings either. I could at least imagine the etymology for the spelling that I've given. Why don't we leave this one to urbandictionary.com and "New Millennium"? It is not a word ever used for its meaning, is it? DCDuring 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From an identically titled section hereinafter:

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia is quite possibly the finest, roll-off-the-tongue word I've ever had the pleasure of using and for that reason alone it should stay. I don't care if people think it's not a real word and it won't be if we don't use it, that's the only way words come into being, we wouldn't have 'dog' and 'cat' if no-one ever used them so long live long words and I challenge anyone to try and slip it in during a board meeting (if you know what I mean ;)

DaveF

Dave, please read WT:CFI. Liking a word and not caring whether it's "real" aren't valid reasons for keeping an entry. — Paul G 16:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. My teacher used this word in a spelling test when I was in year 5 (now in uni), and as an above person has said it's in the Webster's dictionary. So unless everyone has it and are too afraid to leave a long word on the internet it may as well stay there. — This comment was unsigned.

Delete Why are "monstro" and "hippopoto" even added to the word sesquipedaliophobia? If the reason is to emphasize how big and scary the words are, why would anyone possibly stop there? Why not throw in a few dinosaur names and a few adjectives to make this word something really spectacular? I think that new words should be added because they have superb function, not because of wow factor. "monstro" and "hippopoto" aren't even real prefixes. If we are really trying to forge a respectable dictionary, fanciful and superfluous words such as this should not be included as they will open a can of worms. Each fabricated word of this nature would be no more or less valid than the last. Any one of us could coin dozens of them a day. Let's try and keep this a dictionary that people use as a resource, not one that people use for vapid entertainment. — This unsigned comment was added by 76.243.211.23 (talk) at 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Keep. In Wikipedia terms, this word is "notable".--Jyril 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This word literally means "A hippopotomus and monster-related fear of long words". Originally sesquippedaliophobia, it was extended to make of people with this fear, so that they could not talk about it without scaring themself. — This unsigned comment was added by 24.67.253.203 (talk) at 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

keep. obviously this word is purely humorous, but until i looked it up on wikipedia i had no idea what the real word for this was. it's used enough that it justifies the details in my opinion.

message

Various redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 20:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• First definition is clever, but almost meaningless. Really needs starting from scratch. There are other meanings to be added. SemperBlotto 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• RFV sense. (Ireland, colloquial, always plural) groceries. This is widespread. I've heard it twice today already.--Dmol 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If always plural, shouldn't it be under messages? -- Visviva 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, people typically look up the singular of a word.--Dmol 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

clicko

Move to RFV perhaps? Has this entered the general lexicon now? --Connel MacKenzie 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I’d say, with 170 GBS hits (although it isn’t clear if it’s used to mean a lapsus muris). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If even one of those hits corresponds to this sense, I'm missing it. There are two clearly valid senses not currently in the entry, viz. a kind of snap-on fastener and an old US theatrical slang term for "successful" (documented by Mencken, no less). And "clicko" also apparently means something in French. But although I think this term has entered the lexicon, the only acceptable source I can find is Usenet. And the community does not seem unanimous on the matter of accepting verification through Usenet only. -- Visviva 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Move to RFV. -- Visviva 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any of the "typo" related meanings on the first page of results. AFAIK, this is a brain-o for "mis-click." A couple years ago, someone (not you) had a discussion somewhere on Wiktionary, about typo, scanno/scan-o, misclick/mis-click/click-o, think-o, brain-o, etc. At the time, it was laughable to even remotely consider putting such entries into Wiktionary. I imagine some of you would call that "progress." --Connel MacKenzie 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is dubious, but it seems like three durably archived independent citations spanning at least a year would be sufficient to resolve any doubts. (But as I said I'm increasingly uncomfortable with entries that are substantiated solely by Usenet.) The larger issue is valid, but I can't conceive of any way to distinguish a brain-o from an actual word. -- Visviva 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't we need Usenet for youth, slang, and colloquial terms? DCDuring 17:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

medula spinal

No usable content. --Connel MacKenzie 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it's correct -- that this is the term used on Santiago to mean "spinal cord" -- I don't see the problem. (It is a little sad that the only two Capeverdean Crioulo nouns we have are "spinal cord" and "lysine", though.) The extra layer at L3 should of course be converted to a context label -- again, assuming it's correct. -- Visviva 04:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that is because the language name used is incorrect. At the moment, I can't find the previous discussion. --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know the language code for the current "language" name? --Connel MacKenzie 07:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Capeverdean Crioulo, it's KEA. Ethnologue prefers "Kabuverdianu" as the language name. [11] The only prior discussion I'm able to find is here; whatever took place before then has perhaps been "archived" into page history. -- Visviva 12:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oscar the Grouch

--Connel MacKenzie 17:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Already? I hadn't even finished archiving the discussion we had in June. -- Visviva 17:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I was looking for that conversation, wondering why it wasn't listed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the examples listed show usage in anything other than as the Muppet character. Delete.--Dmol 21:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. So he's a Muppet. What's the problem? DAVilla 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:Fictional characters/Oscar the Grouch and delete redirect. There are certainly linguistically interesting things to be said about this name (translations, etc.), but this doesn't appear to meet the criteria for the mainspace -- it's just a proper noun which refers only to its literal referent. I actually expected there to be attributive use for this, but when I looked on b.g.c. I couldn't find anything. -- Visviva 10:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

'Keep on the basis of some (but not all) of the citations provided. --EncycloPetey 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which ones? -- Visviva 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, based on Sexton (1989), Hanson (2002), McCusker (2004), and Beyers (2007). Meaning is particular clear, having to do with time period or with the residence of Oscar the Grouch. DCDuring 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

legislative

Second (redundant) sense. --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem distinct to me, but it's the second that's more general. I would merge them. DAVilla 04:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I would merge them as well. --EncycloPetey 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Although essentially the same, the possibly artificial distinction made here may be helpful to ESL readers. Examples added (which would each apply to a merged definition). 87.114.156.2 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

-o-

Incorrectly closed as "no consensus." No references ever were provided for the original research that new parts of speech are now magically recognized as legitimate within the English language. New heading, indeed, is worse. Issue that the only things pointing to this entry are part of same scheme/original research pushing, also not yet addressed. Those entries should point to o, if anything. --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: "No consensus" does not mean that the proponent of that OR still doesn't understand. As that was the main supporter or keeping the entry, those comments should, if anything, be disregarded. The lack of sources to back up the fanciful claims about the English language suddenly changing is of concern. --Connel MacKenzie 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh of all the ridiculous second-guessing crap. You can't tell me you see any consensus in that tangential, tendentious mess, that non-dialogical trainwreck masquerading as a discussion.
• Moving on then... Call it an affix, call it whatever, it has been pointed out that this is listed in numerous dictionaries. It is, therefore, not an invention. Nor -- since you mention this -- is it a previously-unknown property of the letter o. It was not pointed out at the time that it is not, even by the description given, an infix. (I'm not sure why this wasn't noticed, but I surmise everyone was too busy carping to consider the issue at hand). As I mentioned on the talk page, I found this concise definition of "interfix", which appears in a sober reference work written by a respected authority, particularly compelling. I have no interest in being involved in this further, but I will note that it seems trivially obvious that the entry should be kept, regardless of the POS header. -- Visviva 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "second guessing crap." It is original research, to assert that "Infix" or "Interfix" are recognized parts of speech in the English language. --Connel MacKenzie 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an obviously necessary entry. "Numeral", "symbol", "letter", "abbreviation", and "suffix" are considered parts of speech here, so we're obviously not constrained to traditionally recognized "part of speech" headings. What heading would you prefer, Connel? Rod (A. Smith) 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a property of o that the single letter is sometimes used to fuse compound words. The reasonable notation, is to identify the separate compounds (with and without o) if they have different meanings. A separate definition line identifying this role at o probably is not warranted, but the notion of having an entry at -o- itself is ridiculous. --Connel MacKenzie 22:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't seem to fit under "Noun," "Interjection," or "Abbreviation", which are the three POS headers currently in place at o#English. Visviva 06:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my annoyance and need to vent was directed specifically at the claim that the discussion was closed incorrectly, when the lack of consensus or resolution was so painfully apparent. I don't really object to a relist, if it can result in more constructive discussion this time around.

In terms of original research, I did cite a specific source for labeling it an "interfix", i.e. Trask, and there are many other scholarly works using similar terminology. This discussion of whether other word-parts function as interfixes (comparing them to in passing to the accepted interfix -o-) was particularly interesting. That said, and although I'm pretty sure the term was used in some of my intro readings for my master's (which was the last time I actually studied this stuff), I can't argue that this term has seen much uptake outside the rather insular world of English morphology. This makes it less than optimal for our purposes.

I would be happy to use ===Affix=== as the POS header, although I'm pretty sure someone will go into conniptions over that too. In any case, it would certainly be best to have the entry link to an appendix -- Appendix:English word formation or whatever -- in which English affixation rules can be discussed in well-referenced detail. -- Visviva 05:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in some form or other, per Visviva, other editors, and common sense. —Ruakh_TALK 05:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, Visviva. I concede that both -i- and -o- are interfixes, rather than infixes. (With -fucking- and -bloody- being actual infixes, right?) Though I’d prefer an ===Interfix=== POS header, I’d also be fine with ===Affix===, if that were also applied to prefix, suffix, et cetera. Doing so would have the benefit (for Connel) of reducing the number of POS headers we use (as a ===Prefix===, ===Suffix===, ===Circumfix===, ===Confix===, ===Infix===, and ===Interfix=== are all ===Affixes===). BTW, as it seemed that this discussion would have the same effect on -i-, I moved its RfD section from hereinbefore to a subsection hereof. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd be O.K. with labeling this as "Affix", but prefixes and suffixes should be labeled as "Prefix" and "Suffix". The benefit of "Affix" over "Interfix" is that it's more widely understood; but "Prefix" and "Suffix" are definitely more widely understood than "Affix". —Ruakh_TALK 16:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. All good English dictionaries have it. I would be happy with either infix or affix, but I think interfix is too rare. —Stephen 10:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, after looking at the entry again, I would be happy with any of the three, infix, affix, or interfix. The interfix that is there now looks perfectly reasonable to me. —Stephen 10:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We could just link the ===Interfix=== header to the entry for interfix, like we do for obscure languages. † ^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr 13:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

-i-

--Connel MacKenzie 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it won't surprise you to hear that I think we should keep this in some form or another, provided convincing examples can be found of words so formed. —Ruakh_TALK 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do know that you and your buddy think it should be kept; but as for everyone else, I doubt it. It is a letter added to help form compound words (at least, that's the trivial excuse used for creating the ridiculous entry.) Obviously, it isn't used as an "infix" wherever one pleases, with special meaning (as "infix" seem to mean in other languages.) Rather, someone mistakenly entered "-i-" in an etymology, instead of "i." Error upon error upon error...brilliant. --Connel MacKenzie 08:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know how "ridiculous" it is. Both the Random House and the American Heritage have entries for -i-, saying that it’s a connector typically used to make Latin-based compounds, as -o- is used for Greek compounds. I don’t see the errors either. It just needs to have the definition improved a little. —Stephen 10:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary [Eleventh Edition] also lists both -i- and -o-. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question: What are some examples of this in use? It's not hard to come up with neologisms made from -o- interfixation, like blogosphere and kissogram; but I can't think of a single one made from -i- intefixation. -- Visviva 10:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, French-i-fy, cune-i-form. —Stephen 10:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's as bogus as sense #2 under "-o-." Frenchify is French + -ify; I'm less sure about cuneiform, but it would be more parsimonious to treat it as cune- + -iform (cf. cuneate, cuneonavicular; coliform, fungiform). This thematic vowel may have functioned as an interfix in Latin, but it does not appear to do so in English. (That said, if a comparable scholarly consensus can be shown to exist here as in the case of -o-, I will happily abide by the judgment of the learned). -- Visviva 16:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but -ify and -iform are formed from -i- + -fy and -i- + -form, respectively (granted, with lots and lots of reïnforcement from existing words which end in -ify and -iform). † ^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr 18:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. According to our entry for -ify, it's from the French (perh Old French?) -ifier ... which, it appears, derives in turn from the Latin -ificare. Similarly -iform is -- if I'm not mistaken -- from the NL -iformus (a, um). Of course, we can tie ourselves in knots trying to decide at what point such borrowed constructions cease to represent English word-formation rules; but the thing is, while -o- and perhaps -a- can be documented as in productive use for neologisms, I can't think of any case were -i- is used in this way. Thus claiming -i- as an English interfix seems problematic. -- Visviva 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I’d like that etymology to be referenced, if it is correct. The COED [11^th Ed.] gives the etymology for -form as:

• from French -forme, from Latin -formis, from -forma ‘form’.

Also worth noting is that it gives as the headword:

• -form  (usually as -iform)

For me, it’s very clear that -i- is an interfix. In the same way that hypernym and genealogy show the existence of -o-, words like coryneform show the existence of -i-. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made a bit of a mistake there. I lost my functional Latin skills a couple thousand years ago (eternal life is such a drag). The suffix was of course -iformis, the counterpart to -formis for cases where the root lacked a suitable final vowel. I don't have access to an OED over here, but -iformis is credited in MW and others as the root of the English -iform (via Middle French). So it seems from here that -iform and -ify are not cases of English interfixation, but are simply pre-interfixed forms brought over from Latin. I'm not sure about your examples -- "hypernym" is certainly a revealing error, but -logy in genealogy is a legitimate suffix, as is -form in coryneform. -- Visviva 11:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Both -i- and -o- are interconsonantal interfixes — which is why they do not occur in coryneform and genealogy ; hypernym was misformed under the assumption that the various -onyms were formed thus: “[prefix] + -o- + -nym”, whereas the -o- in -onym is not an interfix, but rather a part of the suffix. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Right... I thought you meant that "coryneform" and "genealogy" were misformations like "hypernym." (FTR, our genealogy entry indicates the word traces back to classical Greek, so it should come as no surprise that it is properly formed.) Can you show a case similar to "hypernym", where an "i" has been inappropriately dropped because it was mistaken for an interfix? -- Visviva 12:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that hypernym is evidence of -o-; rather, I'd guess that it's evidence of hypo-. —Ruakh_TALK 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

rush

Approximately 10 redundant senses to be merged into one or two definitions. --Connel MacKenzie 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge senses 2, 3, and 4 into something like the first definition. But keep 8, (fraternities and sororities recruitment) I'd never heard of this and I'm sure I'm not the only one.--Dmol 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added RfD-sense to the noun-as-adjective sense that appears as a separate PoS. Or is there a policy to keep such items? I could see it if we had real quotes and, of course, if there were a distinct or surprising meaning. In this instance, the uncited quote is "rush job." DCDuring 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep 'em all. Some could be generalized a bit to include more meanings. There are even missing senses IMHO. DCDuring 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

killer

Merge redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Could all be combined into "A person, animal, or thing that kills".--Dmol 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a complete merger. There is something very different meant between "That man is a killer." and "That test is a killer." The second sense is purely figurate, and means "difficult thing", not "thing causing death." --EncycloPetey 15:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops, forgot to say I had merged the ones in question. DAVilla 13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they had all been merged. I re-separated out the sense I mention above. --EncycloPetey 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't many uses just be treated as "A person, animal, thing, or process that causes the figurative death of something" to make clear where in the definition the figurativeness might apply? DCDuring 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

offset

In computing the 4th definition (building on something else) is completely wrong. At best, it is completely redundant (exactly) with definition #2. (NB: Definition #1 is currently RFV'ed.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to be too general, I think. I've replaced it with a specific programming def. DAVilla 05:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

talamh

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=talamh&diff=next&oldid=2217350. Wow. Did that just from memory? --Connel MacKenzie 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Source appears to be in the public domain, having been published in 1911 [12]. Something's odd about that typography, though. -- Visviva 10:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

status

Redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The second sense is not redundant. Sense (1) is station or standing, whether high or low. Sense (2) is specifically high standing or status, which is a different meaning. However, you may be correct about sense (4). --EncycloPetey 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to delete any legal definitions, even if they seem redundant. DAVilla 13:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep sense 2 per EncycloPetey. In re sense 4, note that Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed., 1447) provides a similar though more detailed definition ("the sum total of a person's ... legal relations"), followed by three more restricted senses (viz. personal rights only, capacities/incapacities only, non-consensual legal status only). So I'm inclined to say we should keep sense 4 as well, and possibly extend the entry further. -- Visviva 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

where the fuck

Also what the fuck, when the fuck, how the fuck, who the fuck, why the fuck. Plain old SOP: where + the fuck, etc.—msh210℠ 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that we had this discussion before, and could not agree on deleting any of these. In particular, "what the fuck" has multiple meanings, one being an intensified form of "what" and another being a sort of "hey, why not"; and "who the fuck" similarly can be an intensified form of "who" or (in a sentence like "who the fuck are you") can mean "who do you think you are to be putting on such airs"? Keep those two, at least. bd2412 T 04:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see that as a usage note under the phrase who are you? or on the page for f*ck. Other intensifiers work in that same position with the same meaning: "Who the hell are you?" "Who the devil are you?" "Who the Sam Hill are you?" though they are not quite as common. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Who the hell" may have the same connotation, but I think "who the devil" or "who the Sam Hill" are only used in the sense of an intensifier for an actual inquiry into a persons identity, whereas "who the fuck [are you] [do you think you are] [does he/she think he/she is]" is about what has possessed the subject to think they can get away with doing whatever it is they're doing. bd2412 T 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Who the devil do you think you are?" gets a respectable number of b.g.c. hits. -- Visviva 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if I just say "who the fuck are you?" it can carry the same connotation as "who the fuck [or the devil] do you think you are?" If I say "who the devil are you?" it will only be understood to mean "who the devil are you?". bd2412 T 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should redirect to the fuck? —Ruakh_TALK 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That gets my vote. In the relatively unlikely event that someone might need to look one of these phrases up, it would be because they had failed to grasp the intensifying role of "the fuck." -- Visviva 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.—msh210℠ 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Me three. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we just talking about where the fuck, or about all of them? bd2412 T 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all the ones that are simply using the fuck as a vulgar intensifier. If what the fuck can be verified to have the sense you describe above, then it would be a distinct idiom in its own right, and wouldn't be a redirect. —Ruakh_TALK 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects aren't always the best to have, but this seems harmless enough. What and who definitely deserve entries, per BD. Do we need to point out that whom the fuck is sarcastic? DAVilla 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Verified? As in:

1960, Carlos Fuentes, Where the Air is Clear: A Novel, p. 149:

• Even dogs know the neighborhood better than you do, so what the fuck, you just follow.

1972, R. Serge Denisoff, the sounds of social change, p. 255:

• But what the fuck, let's face it. I want to live good. I want to make some money; I want a car, you know. How long can you fight it?

1973, Chandler Brossard, Did Christ Make Love?: A Novel, p. 36:

• One of the boys on the street—-the immutable, time-stopped leaners in doorways, standers on the street with hands on hips or in pockets, gazers, like hidden ghost figures, after walking girls—-had told him what a pushover queers were, so he thought, what the fuck, why not; partly because at the time he had no choice, unless he wanted to eat out of garbage cans and sleep in the back seat of parked cars...

1991, Randy Wayne White, Sanibel Flats, p. 47:

• My master's was In world history, but I figured what the fuck, why not shoot for enlightenment?

1991, Mary Robison, Subtraction, p. 100:

• The kid thought the Atlantic was like a freeway - chancy, but, what the fuck, let's go.

1995, Martin Huxley, Aerosmith: The Fall and the Rise of Rock's Greatest Band:

• I figured, What the fuck, let's go back to the kids again.

1997, Donald Goines, Daddy Cool, p. 115:

• So what the fuck, let's act like real painters.”

2001, Brian Thacker, Rule No.5: No Sex on the Bus: Confessions of a Tour Leader, p. 91:

• At the ripe old age of 78, he thought, What the fuck? I'll take up skiing.

2001, Rene Guenon, The Symbolism of the Cross, p. 116:

• Well, what the fuck. Let's go for a little ride.

2003, Erin Runions, How Hysterical: Identification and Resistance in the Bible and Film, p. 141:

• And whatever, if you just happen to get a little blow job out of it, hey, what the fuck, why not?

2004, Michael Turner, The Pornographer's Poem, p. 79:

• Fortunately John sensed our discomfort, because he quickly turned to Penny and said, “Aw, what the fuck — let's just make it a foursome.” And Penny agreed.

2006, James Hunt, Into This House We're Born p. 128:

• Like Jim said, it'll probably be our last gig anyway, so what the fuck? Let's go out with a bang!"

Cheers! bd2412 T 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, bd2412. Can we agree to keep "what..."? I don't know about "who..."; and the others, as I've stated above, imo we can convert to redirects.—msh210℠ 22:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's definitely keep "what...". Not entirely convinced about "who...", but might as well keep it, I guess. -- Visviva 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

make right

SOP? This is covered in the definition of right. It can also be included in the appendix Collocations of do, have, make, and take. Algrif 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination, and include, also per nomination, in DoHaveMakeTake or whatever it's called.—msh210℠ 18:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this has a very restricted meaning (relative to all of the plausible sense combinations). I mean, it doesn't mean "make correct," or even "make proper"; in fact I wouldn't have said that "right" normally has the sense "rectified/ameliorated/atoned-for" at all. So I'm not convinced this is a strict sum of parts. -- Visviva 13:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, keep. DAVilla 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

serendipity

Redundant (indistinct) senses. --Connel MacKenzie 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I would say so. DAVilla 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I can't see any difference among the three definitions we currently have. --EncycloPetey 05:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that senses 1 and 2 equivalent, but note that sense 3 is not uncountable. I'm not sure how to format where one sense is countable and the other isn't 87.114.156.2 15:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

whatever it takes

The author has categorized it as an idiom, but I'm not sure it requires an entry. Kappa 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty common set-phrase; leaning towards 'keep.' --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If this weren't a set phrase, you'd expect it to mostly interchangeable with "whatever it may take" and "whatever it might take". —Ruakh_TALK 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The definition seems to define it as a sentence all of its own.

Are you proposing we kidnap the ambassador?

Whatever it takes.

DAVilla 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"whatever it takes" is a noun phrase. The PoS line says "phrase", should say "noun". The definition is a clause that includes "whatever it takes". Needs work. DCDuring 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep as set phrase. I have made it two PoSs: Noun and Interjection (an affirmative). I'll check to make sure that interjection is right. I included DAVilla's made-up quote as an example. DCDuring 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

wit

Numerous redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree, but don't see how sense 5 is the same as any of the others. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the definition of #5, I'm tempted to agree. It could use an actual example though, instead of the def #3 example given for it (which threw me off.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this one?

• 1849 — Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

  If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations.

This sense certainly has nothing to do with sanity or ability to think. --EncycloPetey 05:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The first 4 senses are certainly similar. The problem is that 1 is now only plural, and 2 and 4 (which are the easiest to merge) sound more archaic than 3. 5 and 6 are, I think, definitely separate. Btw Connel, there is nothing rare or colloquial about sense 6, at least in the UK. Widsith 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

point at

SOP, not idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a phrasal verb. Consider: "Which career will you point him at?" When the "preposition" and complement of the "preposition" can be inverted like this, there may be a phrasal verb at work. In this particular case, though, I'd like other opinions, since the trait is not universal for phrasal verbs. --EncycloPetey 15:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you might be misparsing that sentence. I think it's "{Which career}_i will you point him_j at ____i?"; as in, I think what we're seeing is normal Wh-movement with P-stranding, rather than a phrasal verb with a noun complement preceding the particle. —Ruakh_TALK 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. It's early and somehting just didn't seem right to me. You've sorted it out though. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite idiomatic, but a set phrase. I imagine many translations will use transitive verbs with no preposition, so it is useful from that point of view. Widsith 16:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Much as I support phrasal verbs wherever I can, I have to admit that this seems to be SOP. Phrasal verbs are a lot clearer when the particle is adverbial. In this case, the above example could also be "... point him to or towards. It seems to be a preposition of movement / direction. I cannot find any other dictionary giving point at as a phrasal verb either. Algrif 16:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also the fact that the above example cannot be rephrased using a long noun phrase to replace the pronoun "him" leaving "point" followed immediately by "at" would seem to demonstrate that "point at" is not a phrasal verb. (I am aware that this test is not conclusive, BTW.) Algrif 11:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a phrasal verb. Delete and exemplify at point. DAVilla 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I would be fine with that. But I don't see the consistency, given such entries as look at. Widsith 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've rfd'd that too. Algrif 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced on this discussion that point at is not idiomatic, and reverse my opinion to agree we should delete it. However, this entry is not analogous to look at, as I've noted below. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

execution

Redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 11:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"The act or process of executing" is incredibly broad. I'm having a hard time coming up with example sentences for these (a state? a manner or style? a formal process?) but the word is similarly defined in other dictionaries. DAVilla 17:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'don't understand why we let so much shite through on RfV but then delete older sense of words! Surely they can be marked as obsolete, dated etc..?--Williamsayers79 11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The two marked senses seem legit to me. The legal sense is also given in Black's (along with several others we don't have), and pertains to a very specific legal act. The "manner or style" sense pertains to phrases like "great execution" or "poor execution" which would make almost no sense under sense 1. So I'd have to say keep both. -- Visviva 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the first definition is too specific (manouvers or performances) when 'execution' can refer to any act and there is no real difference in meaning for the specified cases. I've slightly modified the first definition and added an example.

Also agree that the legal sense is valid. 87.114.156.2 15:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

season finale

Sum of parts, not idiomatic, completely compositional. --Connel MacKenzie 11:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This term is not used in the UK. --EncycloPetey 15:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete If you know what sense of season is being discussed, the term seems unambiguosly SoP. DCDuring 01:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as non-compositional (at least dubiously compositional). Finale, as currently defined, does not mean "final episode" or "final show"; rather, it means the dramatic end of a performance. Thus as SOP "season finale" ought to refer to the end of the season, which could be just part of the final episode or could be a story-line spread over multiple episodes. But as actually used, this term has a much more precise meaning. -- Visviva 06:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that meaning actually in the definition that we have? The definition just looks like a discussion of who has the most to gain from combining the words in the absolutely to-be-expected way. DCDuring 11:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's defined as "final episode of a season." Since finale is not currently defined as "final episode," this does not appear to be sum of parts. -- Visviva 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Visviva 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC). Keep (and "series finale").—msh210℠ 17:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because you have to know which of the many senses of season is being dicussed for this to make sense. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I had no idea what it meant until I looked it up. I thought it was sports related.--Dmol 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

series finale

ibid. --Connel MacKenzie 11:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Set phrase with a different meaning in the UK. In the UK, this means what Americans would call a "season finale", because a UK series only runs for a year (season). --EncycloPetey 15:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This seems more clearly compositional than "season finale", which uses a sense of "season" not even in Wiktionary (something like "a season's worth of performances"). "Series finale" is not limited in meaning to performing arts or broadcasting and does not seem ambiguous, as "season finale" would be even to someone who knew the rules of construction for English phrases. DCDuring 14:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of the difference between the meaning of this term (as used in broadcasting) in the UK and in the US? In the UK, a series finale is a program that concludes the run of programs for a single year or at the end of a single production run lasting less than a year. A UK television program can therefore have a series finale each year. In the US, a series finale concludes the entire length of a program's run. So, an American program has only one series finale, even if it has run for seven years, because the series finale closes the entire run only. This means the term deserves an entry, since there is a significant difference in usage depending upon a major geographic region. --EncycloPetey 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's just because a UK "series" is a US "season". By your approach, we'd have an entry for "my pants are green" because it means something different in the UK as in the US. —Ruakh_TALK 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It just means that this and the above rfd should be considered in the same way (keep or delete). If there was an entry for "my pants are green", it would need two definitions within the page and a second entry for "my trousers are green" (which, rather asymetrically would not need two definitions). 87.114.156.2 08:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopetey: Are you saying that a UK speaker would have to specify which kind of finale he was talking about to be understood by someone in either the UK or the US? There would seem to be a difference in the way the word "series" is used (possibly requiring different senses of that word in a performing arts glossary) rather than a justification for including a compositional term, which would also need UK and US senses. Or am I missing something? DCDuring 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got most of my argument. The term series is used differently in the US and UK when talking about television programs (or programmes), for example. Take a look at what WP has had to do in the introductory paragraph of their article w:Series finale.

Further, the construction series finale is a set phrase in the US, and deserves an entry both for that reason and because it has two very different meanings whose usage consistently differs between the US and UK. The US sense also has UK synonyms that are not predictable from the inividual parts. You couldn't possibly know from looking at the antry for series that the US phrase series finale is given in the UK as final episode. (which in turn does not merit an entry because it does not seem to be a set phrase in the UK, though I may be mistaken.) --EncycloPetey 12:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as above. I've been thinking about this, and bottom line, I don't think we serve any useful purpose at this point by demanding a clear showing of idiomaticity from all polywords. This is particularly the case since we not yet achieved any general consensus on which types of phrases are idiomatic and which are not. Thus the results of RFDs for these phrases tend to be capricious and inconsistent, which is a terrible disservice to contributors. IMO a plausible claim of idiomaticity within the entry should generally be sufficient to stave off deletion. -- Visviva 06:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting complete abandonment of any SoP criterion? If not what you observe would seem to warrant some consensus-building on decision criteria for phrases. I would expect that it would be a salutary exercise. Also, I have observed that parsing the compositional meanings of these phrases points out missing senses of the component words, remedying what seems a deficiency in Wikipedia. This general discussion doesn't really belong on this page. I will open a Beer Parlor topic, for anyone interested. DCDuring 11:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussing it in the Beer Parlour is a good idea. I just wish to point out though, that sum-of-parts by itself has never been a valid reason for deletion. It has been a good indication that something might not be OK. Usually, general consensus emerges pretty quickly, one way or the other (as it did here.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as listed in entry above.--Dmol 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

poke

Redundant sense. Was it entered only because of the derived term poker (a fireplace poker)? While it obviously isn't a separate sense now, it is unclear if it ever was. If so, that belongs in the Etymology, not entered as a redundant definition. Right? --Connel MacKenzie 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not the root sense, and not meaningfully distinct; ergo, remove. (this does turn up in Webster's New World, probably others as well; but not in any way that suggests a meaningfully independent sense.)-- Visviva 13:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd keep. I don't use a pointed stick or finger to stir up our fire. I use a riddle stick which is not pointed. Translations and synonyms will be different.--Dmol 17:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

run up the score

--Connel MacKenzie 08:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems more precise than would be predicted from run up + the score; this is not simply an accumulation of points but an unsporting accumulation of points by the winning side. At least that sense (which is the one given) is the only one present in the first page of b.g.c. hits. While the losing side might engage in similar behavior, scoring as many points as possible even when all hope is lost, it appears that this wouldn't be called "running up the score." Therefore this seems to pass the fried egg test. -- Visviva 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, what only the winning side can do. Keep. DAVilla 12:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to run up the score of keep votes here. bd2412 T 20:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Also used figuratively in non-sports contexts. DCDuring 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

look at

SOP? See discussion above point at. Algrif 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• In both cases, the at preposition definition 1. and / or 3. is being invoked. Algrif 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But "look at it" doesn't just mean "look in its direction," it means "look at it." I would have to agree with whoever added the translations that this has a sense that is distinct from "look" in isolation. (Our look entry does not contain an "observe" sense; should it?) -- Visviva 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction. All you've done is put the word in italics. Widsith 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my dialect, that would heighten the "perceive/observe/pay attention" meaning at the expense of the "glance/gaze" meaning. As in:

A: "Look at this."

B: "Uh huh, I see it." (stares blankly)

A: "No, no, you're not looking at it."

MIght just be me, though... In any case, I don't see how any current definition of "look" is sufficient to explain sentences like this one in Death Work [13]: "You're not looking at a bloody body like, 'Oh my God, it's a dead body.' You're looking at the whole scene." Here look at seems clearly to mean "perceive," if not even "interpret." -- Visviva 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But none of that seems outside the remit of look, sense 1: "pay attention to with the eyes" (not a very well-written definition, but still...). By the way, I do not deny the value of having this page at all, I'm just saying that it's really not a different case from point at. Widsith 14:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... good point. -- Visviva 14:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a terrific quote juxtaposing one use which is arguably compositional with one which clearly is not:

• 1999, Huseyin Tanriverdi and C. Suzanne Iacono, "Toy or Useful Technology: The Challenge of Diffusing Telemedicine in Three Boston Hospitals", in Success and Pitfalls of Information Technology Management [14], ISBN 187828956X, page 10:

  The surgeon reported, "I look at this as really an incredible way to interview patients, look at their films, talk things over with them."

Here too I think we can look at the non-compositional meaning as equivalent to "perceive" or "interpret." -- Visviva 14:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a phrasal verb. Delete. DAVilla 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It is just a verb that needs a particular preposition. It is simply grammar. Just like talk and listen need to. Algrif 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but listen does not require the preposition to. Consider "He was listening for an answer." or "The child would not listen." Likewise, talk does not require the preposition to, since you can talk through, talk over, and talk into. --EncycloPetey 04:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how the use of the phrase in quotes like the one above ("look at [something] as ...") derives grammatically from look + at? -- Visviva 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'll show you: that's a sense shared by view and perceive. The only difference is that here look is intransitive, hence the preposition. Do you think of this as a compelling response? DAVilla 09:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Look at" has a meaning somewhat separate from "look" when preceded by "have a" or "take a". It then means to examine or re-examine something by any means - not even necessarily including vision. The page under discussion here, though, does not seem to be necessary. 87.114.156.2 16:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Your example is using look as a noun. So have or take a look will be different from to look. And even so, have a look is also followed by a preposition, usually at. Algrif 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I would have voted to delete based on the current definitions, but there's a good point make above that look at means "to perceive from a particular point of view". That's not a sense that's carried by either of the component words. So, however we look at the issue, this isn't a simple sum of parts. The entry should be kept, but the idiomatic definition should be added. I could be convinced otherwise, but I'd need to see additional uses of look (with another preposition, or without a preposition) that carry this same sense. --EncycloPetey 04:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

google:"look on this as". —Ruakh_TALK 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, per current BP discussion: we might as well include accurate entries about only-arguably-SOP phrases. —Ruakh_TALK 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, also per "to perceive from a particular point of view".

But that apart look and point can be followed by not only at but also:- near, next to, by, around, round, over, under, through, away from, etc without changing the meaning of the verb. Although some of these do have phrasal / idiomatic meanings and so deserve an entry, it is important to distinguish. (Which is what I was trying to point out when I said listen needs to, BTW Petey. We are, in fact, in agreement on this.) Algrif 10:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

GCI

Page is just a company page. — This comment was unsigned.

Corrected wikipedia link to point to the GCI page instead of the Gannett Company page. 68.34.46.43 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

GSK

Just a company on this page. — This comment was unsigned.

Added 2 initialism to page 68.34.46.43 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

IPIC

Just a company on this page. — This comment was unsigned.

Added 2 initialism to page 68.34.46.43 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Pepsi

This page is only about the company Pepsi, and should be deleted. 195.189.142.165 03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this entry doesn't even have a definition line for the company; it discusses only the soft drink. —Ruakh_TALK 03:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the complaint as enumerated above is incorrect, this still seems a bad entry. If someone says they are going to have a Pepsi, they generally mean they are going to drink that specific brand, rather than is the case if they say they are going to have a coke. If Pepsi is allowed, then why not every brand of food and drink ("I'm going to have a Virgin")? Unless citations are provided that clearly show 'pepsi' used as a generic term (and even then it should not be capitalised), surely delete? 87.114.156.2 12:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Product names are to be allowed if they have entered the lexicon. RFV the brand name if you want it stamped in triplicate, but it's pretty obvious this term can pass. See this recent vote. DAVilla 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. I'd like to argue with that, but it appears I'm too late. House 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as brand names being included on the whole, and Pepsi being a pretty basic one, there has been a consistently demonstrable level of support (even outside of the Wiktionary-sanctioned taste tests). The new criteria were meant to keep from fighting these battles that keep springing up on this page. So like everything else, yes, you're joining an ages-long epic (the Iliad has nothing on us), and while no, it's never too late for more input, most members of the community have already formed an opinion on this, one that's not carved in stone (the tooling takes another vote to commission) nor tattooed on anyone's body (at least not anywhere visible). DAVilla 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree incorrect, but icon - "Wikipedia has an article on: Pepsi" is the company page on wikipedia, and Synonyms links to another page Pepsi-Cola (a company name) that is linking to the Pepsi company redirect wikipeda page. recommend delete? The Coke wiktionary page is a little better it points to wikipeda, but is a disambiguation list of other pages, much better than Pepsi, but the Coca-Cola page points to a company page. I don't think we want to start a precedence to have other companies list company products in a dictionary. 24.126.80.3 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference between "I'm going to have a Virgin" and "I'm going have a Pepsi"; is that one is a meaningful without context and the other isn't, at least in my lexicon. Kappa 06:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sony

Page just about a company. 68.34.46.43 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not used in any generic way that I can think of.--Dmol 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I have a walkman and a diskman, but not a "sony." --Connel MacKenzie 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"a Sony" does get some legitimate Google Book hits where "Walkman" etc. are unnecessary since the discussion makes it clear what the type of product is. On the other hand, if the type of product is clear from the discussion, then it doesn't pass the brand names criteria, so it would take some extraordinarily exceptional exceptions for this to fly. DAVilla 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

ecotarian

Neologism? sewnmouthsecret 21:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The word has two b.g.c. hits (well, three, but one's a scanno for "sectarian"); I don't think it should be deleted before investigating whether it's sufficiently attested for CFI purposes. —Ruakh_TALK 23:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved to RFV, and did not remove the entry here. Anyway, I agree. sewnmouthsecret 13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:User language subcategory

No longer needed, subsumed by {{User lang subcat}} (which is better coded as well). Urhixidur 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates and such should be listed at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. This page is for dictionary entries only. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

shotgun

Adjective should really be an attributive noun. DAVilla 03:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you are going to allow something as an adjective just because you can prepend it to one of its components or something that it consumes or uses, then most concrete nouns and a lot of abstract ones would qualify. The only real adjectival sense I can think of: "shotgun wedding" is handled seperately.House 22:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For the particular pre-existing sense though, I think I would agree. . We have shotgun wedding as a standard collocation, but the molecular biology meaning of "shotgun" techniques has nothing to do with an actual shotgun. Rather, it refers to techniques done broadly and seemingly without focus, in the hopes of stumbling across a useful result. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Courts regularly use the phrase shotgun pleading to refer to a disorderly complaint or answer that throws in a bunch of facts and hopes to describe a cause of action thereby. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a missing adjectival sense, which would arguably include the biological sense and the above-suggested legal sense? to wit: "shotgun" as synonym for scattershot. "Shotgun shell" seems like SoP, "shotgun marriage" is an idiom, but "shotgun pleading" and taking a "shotgun approach" (e.g., to research) are examples of the kind of usage that should be included. The sense in which the word "shotgun" provides meaning in these phrases is not obvious to individual who hasn't seen one used, at least in a movie (Are there such?). DCDuring 18:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What about "shotgun", as in "shotgun seat" and the adverbial usage "to ride shotgun" (Or are they both idioms?) I think that there are enough figurative senses in which the word "shotgun" modifies a noun, at least in US English, that they could bear explanation. To wit, having to do with someone bearing a shotgun (shotgun seat, ride shotgun), having to do with coercion (shotgun wedding, divorce, sale), the scattering of effort (shotgun pleading, shotgun approach). The RfV'd sense would be useful as a catch-all first sense for any senses that users may invent. DCDuring 19:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep as catch-all for residual diverse senses (in US English). I'd agree with move to RfV for cites. DCDuring 20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have RfD'd the biology sense, because one of the two adjectival senses I added would include it. If it would be better to hold off on the second RfD-sense, until the first clears, please let me know. DCDuring 20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FNC

--Connel MacKenzie 10:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Initialism. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Initialism--Dmol 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete or RFV. I don't think we should include initialisms unless they are used without explanation. DAVilla 03:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Incubator

Not a dictionary word. Very nearly SPAM ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

delete - I'm sure I would have infered this from its parts. --Williamsayers79 10:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this listed here and not on RFC? Tag with {{wjargon}} and keep (unless you have some magical way of verifying that all other WMF sites don't link to it.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Widsith 10:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The expression is used and it's in no way merely SOP. Most importantly it is a word that people are likely to look up (I had to click on it to find out what it meant). Moglex 11:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This does not meet the CFI (which, note, do not specify an exception for Wikimedia jargon). I think that including this sort of term makes us seem very unprofessional and self-aggrandizing. If some other WMF site links to our entry, editors there can remove the link. —Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep and verify on RFV, which will, I suspect, cause it to be deleted. Not an SOP, though, imo.—msh210℠ 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RfV seems procedurally correct if there is not consensus to delete. DCDuring 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per User:Ruakh - we shouldn't make exceptions for WMF projects. --Keene 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

everyone else

Sum of parts, not idiomatic, not sure if it actually even is a set phrase, or just (compositionally) common. --Connel MacKenzie 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Else is a strange word; in my dialect at least, it can generally only be used after a fairly small set of words (some-, any-, no-, and every- with -one, -body, -thing, and -where; who(m), what, and where; and or), though I'll grant that in some forms of the language it has additional uses ("else" as its own conjunction meaning "or"; "somehow else" = "in some other way"; etc.). This is definitely fodder for a usage note at else, and may also be a reason to have entries for all these collocations. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think ~21 entries is a huge deal. —Ruakh_TALK 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to make all those entries. I just don't know how else we'll get entries of high quality. On second thought, maybe YOU don't have to. But, however else it gets done, you ought to check it. IOW, you missed one. DCDuring 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good call; I also missed a few others I can think of now. So, I'm not sure. "Else" is a very strangely limited word, but once you know how it's used, you can understand any use of it, even if a non-native speaker would have difficulty determining whether a given use were grammatical. —Ruakh_TALK 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever else we decide, we should place this information somewhere, probably at else. Why else would we have the "Usage notes" section? --EncycloPetey 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind it being put elsewhere (such as at else#Usage notes.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My friend Else agrees with you. Moglex 08:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to else, with usage note at the latter.—msh210℠ 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Modest keep. There is so much which can't be written with "usage notes" at the else entry. One meaning of everyone else is e.g. synonymous with "the rest", and how else could we add translations? I personally think we should keep it. --BiT 15:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Best place for all this is at else, with plenty of good illustrative citations to show usage. Widsith 10:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. "However else" etc. aren't as good a case as how else or why else. DAVilla 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It isn't clear (although it may seem clear to the natives) which meaning of everybody and which meaning of else apply. not clear for the non-natives. It isn't clear (although it may seem clear to the natives) which meaning of everybody and which meaning of else apply. not clear for the non-natives. --Keene 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

senior theater

Removed speedy, added discussion tag. --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are a few hits with this sort of meaning (theatrical presentations by senior citizens). I don't like the plural though. (and it is most definitely US only). SemperBlotto 21:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For seniors or by seniors? Keep or RFV. DAVilla 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

macrencephalic

Attributed to W's 1913, but seems instead to be a copyvio. --Connel MacKenzie 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

macrencephalous

ibid --Connel MacKenzie 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

macrodactylic

Again, pointing (falsely) to the same ref. --Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem

I marked this RFV-passed because it appears in a well-known work (Horace's Odes), but it is sum-of-parts. (Personally, I do think we should include it — it's widely quoted — but wanted to make sure other editors agree.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. —Stephen 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it - it is in the nature of a proverb. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

187

procedural note: if this ends up being deleted, please remove link at w:187 (murder) Robert Ullmann 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

187 (Police code)

Should we include police radio codes in a dictionary? I don't think so, but others may disagree. Doubtful it has entered regular language usage. Also, don't these codes vary between different jurisdictions.--Dmol 13:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete In the US, they should differ by state. Are there many of these? DCDuring 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Hmmm. Maybe this one is a keeper: for "187 in progress", 4 apparent (3 confirmable) crime-novel hits on b.g.c. 3 additional b.g.c. hits for "subject:fiction" "a 187" "radio". Also some rap-music lament: "My love is a 187." Are there other grounds for deletion? If not I'm willing to attest this one. DCDuring 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Here is a list of cites from b.g.c. There are more; but hopefully this should be enough.

1) Gang Cop: The Words and Ways of Officer Paco Domingo - Page 131 by Malcolm W. Klein - Social Science - 2004 - 176 pages

Paco came across a wall that, in the large block letters of local Hispanic gang graffiti, spelled out “187 Domingo.” This was the ultimate threat for Paco ... [15]

2) Songs in the Key of Black Life: A Rhythm and Blues Nation - Page 164 by Mark Anthony Neal - Music - 2003 - 224 pages

... scrutiny as the recording "Cop Killer" was cited for advocating attacks on ... and Snoop Dogg blatantly rapped about doing "187 on an undercover cop" on ... [16]

3) Vertical Coffin - Page 256 by Stephen J. Cannell - Fiction - 2004 - 400 pages

Perp at this address is a possible One-eight-seven P. Request a unit respond Code Three." The RTO came back immediately and put out the call division-wide. ... [17]

4) Pray For Death - Page 21 by Cash Pawley

Respond to a one-eight-seven at nine-eight-six Cove Road North," the dispatcher continued in her heavy southern drawl. "10-4... En route. ... [18]

5) Ww III: Warshot - Page 148 by Ian Slater - Fiction - 1992

A code one-eight-seven on Jefferson one-four-eight-nine. Corner store—7-Eleven." A 187 was a homicide, Jefferson, the other side of town. ... [19] sewnmouthsecret 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, this one is looking good to pass CFI on the strength of the usage shown here, but I'm more concerned with the floodgates opening and someone dumping them all in here, regional variations and all. Will we stick with the same CFI rules, 3 archived cites for them.--Dmol 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The rules rule, but can change. Note that this code is for murder and is from the most populous US state, and one with a large entertainment industry, including writer population. I wouldn't expect too many of these and promise not to look for them. DCDuring 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the above five cites into entry. Pray for Death is a self-published novel. Does that matter for this purpose? DCDuring 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

last summer

No, no, no! This is not idiomatic. — Paul G 16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as sum of parts.--Dmol 18:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete; the idiom is in the word last, not in the combination. (last week, last spring, last Saturday, etc.) --EncycloPetey 18:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete if the translations could be generated from the two base translations. SemperBlotto 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to wait to establish this in all languages that are now or might be covered in Wiktionary? Why not delete until we find a language for which this phrase corresponds to a single word in that language. DCDuring 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• They can in Spanish. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Set phrase. —Stephen 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a set phrase: "this past summer" means the same thing. Last is simply being used in one of its many capacities, and can precede many other words in this position with this same sense. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What about last night? DAVilla 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep for translation purposes only. The Japanese word 昨夏 passes Semper's test, and I was translating this I would want someone to tell me if the translation of "this past summer" or of "summer of last year" is more natural in the target language. Kappa 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When 昨夏 gets an entry, it can certainly link to last summer (two words) as a translation, but it shouldn't link to last summer (single entry). The naturalness of translation will be affected by context and region in any case. --EncycloPetey 04:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

last night is also a standard phrase. The expected English would be the past night. Going in the other direction, last night sounds like it should mean "final night." Besides being idiomatic, it’s a set phrase. —Stephen 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You can also say last week, last month, last season, last decade, the last census, his last book, the last apple I ate, my last wife, the last time I did this, the last news I heard, the last glimpse I had, in the last column I wrote... I can go on. Are all of these idioms and set phrases too? Cynewulf 03:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Last month, yes, last year, yes, but not last season, last decade, last census, last book, last apple, last wife, last time, last news, last glimpse, or last column. The first two can reasonably be expected to appear in a good bilingual dictionary, either under "last" or as a separate entry (depending on the layout design), but experienced users would not expect to see entries for any of the others. —Stephen 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as sum of parts. An entry could be made in usage note for last + time and next + time, if anyone would like to do so. "Final night." would be the last night, the indicating uniqueness. Also consider The night before last, The summer after next. No, sorry. "Last" and "next" work like this with time nouns. They are not set phrases. Algrif 14:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, EP, Algrif. SOP.—msh210℠ 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, with major modifications (see below) Yes, I'm going back on my original thoughts, but this is following the discussion above.

Stephen, I agree that "last month" and "last year" might well be found in good bilingual dictionaries, but are given as examples of usage rather than as a set phrases. My Modern Greek dictionary gives "this Friday", "this morning" and "this afternoon" as examples, but these are given for grammatical reasons ("the" is used in these phrases instead of "this"). Note that monolingual dictionaries would not give these phrases, other than as examples, which shows that they are not set phrases.

In Modern Greek, "last year", "this year" and "next year" are (if I remember correctly) all translated by single phrases. For example, "this year" is φέτος rather than the literal "αυτός ο χρόνος" I don't know about Japanese. So there is a good case for keeping this entry solely to give the translations that cannot be deduced from the component words, with no implication of idiomaticity being made. The entries day after tomorrow and day before yesterday (discussed elsewhere) already exist for this purpose, and they say so explicitly.

However, with many (a few? lots of?) languages forming "last summer" regularly by simply translating "last" and "summer", would these translations belong in such an entry? — Paul G 07:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you observe a different definition of "set phrase" than I do. To translate "last census", a translator will look up last and census as individual words. In the case of last week, last month, last year, and last summer, no experienced translator would think of looking up the individual words (if for some reason he did not already know the translation)...he would first check under last to see if there were any entries for any of last week, last month, last year, or last summer, and, if not found there, he would look to see if there were an example given under the noun portion. There are only two considerations: whether to give one or more of them under last, or to give one or more a separate entry. Cheaper, more generalized dictionaries that are used by college students, for example, usually put one of them only as an example under last. The more expensive dictionaries that professional translators buy are more likely to include one or more as separate entries. In paper dictionaries, the main differences in the two layouts is that separate entries are much easier and faster to navigate, but fewer words and phrases can be treated. Putting only one of the phrases in as an example is much more difficult for the user to locate (and professional users with time constraints don’t like that), but it means that more words can be entered. In an Internet dictionary, there is no reason that I can think of not to have them all as separate entries. —Stephen 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Including an English entry solely because another language expresses the same idea in a single word is a silly notion. Latin lentulus means "rather slow"; quinquennium means "period of five years"; trabeatus means "dressed in robes of state". Are we therefore going to create English entries for all of these just because Latin expresses them in a single word? Spanish garulla means "loose grapes"; simultanear means "to do two things simultaneously". Do these get English entries solely because the translations are a single word? No! Down that road lies madness. --EncycloPetey 12:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete — but last is currently missing the relevant sense, and obviously that needs to be remedied. While we're at it, last also needs a usage note explaining when we say “the last” and when we say simply “last”. —Ruakh_TALK 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC) ← Never mind, I just remembered a previous suggestion, which I agree with, that we should keep debatably-SOP entries. I suppose this might fall into that category; so, weak keep. —Ruakh_TALK 03:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

face

Adjective sense: “Describing the good guy wrestler.” This is just attributive use of the slang wrestling noun sense, right? Rod (A. Smith) 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete. --EncycloPetey 14:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the rationale of deleting the adjectival senses of nouns-used-as-adjectives where no new meaning exists. How broadly do we apply this rule? I would expect our inclusionist tendency to favor keeping such senses in. To me the presence of the adjective PoS makes me look to see if there is new meaning and feel disappointed and even cheated if there isn't. DCDuring 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Slave Dynasty

Belongs in Wikipedia--Pilot 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, lots of book hits available.--Dmol 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep; historical period/empire. --EncycloPetey 14:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I lean towards keeping proper names like this. DAVilla 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

South Wales

south + Wales?--Pilot 05:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it refers to a specific, fairly well-defined region, in which case keep. —Ruakh_TALK 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As definitive as West Virginia or more like the Northeast? That would be a keep regardless. DAVilla 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, very common place name used in a great variety of literature and contexts. --Connel MacKenzie 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Name of a specific region and the basis of the name New South Wales in Australia.--Dmol 09:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

TI-83 Plus

a graphical calculator? This belongs in Wikipedia--Pilot 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. --EncycloPetey 14:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

TI-85 was popular. I doubt this one is worth including. (Ultimately should come down to citations, of course.) Maybe a note at TI? DAVilla 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

TV2

Belongs in Wikipedia, is just a TV channel --Pilot 05:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. So is HBO etc. DAVilla 03:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

TQS

As above, just a TV station --Pilot 05:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep; initialism. --EncycloPetey 14:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge

[The Knowledge]

Belongs in Wikipedia --Pilot 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 05:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, (weak keep anyway) . It is a specific test, well known in the UK by this name, but not obvious from its name.--Dmol 14:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems worth having. (Moved to Knowledge.) DAVilla 04:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. -24.136.234.162 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

Belongs in Wikipedia--Pilot 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. We have others.--Dmol 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't just be called the Independence Party. DAVilla 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, UK is part of its name--Dmol 17:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Underground Railroad

Wikipedia material--Pilot 05:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let Wikipedia have their copy, and we'll keep ours thanks. It's not mutually exclusive. Cynewulf 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, widespread historical usage, set phrase, idiomatic.--Dmol 13:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep; specific historical organization that users may want to look up, besides being an idiomatic combination. --EncycloPetey 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate: the underground railroad neither took place under the ground (generally), nor did it have iron rails and locomotives. Cynewulf 02:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Definite keep. DAVilla 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Uniform Code of Military Justice

Wikipedia material--Pilot 05:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

Belongs in Wikipedia --Pilot 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Tag with {{wjargon}}, perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

World Vegan Day

Wikipedia material --Pilot 05:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic, delete. DAVilla 02:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

a dolars tel

Volapuk noun supposedly meaning "at two dollars each" - is this idiomatic?--Pilot 05:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Over the Line

Belongs in Wikipedia --Pilot 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Two fiction, one sports citation in b.g.c., many San Diego newspaper mentions. DCDuring 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, not idiomatic. Deleted. bd2412 T 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Miss Emerson contest

Tosh --Pilot 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

With the recent wildfires in Southern California, many horses were temporarily kept on Fiesta Island. I heard a radio announcer make a remark about incorporating them into OTL, to which his cohort quipped that he thought bestiality was already a long-standing tradition there. Um, nevermind. Weak delete. --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no b.g.c. hits; 1 Groups hit; 2 SD newspaper hits DCDuring 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mini Thin

Belongs in Wikipeida--Pilot 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete How did this one remain undiscovered for 3 years? Is it possible to do searches for multi-word entries with caps for more than one word? DCDuring 21:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mid-Missouri

Wikipedia material?--Pilot 12:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, we have lots of other region names, such as New England and South Wales.--Dmol 14:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

'Keep well known(in Midwest) region.

Kleine My

little My has already been deleted --Pilot 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lower Swanwick

Seemingly a small village, belongs in Wikipedia--Pilot 12:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lufthansa

Purely an airline, belongs in Wikipedia--Pilot 12:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Major national airline. --Dmol 13:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, possibly RfV. I think it has a life of its own in movies and novels, esp. WW II vintage. DCDuring 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Either keep, or delete all airlines. We have at least SAS, Aer Lingus, Qantas, American Airlines, Finnair, Iberia, TWA. On the other hand, many important ones are missing: Alitalia, Swissair, Austrian Airlines, Varig, Aeroflot, British Airways, Air France, TAP, LOT. 06:54, 14 November 2007 Hekaheka.

Perhaps we could make a case for keeping in English Wiktionary the acronyms and names that are not obvious and unconfusing to English speakers, but have some currency in English. I would expect that implementing such a proposal would lead to dropping "American Airlines", omitting "British Airways", "Air France", and "Austrian Airlines". It would mean adding "LOT", "Aeroflot", "Alitalia", "Varig", "TAP" and keeping "SAS", "Qantas", "Iberia", and "TWA". I don't know about "Aer Lingus", "Swissair" and "Finnair". DCDuring 12:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise, TWA and SAS are in Wiktionary as initialisms. TAP and, LOT ought to be included on similar grounds. Formerly QANTAS would have made it. Varig, TAROM, Avianca, and others would make it as abbreviations. DCDuring 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an airline is not per se grounds for either inclusion or deletion, AFAIK. "Lufthansa" is used attributively to convey "airline", "german", "international airline", "german airline", and "nazi-controlled airline" (pre-WWII settings) in fiction. I have provided cites. If anyone would like to check, the 4 uses always convey meaning not previously available from the context, IMHO. If I've erred, I can try to find more. DCDuring 18:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have RfV-sense'd American Airlines, which also has a non-airline sense. Iberia does not have an airline sense. that leaves Finnair and Aer Lingus to be RfVd and cited or not. DCDuring 12:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

M4 Sherman

A tank. Wikipedia material --Pilot 12:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, but Sherman should mention the tank.--Dmol 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, now 5th sense in Sherman. DCDuring 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Madame Tussaud

Name of a person - potential scope for move to Madame Tussaud's --Pilot 12:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to Madame Tussaud's which is a major London attraction that is not obvious from its name.--Dmol 13:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Move, yes. Frequently encountered historical establishment that often apears oout of context. --EncycloPetey 14:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Move. A life of its own. DCDuring 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Marang htu sana maw sai i

Means "is it going to rain". Unless some evidence can be found that this has other meanings (maybe as a greeting), it has no place here - move to b:Wikibooks?--Pilot 12:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It’s a Category:Jingpho phrasebook entries. Fixes. —Stephen 13:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Match

Computer software, or Belgian supermarket --Pilot 12:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The translingual would have to be cited out-of-context with three quotations in each of I'd say at least three languages, so I've just marked it Dutch, if someone wants to try and verify that. (Good luck.) DAVilla 02:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheetos

Cheesy snack? Belongs in Wikipedia --Pilot 12:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non generic.--Dmol 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, I've heard this used attributely to describe color. --EncycloPetey 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Shift to RfV to confirm Encyclopetey's ear. DCDuring 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per amended CFI - widely used without context:

1. • 1980, Patricia Vernier, The California Factor, p. 41:

     Her stomach could survive any patchy appeasements, but she couldn't find the damn Cheetos anywhere in the kitchen.

   • 1982, Roger Rapoport, California Dreaming: The Political Odyssey of Pat & Jerry Brown, p.156:

     Or, they could follow the example set by their new boss, who crammed concise lists into pockets stocked with Cheetos munched in lieu of lunch.

   • 1991, Joseph T. Tobin, Dana H. Davidson, Preschool in Three Cultures: Japan, China and the United States, p. 161:

     You get fights over food, or the kids make trades, like they trade their whole sandwich for three Cheetos.

   • 2002, Rida Allen, The Legacy Tree, p. 4:

     Changing into her bathing suit, she promised her parents she would be careful, grabbed a bag of Cheetos and set off with Peanut toward the pier.

   • 2003, Bryna Siegel, Helping Children with Autism Learn, p. 209:

     If he says, "I want Cheetos," thank him for asking, and give him a few Cheetos.

   • 2005, Julia Slavin, Carnivore Diet, p. 211:

     He stealthily glided into the kitchen, looked at all the food, daintily picked up the bag of Cheetos and went to sit in the dining room.

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of them, but I think the three quotes from Preschool in Three Cultures, The Legacy Tree, and Screamfree Parenting are good, which would be enough to pass. DAVilla 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• RfD passed; struck. bd2412 T 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Qantas

Airline. Belongs in Wikipedia --Pilot 12:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep at least as an acronym, but just because it is an airline does not mean that it should be removed.--Dmol 13:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Unusual acronym etymology. DCDuring 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Skippy

Fictional kangaroo from a TV show? Not Wiktionary material --Pilot 12:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep but change to a generic or diminutive name for any kangaroo. Used by Paul Hogan in one of the Crocodile Dundee films. I have never heard the other def namely Nickname given to people of British origin by Australians, despite me being born in Australia myself. . Should this go to RFV .--Dmol 14:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Snowball

A brand of teacake? Not dictonary material--Pilot 12:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not generic. --Dmol 14:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, since snowball (lower case) has an entirley different meaning. --EncycloPetey 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand stated rationale for keep. Same argument should have applied to "Shredder" above. DCDuring 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that you can go to the store and buy a "Snowball" (generic noun), while Shredder (above) is a proper noun referring to specific entities. Thus, a reader might come across a sentence about "eating a sugary Snowball" and be curious enough to look it up. --EncycloPetey 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this generic only outside the US or is my insufficiency of connection to current US culture showing? DCDuring 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be dictionary material. It's not in my lexicon, but then WTF is a teacake? Should be RFV'd. DAVilla 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

a teacake is a small condiment eaten while drinking tea, in Anglo-English it is also called a cookie... Btw. I've added another SENSE with an external link to prove that this term does exist... So this is a definite keeper. --BigBadBen 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

delete - Just another brand name. --Keene 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Telford and Wrekin

English bourough

Just because its an English borough does not make it automatically a candidate for deletion. Also I believe the spelling is actually borough, and you need to sign you comments too!--Williamsayers79 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WUQSXGA

sewnmouthsecret 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems quite plausible, at least once you know how screen resolutions are named; unless there's something I'm missing, I think it warrants RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently, another of these display standards was rejected came up for RfD. I think it was something like PALplus. We could make a presumptive case for all of them or none of them in term of CFI and just make it an RfV matter for individual ones. At least they are not primarily trademarks, even though some or all of them may have trademark status. DCDuring 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular one is too new to have any Scholar or Books cites. Groups has 1-2 qualifying possiblities and 3-4 additional mentions. 20 or so others may well meet RfV if we deem them to otherwise meet CFI. I wouldn't spend time on them unless they were deemed CFI-worthy on all other grounds. DCDuring 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You-Know-Who

Nonce term used solely in Harry Potter books--Keene 14:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, all the translations of You-Know-Who should be deleted --Keene 14:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I've used the phrase as a noun, long before there was a Harry Potter. Maybe its American. Goldenrowley 06:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter stuff no, lowercase generic you-know-who yes. Cynewulf 06:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep; but rewrite the definition. Here is a 19th century literary citation:

• 1885 — Gilbert & Sullivan, The Mikado

  And 'St—'st—'st and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who—

  The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.

It's been in the English language for a long time. --EncycloPetey 06:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect the capped version. Keep the lowercase. bd2412 T 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect capped version. Keep lower case you-know-who. Does "You-Now-Who" merit a reference via a WP link or a Usage note in l.c. version ? DCDuring 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• sieppi
• seeker
• quidditch
• kvicken
• dunkare
• Voldemort
• metloboj
• tragač
• אתה־יודע־מי
• הוגוורטס
• Hogwarts
• מוגל
• Muggle
• mugglare
• Mudla
• מחפש
• קווידיץ׳
• metlobal

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

psychological egoism

Another theory-laden "definition" that might work in a single work, but is almost certainly not part of general speech. DCDuring 14:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

gross pay

Apart from the non-wiki format... should this be allowed as an entry, or is it SOP? Algrif 14:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think of gross as "before deductions", "net pay" being usually the same as "take-home pay". The definition given does not fit my sense. Every one of those concepts could use a general definition, IMHO. I'll clean it up a bit and add my sense, keeping the whole entry, not just the current sense, as RfV, for now. DCDuring 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. We just need a decision on whether it is gross + pay or not. Algrif 17:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep DCDuring's fixed version. It gets a lot of Google hits, and seems to be a set phrase with a fairly specific meaning (viz the one he put). I'm not certain it's not SOP, but Visviva has argued convincingly that with this specific criterion it's better to err on the side of inclusion. —Ruakh_TALK 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep on account of a second definition. DAVilla 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep because it's not disgusting. bd2412 T 19:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian reversal

This would have no complaints on WT:LOP#R, of course. But do we allow for trendy (humorous) terms like this in the main namespace? (Apologies if this should be on WT:RFV instead, for the political science and Russian grammar missing definitions. Please move it, if I goofed.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. If it were RFV'd, I believe it would pass, but just barely, and only on the strength of Google Groups hits. The phenomenon is real and warrants Wikipedia coverage (which it has), but this term for it is just barely real. Furthermore, the vast majority of instances of the word "Russian" followed by the word "reversal" are not in this sense, and while we've never to my knowledge discussed an orbit-clearing ("Classical Idiom") criterion for inclusion, this would certainly fail it if we did. —Ruakh_TALK 06:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's mentioned in different places, but it should be sent to RFV for cites of use. DAVilla 01:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, entry deletes YOU!! --193.77.238.223 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Muggle

The only reason I can think of this should be deleted is because of caps. Muggle is easily cited in b.g.c. and is used outside of Rowling's writings, as well as used without explicitly stating it is from the Potter novels. If muggle/Muggle is kept, which I suspect it will, should it be caps, lower, or both? Whatever is decided, I will cite both entries in their respective discussion pages to be added to the entry if and when kept. sewnmouthsecret 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On searching for cites, I found a few for "muggle", which didn't refer to the Harry Potter books and where it wasn't defined. Some were uses of the noun as adjective. I take it that "muggle" is coming into general use. I didn't yet find uses of "Muggle" like that, but there are vast numbers of uses. News would seem to be the right place to search. DCDuring 18:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not In Kansas Anymore: A Curious Tale of How Magic Is Transforming America - Page 194 by Christine Wicker - Body, Mind & Spirit - 2005 - 288 pages Every Time You Hear a Bell, a Muggle Has Turned Magical The magical and the muggle are separated by a river, wide and deep. I could see across, ...

English Words: Structure, History, Usage - Page 187 by Francis Katamba - Language Arts & Disciplines - 2005 - 322 pages A related snide term is muggle. This was originally a slang expression for marijuana. It was fading out of the language when it was given a new lease of life by J. K. Rowling in her Harry Potter magical children’s novels. In Harry Porter's world, a muggle is a non-magical person. By extension, muggle can be used by group members to refer to outsiders. ...

Australia and the European Superpower: Engaging with the European Union - Page 5 by Philomena Murray - European Union - 2005 Australia is a country that is an outsider, or a muggle, in the world of ... As a muggle, Australia lacks the support of an enchanted infrastructure and has ...

Sustainable Planet: Solutions for the Twenty-first Century - Page 11 by Juliet B. Schor, Betsy S. Taylor - Science - 2002 - 304 pages A Muggle would be a perfect target for the H2No campaign; a Muggle might even install remote-control operated light jazz-emanating stereo grilles in his ... sewnmouthsecret 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the finer points about quotes:

1. is already used for "muggle", doesn't quote "Muggle". ergo, no help for "Muggle", right?

Correct. I was placing all m/Muggle references in here until we figured out whether to keep it caps or lowercase.

1. is good reference material, but does it count for a use in English ?

To be determined...

1. is good for "muggle", but not "Muggle".

Correct.

1. is good for "Muggle", even though it is in quotes? What if the article directly defined "Muggle", citing Harry Potter books?

It defines it, and then uses it accordingly. sewnmouthsecret 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the above interpretations/assessments right? What am I missing?

I'm firstly trying to determine whether it should be at caps or lowercase if kept. Then, we have some potential uses to sort out. sewnmouthsecret 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

blame Canada

Previously deleted out of process; now re-created. I think it deserves to be re-deleted; at least, the current incarnation of the entry says little to suggest this phrase warrants a dictionary entry. —Ruakh_TALK 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if it has entered the lexicon. Many uses by Canadians to American audiences. Some uses with nothing to do with Canada. Big increse in use of the phrase since 2000. Many uses don't refer to South Park and the 2000 Canadian award show that featured the song. I'm in the process of getting quotes. DCDuring 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Cited. It should have been RfVd first. DCDuring 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. DAVilla 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl's Jr.

Spam? non-encyclopediac? --Rural Legend 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone comes up with three citations spanning three years showing use of the name out of context. bd2412 T 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be RfV'd. But I can't find attibutive uses and don't expect to. Not quite like "MacDonald's" or "7-11". Even less likely than "Hardee's" to be in oral use because it is 4 syllables long. DCDuring 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardee's

As above --Rural Legend 13:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone comes up with three citations spanning three years showing use of the name out of context. bd2412 T 05:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be RfV'd. But I can't find attibutive uses and don't expect to. Not quite like "MacDonald's" or "7-11". DCDuring 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wallyworld

Was a redirect to Wal-Mart --Rural Legend 13:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep(strong). Google Groups Search for Wallyworld and (Wal-Mart or Walmart) gets 1700 hits. That seems to indicate wide uptake. Hard to find quotes I'm happy to see in Wilktionary, though. DCDuring 01:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep(weak). Much smaller number of references to National Lampoon's Vacation fictional Disneyland. DCDuring 01:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep for the theme park definition.--Dmol 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sesame Street

A TV show, though extremely big and influential one. Any attributive use? --Rural Legend 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about the others, but this one might make the cut. DCDuring 14:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Should have been RfV'd. Cited with attributive uses (IMHO). DCDuring 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep DAVilla 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Those cites don't seem very attributive to me, well possibly the last one. This is encyclopaedia material. Widsith 10:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How about all these google books hits for "Sesame Street generation"? [20] Kappa 18:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It has important translations that cannot be deduced, such as Spanish Plaza Sésamo. —Stephen 18:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Elmo says Keep! --EncycloPetey 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

get = become

get better

Plain old sum of parts: become + better. Added by the same user as the entries nominated in the following subsections.—msh210℠ 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. Some of these "get" verb are probably unidiomatic too. --Rural Legend 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, it means "recover", not as well as improve. Kappa 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, "recover" is still non-idiomatic; it still means to improve, albeit from an illness or other rough patch. bd2412 T 05:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  Keep. Consider the following exchanges:

  • "I'm no good at Scrabble." "Well, I hope you get better."
  • "I've been ill for days." "Well, I hope you get better."
  • "These turnips I got are rotten." "Well, I hope you get better."

  In the first exchange, the wish is that one's Scrabble skill will improve. In the second exchange, the wish is that one's illness will end, not "improve". (As in the old joke "Your cough sounds better." "It should, since I've been practicing all night.") In the third exchange, the wish is for replacement turnips, not that the same turnips will somehow improve. The meaning is highly context dependent. --EncycloPetey 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Example #2 proves it is idiomatic. Kappa 22:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Two distinctive meanings. DAVilla 18:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete It only has the supposed idiomatic meaning (I debate if even nº2 is really idiomatic) in special context, as EncycloPetey aptly and deftly explains. The statement Get better. means nothing in particular. It only takes on the specific meaning nº2 when added to I hope you... or some such similar phrase. - Algrif 11:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't:

• I thought you were sick." "I got better."

There is no phrase added to the second sentence this time, just a subject. --EncycloPetey 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• "I thought you couldn't play chess." "I got better." - Algrif 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"I can handle a cold, but I don't recover from the flu very well." "I hope you get better."

Two distinctive meanings. DAVilla 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My point being that get and/or getting + comparative adjective is standard grammar for this verb. get better is no more idiomatic thatn get worse. The CONTEXT in all the above cases gives the sense. get better on it's own means nothing without a contextual setting of either the conversation or an addition such as I hope you... . Compare I felt better (which IS idiomatic) with I got better. The first needs no context to understand. The second does need context. - Algrif 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Consider: "I couldn't feel anything from the nerve damage, but after surgery to repair the nerves in my hand I felt better." That's a different meaning, and it exactly parallels the case we're discussing. Context is the key. Isn't that true of every word or phrase with more than one interpretation? The context tells you which sense is intended. Such an issue isn't relevant to whether or not this is idiomatic or whether we should have an entry; it's simply a property of the language. --EncycloPetey 04:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

get well

• Keep, as it does not refer to an underground reservoir of water. bd2412 T 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nor can it: that would be "get a well".—msh210℠ 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It does, however, refer to the adjective form, meaning "in good health". Delete. sewnmouthsecret 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; delete. --EncycloPetey 22:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not idiomatic. Weak keep based on figurative use (written out as second definition). DAVilla 18:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete It is plain get + well. Standard usage of get = become + any adjective. - Algrif 11:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. It's a set phrase which, for example, cannot necessarily be translated by translating get and then well. Widsith 17:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember in a recent discussion the translation-from-a-single-word rationale was said not to be policy. - Algrif 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, translations are really only an issue that support phrasebook entries. It could be idiomatic in every language other than English, and it wouldn't merit inclusion here. DAVilla 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Any good English-French (or any other language) dictionary will have an entry for this. It is not phrasebook material, like "Where is the bank". It is a very common English collocation and a wholly colloquial and idiomatic way to express this idea. We are supposed to eb a translating dictionary as well. How is an English-speaker supposed to know how to say this in any other language? Widsith 11:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objection to this being changed from Verb header to Phrase. - Algrif 13:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It would still be a verb, just placed in Category:Phrasebook. DAVilla 05:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To check my understanding on this last point, "Phrase" is never an appropriate PoS heading in English, but "Category:Phrasebook" is sometimes (usually?, almost always?) appropriate, especially where a category like "English phrasal verbs" or "idiom" does not cover it. Is that right? DCDuring 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We only use the ===Phrase=== header as a last resort when a standard expression is useful in conversation, but no POS header could possibly apply. Things like good morning or pleased to meet you are not words or any part of speech, but we do want entries for them for the sake of translation. Almost all such words are put into the Phrasebook for the corresponding language. We would never apply the "Phrase" header if the entry fits as a standard part of speech. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

get drunk

• Keep, as it does not refer to the acquisition of someone else who is drunk, and it does not refer to being imbibed by another. bd2412 T 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Our definition for it doesn't include the case that one is made drunk by another, but I think that that's an error. "She spiked my tea, and I got drunk."—msh210℠ 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (While what I struck through is correct, I realize that it's not responsive to bd2412.—msh210℠ 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
  • It does refer to being imbibed by another: search these pages for "beer got drunk": [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. (Those are just from the first thirty Google Web results for "beer got drunk". They're not durable citations, but they do show that the phrase is used in that sense.) So delete (that's a repeat vote, as I nominated).—msh210℠ 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Get refers to def. 4, "to become"; and drunk is obvious. Sum of parts. Delete. sewnmouthsecret 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; delete. --EncycloPetey 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not idiomatic. Weak keep if anyone can find good examples of figurative use. DAVilla 18:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete It is plain get + drunk. Standard usage of get = become + any adjective. Get sober ?? Get wet ?? Get surprised ?? - Algrif 11:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, not the point. It's a set phrase and cannot be translated by translating its components. In French for instance, "I got drunk" is not "j'ai obtenu ivre" or similar, but "je m'ai soûlé". Widsith 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As above, I seem to remember in a recent discussion the translation-from-a-single-word rationale was said not to be policy. - Algrif 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Idiomatic, sum of parts, either way, it's useful for translations. Well, it would be if there were more of them. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

get high

• Keep, as it does not refer to elevation. bd2412 T 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please!! Common sense!! These are ALL, without exception SoP. Normal usage of get + adjective or adverb. get high included, as the meaning involved is already in high adjective sense 3. Algrif 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, get refers to "become". Delete, sum of parts. sewnmouthsecret 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep; there are several possible meanings of both get and high, but only one combination is meant. This expression does not mean "become elevated". --EncycloPetey 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You sure about that?

• 1998: Christopher Thornton & Benedict du Boulay, Artificial Intelligence: Strategies, Applications and Models Through Search (2nd ed.), pp. 81-82

  In terms of the landscape shown this corresponds to trying to get higher and higher, and ultimately to reach the highest hilltop.

• 2004: David W. K. Acheson, "Food-borne illnesses", in Desk Encyclopedia of Microbiology, p. 497

  A number of cases have been linked to beans cooked in slow cookers, in which the temperature does not get high enough.

• 2007: Tom Masters, Lonely Planet: Eastern Europe, p. 147

  A popular way to get high up quickly is from a couple of lift stations at the mountain's base.

--Ptcamn 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You found "get higher", "get high up", and "get high enough", which are not the same. Each requires additional words to clarify the sense. --EncycloPetey 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be quibbling there. Clearly get high does not always have to indicate getting stoned. Though I still think it's a useful collocation to have an entry for. Widsith 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Really the question should be whether the primary meaning of the phrase is the sum of the primary meanings of the individual terms. bd2412 T 19:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously idiomatic. Strong keep. DAVilla 18:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This one is more difficult. Inflected forms are NOT idiomatic (except for the simple past).

• 1) We went into the mountains to get high. We got high in the mountains. - the assumption is made that euphoric is the meaning. So probably idiomatic.
• 2) We went into the mountains to get higher. We got higher in the mountains.
• 3) We are getting higher in the mountains.
• 4) We are getting high in the mountains.
  In 2,3, and 4, the assumption is of altitude This must be made clear in usage notes.
  BTW, drugs should not be assumed. People get high on many things such as fresh air, love, because the world is round and the sky is blue. (Lennon & McCartney) and so on. This should also be made clear. This is why I prefer the word euphoric. - Algrif 11:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Keep all. Virtually all these common phrases using "get" are highly idiomatic ways of expressing these ideas and are extremely difficult to translate.

Someone above asked "What next? Get sober? Get wet? Get surprised?" But it's clear just from these examples that only one of these (get wet, which has for example a colloquial sexual meaning) is a set phrase, whereas the other two are in no way comparable with the phrases listed here. Any use of get + adjective which is a common collocation should be on Wiktionary for the puposes of translation if nothing else, and clearly "get surprised" and "get sober" are not common and are not the normal ways of expressing these ideas (you would say eg sober up). Even if you are not interested in translations (though we are supposed to be a translating dictionary too), I don't see what harm it does to have these entries here.

Also bear in mind that idiomatic means "peculiar to or characteristic of a particular language", and in all these phrases get + adjective is peculiar to English - most Romance languages for example use reflexive verbs for these ideas. Widsith 11:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the above, I've added get wet. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

get is peculiar to English. That is the problem. All the above are simply get=become + adjective. (BTW, what's wrong with I'll pick you up later when I get sober.?) There are some (not many) idiomatic get + adjective expressions (get even, get fresh for example) , but none of the above are, except perhaps get high, and even that needs to be treated with care, as I explained, due to the problem of inflections, which makes it more of a set phrase than a verb. - Algrif 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with saying "get sober". Bt it is far more colloquial and idiomatic to say "sober up" in your example. That is my point. get drunk and the rest are not the same as saying "become drunk", "become high" - they are far more idiomatic. The fact that you can work out the meaning easily from the component parts does not mean it's unidiomatic. It's only English that uses these component parts to express such ideas. Widsith 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If get = become were only true for a few adjectives, I would be with you all the way, but the fact that get actually means become removes any idiomatic sense from any of these expressions. Get + adjective can only really be considered idiomatic when the sum does not equal the expected sum. Get drunk means exactly what it says, and what one expects it to say when get is added to drunk. There is absolutely no difference between I got drunk yesterday, and I got wet yesterday, and I got sober by drinking some coffee, and I got dry sitting in front of the fire. - Algrif 10:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point; a phrase is idiomatic if it is peculiar to a particular language, it does not necessarily have to be different from the sum of its parts. No one reading the phrase get drunk could be confused about what it means; in that sense I wholly agree that it's sum-of-parts. But that does not stop it being idiomatic. get drunk is the natural, colloquial way to express the idea in English. "Get sober" is not; the idiomatic form there is sober up. Only English uses such parts to express these ideas. If what you said were true, there would be no difference between saying get drunk and "become drunk" when in fact the first is clearly more idiomatic (ie more colloquial, more natural). "Become drunk" translates very easily into other languages, eg French devenir ivre. But it would be a poor translator who used devenir ivre to render get drunk, which is a far more natural compound verb that corresonds to se soûler in French. The same cannot be said for "get sober" or "get dry", which are neither common collocations nor set phrases. I realise get is very common. But get actually forms very many idiomatic phrasal verbs precisely because it's such a perculiar and common feature of English. Widsith 13:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing normal collocation with idiomatic. Just because get drunk is more common than become drunk does not make it an idiom. Most people would say (using another meaning of get ) When I get home, I'll call you instead of When I arrive home ... Does that make get home idiomatic? Just because it is more common? And while we're on this example what about call somebody as an idiomatic form rather than the less common telephone? - Algrif 11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, to answer your point about phrasal verbs. This is an entirely different point. Here we are considering get + adjective, not get + particle. Yes, there are a large number of them. But phrasal verbs (peculiar to English to start with) are noted for being 1. generally idiomatic 2. with multiple, but very exact, meanings 3. and there are well over 3,000 of them, anly a small percentage of which are formed with get. - Algrif 11:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty clear on what idiomatic means. You seem to think it means not sum-of-parts but it doesn't necessarily. It's not its commonness that makes it idiomatic but its untranslatability. Perhaps we should say that it's a subjective judgement and that you just don't see it as idiomatic while I do; but even if you think it's not, I don't see what harm it does here and the benefits are obvious in terms of translation. As for your other examples...call somebody is of course not a set phrase of any kind since "somebody" can be replaced with any person or place you like. It can be translated very simply by translating call in the sense of telephone. This is not true with get drunk as noted above. Is get home a set phrase? Well, possibly. In my head though it's more obviously two semantic units whereas get drunk to me is a single idea. Widsith 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get hot under the collar about any of these. We are talking about where to draw the line. All the above items are more or less on the line itself. If they are made as entries, all well and good, but I just hope it doesn't open the door to thousands of get entries, making the useful ones disappear in a welter of pointless entries. - Algrif 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Widsith 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The floodgates were apparently doomed to open sooner than later, with the first of these entries being the recently created get wet. Pointless. Unnecessary for translation purposes. More often as "make you/her/me wet". In any case, the 5th sense already at wet is certainly sufficient and appropriate. It's so easy to see the slippery slope here with these verb combos. -- Thisis0 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

interoperability

This was mentioned in tea room. It is a poorly writted sense that it is very specialized and included in previous senses. DCDuring 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

house

Sense: "A small green property in the game of Monopoly"

This is just a representation of, you know, a house. I'm not entirely sure that it should be a separate sense. I mean, you could talk about chess pieces without mentioning "chess", but this? DAVilla 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think horse should say "{{context|chess|nonstandard}} [[knight]]" but I'm not sure this is precisely analogous. Cynewulf 04:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The horse in Chinese chess, which moves similarly, isn't called a knight, it's called a horse. But we don't have a definition for that, we have a "rare" tag at horse for the familiar lovable knight. I'm sure there are more than three references out there in English for the horse in Chinese chess, but at the same time I don't think it's worth mentioning. Why is it that the pieces in standard Western chess somehow deserve definition lines when the pieces in other games do not? The names of pieces are no more idiomatic than is kola in the sense of a stuffed toy. The rationale has to be stronger, like a figurative or at least out-of-context use. 05:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have been RfV'd? I can't imagine that it would make it. Its use would be only in the context of the trademarked game. Would it have to appear alone or would "little green wooden/plastic house" count as a cite? We probably have the appropriate senses for most of the words for the common gaming pieces or other components, like jack, pin, man, chip, marble, piece, spinner, cup, board. And what about Monopoly money? DCDuring 19:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of a picture by Belgian artist René Magritte. It's a painting of a pipe on a plain background with the text Ceci n'est pas une pipe. And of course it isn't, it is just a representation of a pipe, but we still call it a pipe. Yet we do not have an entry which explains that "pipe" is "any two- or three-dimensional representation of a pipe". Further, a toy train is often called train, but we do not have a corresponding entry under the header train. A Monopoly house is a representation of a house, a toy if you wish, and does not deserve to have a definition of its own. Delete Hekaheka 16:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Hekaheka's well-thought rationale (and bearing in mind that lots of games have a variety of representational tokens). bd2412 T 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  Delete per Hekaheka (though I do support keeping the chess sense at knight, so I don't feel very consistent about it). —Ruakh_TALK 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  I'll agree with this. I think knight is different because the (standard) representation is a horse's head, not a knight in shining armor. The king and queen are kings and queens, the horse in Chinese chess has "horse" (馬/马) written on it; but bishop is unclear, and pawn and rook are somewhat nonobvious. So, yes, a house is a house of couse of couse. Cynewulf 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And if we sent Monopoly games to all the English-speaking Bedouins and Eskimos (or to the apartment dweller in Manhattan who doesn't watch TV), what word would they use for the seven-sided green plastic pieces? The intelligibility of the representation for something depends on the previous knowledge of the person trying to understand what is being presented. Furthermore, the Monopoly "house" is not being used as a representation of a house, any more than a chess "castle" is used as a representaton of a castle. The "window" I am typing in is not a representation of a window. The "meat" of this issue is not edible. DCDuring 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is sense is includable under the CFI's independence criterion (which I suspect it is), then I think we should keep. The piece could be called a "home" or a "ranch" or a "greeney" or a "built-thingamabob" — but it's called a "house". Only. No one calls it a "home" (I don't think). Also, as a separate (though related) point, I agree with DCDurings's argument: this piece is not a representation of a house in the way that a picture of a (real) house is; rather, it's a playing piece. Yes, it resembles a house (in the same way a chess castle resembles a real one (thank you, DCDuring)), but it's not a sculpture of a (real) house. (If a doll house were called "house", I might agree that it doesn't deserve a definition ("A miniature, fake house (sense 1) meant for dolls") s.v. house, as it's just another type of house; but that doesn't apply here.)—msh210℠ 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Who wants the credit for adding the sense "A small red property in the game of Monopoly, as opposed to houses" to the article "hotel" or "A corner on the Monopoly board" to "jail"? Hekaheka 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not I, to be honest. But I don't think the problem is that it's not another sense: it is (in my opinion) another sense. I think the problem is that the sense is too Monopoly-specific to be in a dictionary (even this one). This ties in to the Harry Potter discussion currently underway in the BP: words specific to a series of fictional works (and their derivatives) are similar to words specific to the rule book of a patented and trademarked game (and its derivatives). So I actually think this should not be here, but because of RFV-related reasons, not because of the reason it was nominated for deletion under. On RFD, I'm voting "keep" (and have done so).

The preceding paragraph, incidentally, explains why I prefaced my earlier remarks with "If this sense is includable under the CFI's independence criterion". Although, frankly, that should have been better worded, though I'm not sure how. And I probably should not have included the following phrase ("which I suspect it is"); that's probably not true.—msh210℠ 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Monopoly pieces.

Monopoly pieces.

Let's see some cites that verify usage. sewnmouthsecret 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean for my comment to sound so rude. It just seems silly to argue semantic without being able to cite it first. Anyway, delete. sewnmouthsecret 22:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why waste time citing something that is to be deleted on other grounds? I believe that our usual sources g.b.c. fiction will generate a few mentions of the green pieces, but more or less remind the reader what they are over the course of at most a page. DCDuring 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above, are we also to include Monopoly senses for the wheelbarrow, battleship, moneybags, horse, car, train, thimble, cannon, shoe, Scottie dog, iron, and top hat? bd2412 T 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be happy with literal use, personally, so citing this wouldn't be fun. This falls under an obvious extension of "structure serving as an abode". The only out-of-context I could find was here ("Four Green Houses Become One Red Hotel"). DAVilla 07:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Any entry has to be able to meet RfV challenge even if it meets CFI in other regards. DCDuring 04:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case RFV would be pretty straight-forward if it weren't for the problem of similarity between the two definitions. DAVilla 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So, should we add a definiton to (deprecated template usage) tree to cover images of trees in paintings? A sense for little models of trees used with model trains? It is a standard feature of English (and every language I know) that a word can be applied to a representation of an object without creating a new sense. So we don't need a separate definition of (deprecated template usage) tree to cover usages like "The are five trees in the painting." It is understood that there are five images of trees in the painting, not five actual trees. This phenomenon applies to every concrete noun in English and does not require an addiitonal sense for every English concrete noun. --EncycloPetey 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? DAVilla 11:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are the best cites I could find for this on g.b.c. 1.a. and 3 look like the most clearly attributive. There might be more at Google News.

1. 2003, Robert T. Kiyosaki, Sharon L. Lechter Rich Dad's Guide to Becoming Rich Without Cutting Up Your Credit Cards, page 56

   And the formula is, buy four green houses and turn them into one red hotel."

   This gentleman came up to ... I was playing Monopoly with little green plastic houses ...

2. 2006, Jane Gitlin, Capes: Design Ideas for Renovating, Remodeling, and Building New [], page 4

   NEXT TIME YOU PLAY MONOPOLY, TAKE A GOOD look at the little green houses that ...

   Yes, these little plastic pieces seem like a cartoon of a house— more like ...

3. 1998, Ridley Pearson, Beyond Recognition, page 248

   Boldt pocketed the small green house, gave his friend an appreciative hug ...

   comparison analysis of the melted green plastic sent by mail and that of the ...

4. 1995, Ellen Frankel, Sarah Levine, Tell It Like It Is: Tough Choices for Today's Teens, page 140

   ... structures stuck together like the green plastic houses on a Monopoly board.

5. 2002, Heather Dune Macadam, The Weeping Buddha, page 82

   Everything was typical of a suburban neighborhood, with about as much care and forethought as the plastic houses in a Monopoly game.

It seems clear that they are called houses because they are shaped like some stereotypical houses in some cultures. They are pieces in a game. They are not primarily representations of houses, just as a "castle" is not primarily a representation of a castle and a chess "board" is not a representation of a board. DCDuring 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but only because castle is a move in chess made with the king and the rook. In any case the rook is shaped like a tower, not a castle. I would also be very surprised to find a monarch on any national throne who resembled the typical chess queen. In chess, the pieces typically in use do not look like their namesakes. Chess has also been around long enough to exist in multiple cultures and languages for centuries. Look again at the citations above. They all mention Monopoly or describe the houses as "green" or "plastic", precisely because additional clarification is needed for context. The same is not true for chess. You can say "He captured my bishop with his queen." and know what the pieces are without requiring a cumbersome statement like "He captured my white plastic bishop with his black plastic queen." The names of chess pieces exist in English as words in their own right. The names of Monopoly pieces have simply been borrowed, and may be sent back to the lexicon for reuse come the revolution. --EncycloPetey 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they all mention Monopoly, Kiyosaki on the previous page, Pearson a couple of pages earlier. Sugars is the only out-of-context I'm aware of. DAVilla

Yup, like I said. Straightforward, but does it prove anything? DAVilla 11:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to draw a conclusion? I count 5 deletes, 2 keeps and 1 maybe that to me looks inclined towards deleting. If nobody protests, I will proceed with delete within a week. Hekaheka 13:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sense deleted. Hekaheka 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

say grace

For goodness' sake.—msh210℠ 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, "grace". I said grace. Cynewulf 17:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you said "grace", not grace. Was my nomination unclear? This is nothing more than a sum of its parts. There is no sense of grace, q.v., that "say grace" (as opposed to "say 'grace'") can possibly mean except "prayer before/after a meal". Anyone coming across the phrase "say grace" in literature will most likely look up grace, not this entry, and will find what he needs. If we have an entry say grace then we should also have say a prayer, say prayers, say the answer, etc. I say "delete".—msh210℠ 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do people who say grace also say things like "don't eat your food until after grace", "don't fidget during grace", and so on? Or is it only "until after we've said grace", "while we're saying grace"? (looking around) Ah, it appears so, I would have thought it would be at least capitalized (Grace). Cynewulf 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[29]—msh210℠ 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, delete away. Cynewulf 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The word grace can be used in many collocations like all the ones Cynewulf has above. We were missing a more precise sense of "say" (which only had 3!!! senses) that fit: recite. There should be no more reason to capitalize "grace" than to capitalize "prayers", not to say that it doesn't happen (for both words). DCDuring 18:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Af far as I know, grace has this particular meaning only in the phrase "to say grace". The translations of it also tend to be idiomatic. Keep. —Stephen 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[30]—msh210℠ 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to read here which of the tests for idiomaticity this collocation meets. BTW, Grace seems to be often capitalized in discussions of Jewish Grace practices, which is normally after the meal. I have seen the expression "say Grace" hardly at all in these writings. Perhaps "say grace" is a Christian idiom. "Before", "during", and "after" are the most common words collocated with grace after the forms of "say". There are variants of saying: "intone", "whisper". DCDuring 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. While it's obvious that for many speakers "grace" can be used fairly generally in this sense, for me it can only be used in the set phrases "grace before meals" (Christian), "grace after meals" (Jewish), and "say grace" (Christian again), and comments above suggest that I'm not the only person for whom this word is so restricted. So, it would be nice to have entries for these set phrases; but a usage note at grace would serve almost as well. —Ruakh_TALK 08:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per comments by user Ruakh. --Dmol 09:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep please, set phrase. Widsith 10:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Should it be kept for the translations? All the languages that I recognize use a different verb in lieu of say: fi-read, de-speak, fr-make, pt-give, es-bless, sv-beg. Hekaheka 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep as is, or strong as phrasebook entry if nothing else. I believe the term to be a set phrase. While give grace is more clearly idiomatic, if less common, this may also qualify. Its association with meals narrows the definition of grace. DAVilla 07:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, idiomatic for only some speakers? Interesting idea. Looking at cites, there's "a secular grace" vs "an appropriate Christian grace", so for these people it's just a general noun. There's even "say a grace". Really don't know what to do here. Cynewulf 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's a set phrase used for that ritual of saying a prayer before eating. Right? Etc. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To all the people saying "keep, set phrase", have you looked on bgc for the cites of "grace" meaning prayer in other contexts, and how do you think this relates to "say grace"? Cynewulf 18:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The only time it has that particular meaning is in the phrase "say grace", though, right? I could be wrong. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess people didn't believe me before.

• 1898, Lewis Naphtali Dembitz, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home, page 345

  [...] and when they had only one cup, to hold it in the hand during grace and to drink it after grace with the words [...]

• 1908, Martin G. Brumbaugh (trans.), Christopher Dock, The Life and Works of Christopher Dock, page 204

  During grace, do not let your hands dangle, or move them otherwise, but let them, with your eyes, be raised to God.

• 2007, Adrian Butash, Bless This Food, page 4

  When we say a grace at the table before eating, we give thanks for our togetherness, our blessings, and our happiness.

• 1994, Nicole Landry Sault, Many Mirrors: Body Image and Social Relations, page 113

  When "I'm so fat" is said in the girls' locker room, [...] When the statement comes before eating, it provides an apology or excuse by the speaker for the indulgence at hand (in effect, a secular "grace" before eating).

• 2002, Bruce Northam, Globetrotter Dogma, page 103

  I was greeted on the matted floor of the town meeting hall by the chief and his entourage for a customary sevu sevu greeting — similar to a Christian grace before a meal, except both host and visitor say quiet prayers, all heads bowed.

• 1996, Milton Steinberg, As a Driven Leaf, page 57

  Painfully aware of his youth and unimportance, Elisha slipped unobtrusively into the first vacant place he spied, broke bread, murmured the appropriate grace, and ventured to look up.

There's more. Cynewulf 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

3 more at Citations:grace (total 9), I'll put the rest there as I get around to them. Cynewulf 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

...I'm confused. What is even remotely questionable about this? It's an *OBVIOUS* keep. 140.254.225.48 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the citations immediately above? Cynewulf 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a) on gut feeling that it is a set phrase, and b) on observing that it seems to meet various tests of idiomaticity. Specifically it is i) far from the most obvious combination of the numerous senses of say and grace, and ii) does not comply with normal grammatical rules. We say a prayer (or prayers), we make a pledge (or pledges); "say prayer" and "make pledge" would be quite ungrammatical in most contexts. -- Visviva 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kept per consensus. Is a set phrase, and has interesting translations. --Keene 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All leftover conversion script redirects

If/when not linked to.

We still have ~42K of these floating around. See notes at Wiktionary:Grease pit#Conversion script redirects.

Can be munched slowly over time. Lots have been deleted more or less at random when noticed by sysops; have we ever "decided" that they can always be shot? Robert Ullmann 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't we get a bot to do them? Or at least, to line them up in groups for human oversight, and then knock them down in groups? bd2412 T 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have automation that is munching on them. Exception list (that mostly will have to be manual) is User:Robert Ullmann/CS redirects with links. We are down to 39,990 or so. Robert Ullmann 10:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Han Solo

Encyclopedia material, no? bd2412 T 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cited I've put some cites together that seem attributive of various ineffable aspects of "Han Solo"-ishness. It might meet pass RfV, somewhat to my surprise. By what other criteria should it be deleted? DCDuring 13:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical note: words don't "meet RfV", they meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition should explain what it means to be Han Solo-ish. Hekaheka 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would if I could. The quotes were the only b.g.c. quotes that seemed attributive. I'd have to go to news or (gulp) groups to find more for each candidate aspect of "Han Solo"-ishness. Would you want to have to do that for Finnair? DCDuring 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wiktionary had a policy against fictional names which Han Solo undoubtedly is. If it has a meaning beyond that one should know what it is, if it is going to be included in a dictionary. If there's no such policy, welcome Harry Potter, and countless others. Hekaheka 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find such a policy on the CFI page, but I could have missed it. There seem to be some who are dead-set against one or more classes of capitalized entries. I don't know whether there are fictional characters that are in Wiktionary or not. What do I know? I can't tell the difference between a word with an apostrophe and a contraction. DCDuring 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary has quite a few mythological figures that are proper names, not to mention the apparently non-historical figures from religious writings. Many of them do not have senses (let alone attested ones) apart from their reference to the mythical figures themselves. DCDuring 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's permissible, but highly subjective. Following the same CFI standard as with common terms is too lenient as it would open the door to every celebrity, book and movie title, etc. There are some characters that should clearly be included, but no objective test. I tried citations a while back with Foxy Loxy and it was ignored. I've recently had trouble convincing anyone that Decline and Fall is acceptable. These things take time to be written. Even the brand name test is brand new and hasn't seen its first real battle. DAVilla 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that WT is making a big mistake if WT merely imitates OED in setting its standards. WT would make a similar mistake in merely imitating urbandictionary. Being a bit ahead of the curve on some classes of usage, whether fictional words, hip-hop, military slang and acronyms, tech and business jargon is playing to WT's advantage over the print-oriented dictionaries. Being more selective (a labor-intensive process) is WT's competitive edge over urbandictionary and similar. A good general reputation with the using public who click through to WT is a good indicator of success so far, so WT needs to be judicious in making adjustments. I wouldn't want to stake very much on whether or not WT has an entry for "Han Solo", but I would be disturbed by policies that seemed to be continually adjusted against current popular low-brow commercial culture in favor of a retrograde devotion to older, antiquarian/classical, elitist, high-brow, anti-commercial culture. OED will always be better on much of that, anyway. That is not to say that we shouldn't stand ready to exploit machine-readable copyright-free corpera as they become more and more available. It is also not to say that we should just roll over and incorporate everything on a cereal box or in movies, television, or Harry Potter. (This is getting too BP-ish, isnt it?) DCDuring 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

wag

If I am correct, lower-case acronyms are against policy, but I think it's just a draft. In any event, this acronym already exists at WAG. The acronym is the sole item under its own etymology, all of which should be removed. DCDuring 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. Removed SemperBlotto 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Acca Dacca

A nickname for a rock band? What's next, the Dead? The King of Pop? bd2412 T 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. strong delete. --Keene 14:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

autocunnilingus

Wikipédia deleted it. 160.228.154.4 13:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be in use though. Plenty of Google Books hits. Keep. Widsith 14:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely in use. Whether Wikipedia keeps it is their business and irrelevant to RFV.--Dmol 14:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

dagger

Sense 3: "anything that causes pain like a dagger". Well it manifestly doesn't mean that, the def seems to be an attempt to deal with the metaphorical use in the Shakespeare quote appended. But really, do we need an extra sense for this? Any decent writer can use any word figuratively, big deal. Widsith 14:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

secular

I took the liberty of changing an rfv-sense tag to rfd-sense. The sense given was "short-term" (finance context). It had been changed by a one-contribution anonymous editor from long-term. Long-term is both consistent with other senses and consistent with its general use in, say, econometrics and economics. (I never knew anyone in finance to use the word "secular".) DCDuring 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sieg Heil

rfv'd sense: German: "hurrah!". I don't think so. DCDuring 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That’s the meaning that I have always understood it as. —Stephen 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It don't think that view is supportable. The following might convince you.

1. Take a look at one of your German texts or dictionaries or check out a German-language website.
2. Take a look at the citations for the English.
3. Sieg = victory. Imagine saying something in English with the word "victory" in it. Can you come up with a phrase that means something as wimpy as "Hurrah!"?
4. Take a look at the derivation of the english word hail.
5. Find some further g.b.c. hits.

DCDuring 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at w:Sieg Heil, the Wikipedia article, too. DCDuring 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have spoken German for over 40 years. This is the first time I ever heard of this meaning "hail, victory." To me, it just means hurrah, but with a strong National Socialist connection. "Hail, victory" looks like something a machine-translation program like Babelfish would produce, or that a young, inexperienced, beginning translator might write. On Wikipedia it has "Hail to Victory", but that is a very stilted and weird thing to say. When we used to say Sieg Heil, it didn’t have such a ridiculous ring to it. "Hail to Victory" is all right in an etymology, as a literal translation, but it’s not the meaning that I have ever encountered before. —Stephen 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the Germans have really gone crazy, making it a criminal offense to say "hurrah!" in this particular way. DCDuring 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like how the swastika used to be a neutral peace sign but is now a symbol of hate? Globish 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more like banning a symbol that included a sword. It wouldn't be entirely neutral to start with. They haven't banned all uses of "Heil", just two. DCDuring 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen...and the 'pedia article only says it literally means "Hail to Victory". Perhaps there is no good English equivalent and we would be better off defining it along the lines of, "Idiomatic expression of enthusiasm, support etc. now associated with Nazism". Widsith 11:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to challenge that it was used that way when it was still legal to use the phrase in Germany in public or for political purposes. Are you saying that's how it is used now? Where? In Germany? How could anyone tell since the use in writing is so proscribed? The question is not whether it means or has meant "Hail Victory" and - with that meaning - was associated with Naziism. That much is 100% clear. The question is whether such a term ever meant "hurrah!" or "go team!" All slogans chanted in a crowd become mere group vocalizations without much semantic content to participants and even observers, but their meaning is what motivates their use. Doesn't a dictionary have to be about semantic content? Even interjections differ in their meanings. DCDuring 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't entirely agree, the "mere group vocalizations" are not without semantic content, it's just not necessarily the same as the component parts. Sieg Heil means "hail to victory" like au revoir means "until we see each other again". It's a crucial part of the etymology, but not a very good or useful translation/definition. Widsith 10:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Princess Leia

There is no definition establishing this as having a definition that supersedes the character for which it is (would be?) named in the way Ming the Merciless and Flash Gordon do.

Ming the Merciless

Nonsense - not used attributively. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There is some hope for the second definition, with Sir Menzies Campbell getting this title on a few occasions due to the local pronunciation of his first name as Mingus.--Dmol 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

abort

Redundant sense:

1. (military) To terminate a mission for any reason other than enemy action. It may occur at any point after the beginning of the mission and prior to its completion.
2. rfd-redundant|included in mil sense (aviation, military) To discontinue aircraft takeoff or missile launch.

2 is included in 1, I think. DCDuring 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

countdown

2 rfd senses for 2 PoS:

• Proper noun: wrong case. name of UK TV show.
• Verb: doesn't inflect, ought to be count-down or count down

RfV not likely to help. DCDuring 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the tv show sense. Verb sense should go to rfv. bd2412 T 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberty City

I don't believe this neighborhood in Miami meets any of our CFI or is appropriate for a dictionary. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

sit on it

This meaning seems to fail the independence criteria. It also has precluded the "delay by inaction" meaning by promoting an obsolete catch phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put it the "delay by inaction" sense with a separate "etymology" and make the RfD an RfD-sense. Or do we have to wait out the RfD process? "Sit on it" is certainly an important idiom though few would fail to get the meaning from context, I think. DCDuring 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to wait...converting from full rfd to rfd-sense is perfectly fine for this, I'd think. --Connel MacKenzie 05:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

top oneself

sense given: to kill oneself. This sense is exactly the meaning of to top (=kill) oneself. Thus, pure SoP. DCDuring 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts.--Dmol 14:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. I'd never heard of the word "top" being used as a synonym for kill or murder before looking at the top article. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep set phrase....you very rarely hear top used other than reflexively. Widsith 09:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So I don't waste time on RfDs, should I ignore non-idiomatic SoP collocations that constitute a large majority of uses of one of the terms? DCDuring 15:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you'd say this isn't idiomatic. In en-us, when you've topped yourself you have outdone yourself, not committed suicide. --Connel MacKenzie 05:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was "bested". *shrug* — [ ric ] opiaterein — 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Connel, it is the "kill" sense of the word "top" that is UK/Commonwealth. "top oneself" is the most common use of the term, but the word "top" is used with other objects. I am arguing that it is SoP to someone who knows the parts. DCDuring 11:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

take a chill pill

take a chill pill = take a chill pill. All the idiomaticity would seem to be in "chill pill". DCDuring 02:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep It means calm down, not take an imaginary pill. I have never heard chill pill used without this phrase, so maybe 'chill pill' should be deleted. Conrad.Irwin 11:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to RfV/RfD chill pill. I hadn't heard these much either. "Chill pill" is apparently often the name for a real pill with the "chill" effect, as Ritalin for ADHDers or tranquilizers for almost everbody who take s them. As with any "pill", "chill pill" collocates frequently with forms of "take." It can also be found with "get", "need", "use", "drop", "pop", "give", "wash down", "is", "known as". Also "brew" and "mill". It can also be found as an interjection. "Take a pill" also seems idiomatic as interjections such as "why don't you take a pill!", "take a pill!". Of course, "take a pill" can readily blend with "chill pill". Interestingly, "take a blue pill" gets 175 g.b.c. hits, relative to 234 for "take a chill pill" DCDuring 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Idiomatic, as it does not infer any pill is consumed. It's also a set phrase which get far more hits than if you used terms like "eat a chill pill" or "pop a chill pill".--Dmol 14:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, no other combination does the phrase quite the justice. bd2412 T 11:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep — Paul G 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept per consensus. --Keene 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki

Request to delete and move to a lis of some sort. Not attributive, etc. sewnmouthsecret 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc may have an entry? SPQRobin 15:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep again. Invalid re-nomination of {{wjargon}} term(s) with no new rationale for deletion (and certainly not addressing any of the previous reasons for keeping.) Items are tagged properly - no possible confusion nor misrepresentation, yet an inherently useful entry. --Connel MacKenzie 05:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

conspiracy

rfd senses:

1. "a plot to overthrow a government or other powers": doesn't mean this by itself without context
2. "the ability to have the material means and a motive to commit an act against the law": seems very confused, to paraphrase: 'ability to have ability and motive'. DCDuring 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

sickeningly sweet

This looks like pure SoP to me. It doesn't even claim to be an idiom. DCDuring 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts — [ ric ] opiaterein — 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is a mildly idiomatic set phrase. I've heard it many times. Over 65,000 Google hits. -- WikiPedant 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WPedant: I am curious as to whether there is any common collocation that you would exclude from Wikitionary and on what basis. Examples: "cause and effect", "house of cards", "dawn of a new day", "all about", "global economy", "at work", "rise and fall", "paranoid delusions". About all of these I can say that they are set phrases that I have heard many times. I'm quite sure that I could get numerous g.b.c. hits, let alone Google hits. "Any time, any place." E.g., BP, my talk page or here. DCDuring 20:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Set phrase: replacement by synonyms destroys meaning. "cloyingly sweet". "sickeningly syrupy". DCDuring 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

One at a time, please, DC. Here we're just talking about sickeningly sweet. Replacement of terms in a set phrase does not necessarily destroy the meaning; rather (to use the nicely nuanced term in the WT defn) it compromises the meaning. And the substitutions you made above {i.e. "cloyingly" and "syrupy") do seem to me to compromise the meaning. I see sickeningly sweet as a very widely used variant form of sickly sweet and I see both of these terms as mildly idiomatic and as warranting WT inclusion. For one thing, these phrases contain a vaguely paradoxical juxtaposition of concepts which tend to be contraries (sickness is unpleasant but sweetness is pleasant). Also, both phrases are often used non-literally to refer to something or someone overly nice, sentimental, or gushy. Also, "sickeningly" here includes a connotation of "overly" or "too", but "sickeningly" does not necessarily intend a meaning of "too" or "overly" in every usage (e.g., "sickeningly odorous"). In my mind these sorts of considerations add up to a rationale for including the meanings of sickeningly sweet and sickly sweet in a dictionary. -- 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So sweet (any sense) as too be sickening (pragmatically disgusting rather than literally making one sick). Meaning seems pretty straighforward to me. Delete. DAVilla 06:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

n'est

I find including n'est, along with qu'il and (possibly but probably not) s'il, somewhat strange. In the case of n'est it is just ne (or more correctly n') and est, but is incredibly common due the large usage of both words. If we pass this, would other regularly-formed French contractions be valid, like d'avoir, l'abricot, m'aperçut or s'arrêter? --Keene 12:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

n'est, qu'il, and s'il are as valid as isn't and aren't. I think d'avoir would be useful, as would s'arrêter, but not l'... or m'.... —Stephen 14:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken. The words "isn't" and "aren't" are contractions of "is not" and "are not", and either the contracted or the full form maybe used. "N'est" is an example of the elision of "ne" before a vowel. It is not a contraction of "ne est", as this form does not exist. The vowel in "ne" is always elided before a vowel or an h muet, so (warning: slippery-slope argument) including "n'est" requires we include n'a, n'élève, n'habille, n'ira, n'osait, n'unifie, and so on for every verb form in French beginning with a vowel or h muet. Commonality is no argument for inclusion - which of the above are common and which aren't?

The same argument applies to "de"; the articles and pronouns "le" and "la"; "me"; "te"; "que"; and no doubt some others I've overlooked.

"Se" is different because it is part of the infinitive of reflexive verbs. "S'arrêter" and "arrêter" are distinct.

"Si" (if) + "il" becomes s'il, but this is the only time it is elided, I believe; there is no "s'elle".

So, n'est, qu'il should go because they are merely examples, but s'il should stay because it is a special case. Similarly, c'est can stay.

Note that we might argue in favour of having "n'est-ce" (as in "n'est-ce pas") and "qu'est-ce" (as in "qu'est-ce que c'est") because the apostrophes and hyphens make these look like words in their own right, but they do not exist alone and so do not merit entries.

Please also remember that the argument that "users might look them up" is not part of WS:CFI. Delete — Paul G 12:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

cult of the amateur

Protologism coined by Andrew Keen for his book. Possibly created as a result of my linkage to the book on my user page. Regardless, not dictionary material. Incidentally, if you go to the page and scroll down, you might find his latest (19 December) blog interesting as it focuses on WMF. Globish 20:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The sense given is purest scarecruft of the "hey, let's start a culture war" variety, but this term has been around for a while, as b.g.c. bears witness. Not sure how strictly idiomatic it is; there are a lot of "cult of the"-type phrases out there. -- Visviva 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Pepto-Bismol

--Connel MacKenzie 05:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted (yet again) SemperBlotto 08:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? It was deleted three times without any explanation. It was nominated here without any explanation. On what grounds? DAVilla 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Also please explain why this user was blocked. DAVilla 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• What is Pepto-Bismol?
• Why was it listed on RFD without explanation?
• Why was it deleted a day after it was listed?.I thought it was meant to be here for a month.--Dmol 21:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Pepto-Bismol is a brand of over-the-counter medicine. I can't answer the other questions. The phrase "Pepto-Bismol pink" is commonplace though if that was the context. Globish 21:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pepto-Bismol" gets 617 g.b.c. hist in fiction. "Pepto-Bismol pink" gets 107 hits in same source. It seems to have entered the lexicon with attributive use. DCDuring 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pepto-Bismol" conveys at least 3 meanings in its fiction use: "pink", "ulcers/anxiety", "everyday medicine cabinet contents". It almost always appears in caps and with a hyphen. Can the best of the three deleted entries be restored ? DCDuring 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Entries which are deleted without discussion are (supposed to be) non-controversial or unsalvageable. You may as well create a new, clean entry. Globish 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What we need here are some citations with sticking power:

1. 2007, Jude Barnes, Missing The Laughter, p. 39:

   The worst part was the bathroom. He insisted I paint it Pepto-Bismal pink. His tastes could be extreme, but it was his bathroom. I still can't chug Pepto-Bismol, though.

2. 2004, Wendy Etherington, If The Stiletto Fits..., p. 127:

   Just before he'd slipped into a coma, he'd had the strong urge to run to a pharmacy and slug down some Pepto-Bismol.

3. 2003, Lani Robson Remender, Casino to Die For: The Hunt for Tears of the Sun, p. 224:

   See all those Pepto-Bismol colored housing developments to your right. They're cluttering up this beautiful section of the Sonoran Desert.

4. 2003, Caroline Slate Fractured Truth, p. 136:

   You go swig some Pepto-Bismol and I'll pop a couple of aspirin and I'll take you to the movies over on Nineteenth Street."

5. 2000, Guillermo Gómez-Peña, Dangerous Border Crossers: The Artist Talks Back, p. 120:

   I needed some Pepto Bismol; I was experiencing a serious case of ideological vertigo.

6. 1998, Susan Isaacs, Red, White, and Blue, p. 246:

   To Nicki, who was wearing the mini- est of minidresses, barely more than a ruffle of Pepto- Bismol pink.

7. 1992, James Melson, The Golden Boy p. 69:

   As I held him up so he could "help me", he said, "Listen, Jimmy, you take some Pepto Bismol, do a little coke and then let Manfred show you the best of the boys in New York.

8. 1991, Stephen King, The Stand, p. 408:

   He would get some Pepto-Bismol and force Tom to drink it when he woke up, whether Tom wanted to or not.

9. 1960, Henry Ringling North, Alden Hatch, The Circus Kings: Our Ringling Family Story, p. 298:

   Arming himself with Pepto-Bismol he took off in one of the new Pan American Clippers.

10. 1952, Ohio Valley Transportation Advisory Board, Pacific Northwest Advisory Board, Proceedings, Regular Meeting, p. 17:

    [We] thought he was going to get up from the table and get some Pepto-Bismol and not worry about his breakfast because we had certainly ruined his digestion.

Cheers! bd2412 T 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored. This is still on RFD. I would RFV the color sense if anyone would contest its removal. It seems it would only be used attributively with "pink", and still refers to the medication. DAVilla 16:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would question its inclusion. That's an example of a noun being used in its attributive capacity, not an adjective. It does not require a separate section or definition any more than sky in sky blue or firetruck in firetruck red. It's merely a standard grammatical use of a noun for one of its attributes rather than the whole item, and this is a standard practice in English. --EncycloPetey 19:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a noun used outside of any context by multiple writers on the presumption that everyone know what it means. bd2412 T 15:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Polish language

Seems to be an invalid redirect, but WhatLinksHere shows it still in use? --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

French language

Seems to be an invalid redirect, but WhatLinksHere shows it still in use? --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Romanian language redirects to Wiktionary:Romanian language, but even that just looks like a wikipedia article. I think there are some regular entries with the "X language" format, but I can't think of what they are off the top of my head. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few entries with the name "X language" that should not exist. I expect that the readon they do is that the various ISO user box templates invoke the category, so people have created them to make the links blue. A permanent fix would necessitate that the various userboxen are adjusted not to link to the language in this way. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

subtle

Extra senses. I'm having difficulty seeing how there is more than one general sense of this word - but certainly not four (in English.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would merge senses 3 and 4, but they are clearly distinct from definitions 1 and 2. The sense(s) at the end are less common in modern English, but pertain to cunning or skillful craft. Consider:

• William Shakespeare, Cymbeline, act iii scene 3

  We are beastly, subtle as the fox for prey.

--EncycloPetey 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, help me out here; how is that a different sense? That is another aspect of the primary definition that shouldn't be split out as if it were something unique. --Connel MacKenzie 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's definition 3/4 "cunning, crafty", which is different from the usual meaning of (deprecated template usage) subtle. "Hard to discern" is not the same as "skillful, with art". The two senses will have completely different synonyms, and that's another reason to have them as separate senses. A "subtle fox" is a "clever fox", but a "subtle noise" is not a "clever noise". --EncycloPetey 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There really do seem to be three senses here, although not divided along the lines that were given originally. A skillful person may create a cleverly contrived problem. Both the person and the problem can the be described as "subtle", but only using two entirely different senses of the word. So, I'd say we have these senses:

1. Hard to grasp; not obvious or easily understood; barely noticeable
2. (of a problem, idea, or object) cleverly contrived; insidious
3. (of a person or animal) skillful; cunning

Rod (A. Smith) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I'm not convinced that "cleverly contrived" and "insidious" can be combined. A cleverly contrived dish is meant "to demonstrate skill", not to "entrap or produce harm". The insidious sense is separate from the ones I've discussed, and I can provide several Shakespeare quotes to support that sense, as it seems to be the one most common in his works:

• William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Richard the Third, act iv, scene 4

  Thy age confirmed, proud, subtle, bloody, treacherous.

This is clearly a negative connotation, which is not present in your third sense above, and should not be.

• William Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of Windsor, act iii, scene 1

  Am I politic? Am I subtle? Am I a Machiavel?

Again, a strongly negative connotation.

• William Shakespeare, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, act iv, scene 2

  Thou subtle, perjured, false, disloyal man!

All of these quotes show a negative sense, which none of your three definitions has or should have. The "insidious" sense (scheming, manipulating) ought to remain separate as a negative one. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. You're right. So there are four senses after all, but again not broken down quite like the original entry, since that combined the skillful (person) sense with the cleverly contrived (thing) sense. Rod (A. Smith) 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

all the way to Reno

Promotional material. Checking b.g.c. doesn't support this anyhow. Just the title of a song. --Connel MacKenzie 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking for adverbs. I won't miss it. DCDuring 19:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jumping Jack

rfv-sense: the exercise. I have created an entry in lower case for this. This one ought to be deleted IMHO. DCDuring 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What should be deleted? The capitalized page, yes, but not the definition of the toy (which should be at jumping-jack). Here are quotes for the toy sense:

• William James, Are We Automata?

  In the beheaded frog the legs twitch as fatally when we touch the skin with acid as do a jumping-jack's when we pull the string.

• 1904 - L. Frank Baum, The Marvelous Land of Oz, chapter 13

  "Because you are built as absurdly as a jumping-jack," sneered the horse, rolling his knotty eyes in a vicious manner. "Even your head won't stay straight, and you never can tell whether you are looking backwards or forwards!"

• 1904 - Stratemeyer Syndicate, The Bobbsey Twins, Or, Merry Days Indoors and Out, chapter14

  "I have a jumping-jack!" came from Freddie, and he began to work the toy up and down in a most comical fashion.

An anonymous user (not me) had deleted, out of process, the sense that I had just tagged rfd, which I have restored. We now have three entries at Jumping Jack, jumping jack, and your well-cited one at jumping-jack. The exercise should only be at "jumping jack", IMHO. The U.C. exercise entry for the exercise is what needed RfD or possible speedy-delete-sense if such a procedure exists. I suppose that we need all three for the toy. I would have thought that jumping jack would have been the primary entry with the others as alt spellings. What is supposed to happen to these entries differing only in capitalization and hyphenation? DCDuring 13:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some users (including myself) would argue that since each meaning is tied to a separate primary spelling, they should have separate pages. That is, jumping jack is the standard spelling for the exercise, so that should be one entry. The toy is spelled jumping-jack in the only citations we have, so it defintion should be at the hyophenated spelling. If we have no citations for the capitalized form, then it should be deleted. --EncycloPetey 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that any user has the capability of deleting. I assume that the procedurally correct approach to deletion of a sense or entry is to post it here. An admin may make the judgement that it should be speedily deleted, but otherwise it is supposed to await some kind of consensus. DCDuring 16:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual time it takes will vary. An admin may have researched the term on a previous deletion and be able to make a quick call. Or, it may happen that someone finds a citation of that form, in which case the entry may stay. I'm doubtful that the fully capitalized form can be cited, but am holding off for a day or two to see whether I can find the form jumping Jack or jumping-Jack. If one of those forms exists as a common form, then I would move Jumping Jack to the partically capitalized spelling rather than delete it, in order to preserve the edit history. Unfortunately, I am finding that my personal collection of exercise books does not include this exercise, which is slowing down the process. --EncycloPetey 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The OED has "jumping-jack" for the toy, but does not have the exercise sense. Note that the word "jack" with a lower-case j has many senses, and so it is by no means automatically true that any phrase containing the word "jack" spells it with a capital J. — Paul G 11:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Z"L

Not in Hebrew script. --Keene 18:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep, easily meets CFI in this script, dunno why you brought this here. Should perhaps be marked "English", but I'm not getting back into that argument any time soon. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 18:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be marked as English. It is similar to pbuh which Arabs use when writing in English. —Stephen 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, move to RFV; the cites I can find are all for (deprecated template usage) Z"l or (deprecated template usage) z"l, not (deprecated template usage) Z"L. —Ruakh_TALK 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hot Press

How did this proper name of a music magazine ever meet CFI? We don't even have Time as in Time magazine. DCDuring 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not used in any other way except to describe the magazine and its awards. --Dmol 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a dictionary definition. More suitable for an encyclopedia. DaGizza 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't have any content suitable for a dictionary. --MacReporter 14:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does not meet CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

will

rfd-sense: US football weak-side linebacker. It would belong at Will, where it now is. I think it could be verified there. DCDuring 01:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Home Depot

Proprietary name of a store chain. Nothing else. Robert Ullmann 14:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Shop name only.--Dmol 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at g.b.c. fiction? I could probably find 3 attributive uses there in the first 5 pages (of many). It's like Macy's, Harrod's, Wal-Mart, McDonald's, GUM, Lufthansa, Church of England, and other well-known brand names. I am intrigued as to how folks come the the delete conclusion so quickly. DCDuring 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. Is sometimes used attributively — see e.g. page 3 of http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-oregon/1018290-1.html — but is a brand name, which means we hold it to a higher standard that I don't think it meets. —Ruakh_TALK 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep noun section. (I don't know about the proper noun section, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In some of our idioms, there is merit to putting in literal SoP meanings to clarify the idiom. In this case, the Proper noun sense helps make sense of the Noun sense. DCDuring 01:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

An alternative would be to put the substance of the Proper noun sense in the Etymology. That might be better. DCDuring 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, etymology would be correct for that. We are a directory of words, not companies. bd2412 T 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. If you really wanted to, you might be able to dig out a generic meaning along the lines of "a place where one can find illegal immigrants looking for work" as a US usage. I've heard it used generically in that sense many, many times in reference not to the specific store per se but standing around in front of such a store looking for construction work. Globish 21:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless citations are added showing that it complies with WT:CFI#Brand names. Such citations can almost certainly be found, but the process is not easy and I for one have no interest in spending any more of my time on such things. -- Visviva 11:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I wasn't planning on doing the digging, but I got curious, and quickly came up with:

1. 1992, Hubert Smith, The Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics, p. 156:

   Memos are also ideal for jotting down room measurements before you head off to Home Depot and realize you forgot to bring room measurements.

2. 1995, Michael Connelly, The Concrete Blonde, p. 391:

   And while he was at Home Depot getting the wood, he also picked up new cushions for the chairs and the chaise lounge on the porch.

3. 1995, Jane Heller, Crystal Clear, p. 85:

   She told me her name was Zola, took hold of my elbow, and guided me into the store, which turned out to be a veritable Home Depot for New Agers.

4. 1997, Rick Bragg, All Over But the Shoutin' , p. 33:

   My aunt Gracie Juanita could build Tara if you gave her a year and a key to the Home Depot.

5. 2003, Loren D. Estleman, Something Borrowed, Something Black, p. 89:

   The room itself was no larger than an ordinary living room, but it appeared to be a Home Depot of modern weaponry.

6. 2004, Susan Douglas, Meredith W. Michaels, The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and how it Has Undermined Women, p. 19:

   The media, which bombard us with TV shows, movies, catalogs, ads, and magazines, serve as a kind of Home Depot of personas to draw from and put on.

7. 2004, Christopher Eldridge, Conceptual Communal Home Design, p. 113:

   As such, this building is literally like a Home Depot of services!

8. 2006, Violet Blue, The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Sex Toys, p. 99:

   This is the Home Depot of sex toys sites: It has all the basics, an enormous range of models and styles, and tips on building your own.

9. 2006, Andrew Beaujon, Body Piercing Saved My Life: Inside the Phenomenon of Christian Rock, p. 113:

   It's almost like a Home Depot model for a church. You go in, get what you need, and leave.

10. 2007, W. j. Caniano, The Powers That Be: America's Dirtiest Secrets, p. 97:

    First, you just don't go down to the radioactive material center, like a Home Depot, and get some nuclear material.

• #'s 1, 2, and 4 are admittedly not so good since it is possible to infer a store where you can get home supplies from the usage, but #3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 all use the phrase in a much more suggestive manner - like "the kind of place where you can get whatever you want" with respect to a field. And then, of course, there are the collected works of Tamar Myers (maybe I'm easy, but I find this hilarious - is the Home Depot paint department sponsoring her books?) bd2412 T 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, with a respectful tip of the hat to BD2412. -- Visviva 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, well-cited. 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are paragons of attributive use. DCDuring 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

voulez vous coucher avec moi

I don't think this is actually used, but I wanted to list it here before I zapped it in case there were any objections. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone recently has an affinity for Moulin Rouge! and open proxies. Globish 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This one I think might actually fly (perhaps as a phrasebook entry?). Needs citations outside the movies. bd2412 T 04:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep for phrasebook. DAVilla 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but let's get it right - it's voulez-vous coucher avec moi. Moved. — Paul G 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

MDC

rfd-sense" Millions of Dead Cops (band). DCDuring 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly delete. No more worthy for inclusion than having serio mean "a famous rapper from Los Angeles". Globish 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Also cleaned up the article (alphabetical order; wikified all entries). Note that not all of these have entries in Wikipedia, so some might are possibly suspect. — Paul G 11:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

item of furniture

SoP. Item of + uncountable noun. - Algrif 11:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's not clear that "item of furniture" is what is said for an individual item that can be considered furniture. furniture is uncountable, which should be mentioned on the furniture page. Only some uncountable nouns can take "item of", for exmaple item of clothing, item of data; whilst others don't, such as item of meat or item of cutlery. --Keene 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's a SoP, but as this is a multilingual dictionary - albeit the English version of it - and many, possibly most, languages have a separate word for a piece of furniture, it might be justified to keep the acceptable English terms on board. Any, even subtle differences in usage should be pointed out in glosses. Without guidance one might believe that e.g. part of furniture is an acceptable translation for mueble. I don't really have an opinion whether the term should be kept or deleted, but wanted to bring this point into consideration. BTW piece of furniture beats item of furniture 7 to 1 in a Google search. Hekaheka 15:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And "piece of" works with "meat", "cutlery". Hmm. Would it make sense to have entries of the form "piece of X", plural "X", substituting other words like "item" if "piece" doesn't work {like "head of cattle"). It would be an interesting way of accommodating at least one flavor of uncountability. DCDuring 15:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about that idea also. But the problem is we can end up with a huge clutter of words such as: lump, hunk, chunk, sack, cup, tube, bottle, glass, and so on. It might be a useful Usage notes item to identify the most common forms of making a given noun countable. Some would be tricky, like water, which could use any kind of container to make it countable, while others, like fog (bank of fog is all I can think of at the moment), and bread, are interesting. But I don't think and entry for item of X would be at all helpful. - Algrif 16:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think an Appendix first would be helpful, though I've no idea what to call it. We have one (somewhere) for group names of animals and such, so a "counting unit" could be helpful. Incidentally, I never say "item of furniture"; I say "piece of furniture", and that's what I hear other people say. --EncycloPetey 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On mature reflection, both of the above seem like more useful ideas than seperate entries for all the cases that come to mind, although there will probably turn out to be something "X of Y" that merits a seperate entry. I have tried my hand at usage notes at the entries for cattle (head of) and furniture (piece of). I look forward to thoughts and/or amendments and even reasoned deletions. DCDuring 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a sound idea. If several "piece-words" may be used with one mass noun, they would all be listed under the mass noun, and possible differences pointed out. "Item of furniture" seems to have its place in the English usage as it yields 90.000+ Google hits vs. 540.000 of "piece of furniture". As Connel points out, "item" appears to be used more in professional and commercial contexts, and "piece of furniture" is the dominant common language term. Hekaheka 11:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete with comment pointing to piece of furniture. Comparing piece to item, the definition given is very misleading (if not absolutely wrong) - it is only used that way in very restricted contexts (i.e. retail inventory.) Retaining this entry would only serve to confuse translators and English-learners. --Connel MacKenzie 03:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above. Not sure we need piece of furniture either, personally. -- Visviva 13:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where would you want to put the translations of "piece of furniture"? E.g. in Spanish one hardly uses the term "una pieza de mobiliario". It is "un mueble". Hekaheka 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would put that information at mueble, personally. I don't see the need for an English entry for a phrase which is only idiomatic in other languages, any more than we need entries for sum-of-parts Korean phrases that happen to be accurate translations of an idiomatic English term. But in any event, I don't actually plan to nominate any piece-of-X entries for deletion. -- Visviva 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: we don't need this or piece of furniture. Delete.—msh210℠ 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this one is an item! It has been raised on RFD before, and I believe it failed. That was before fried egg etc. were semiformalized. This would probably require a new rule if we wanted to keep it. DAVilla 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And where would you like to put a translations table for "piece of furniture"? It will be necessary, because "furniture" is mobiliario in Spanish, and you would like to tell the English speakers that "piece of furniture" is actually mueble. Btw, this is not only a Spanish problem. Hekaheka 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I realize that doesn't resolve the general problem, but (deprecated template usage) muebles is often used as a translation of (deprecated template usage) furniture, so we should probably just add mueble m as an alternative translation in the entry (deprecated template usage) furniture, and leave countability details in the Spanish entry. Rod (A. Smith) 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough. The problem is not only and even mainly in the Spanish end. An English speaking person should have an easy way to find out how "piece of furniture" translates into other languages. It's not word-by-word in those about ten languages that I know enough of. That translation table might be put under "furniture", but it would be a non-standard solution. If we don't have that table, the "countability details" need to be handled possibly in every other language. It can be done, but seems a bit complicated solution to me. Hekaheka 07:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacko

Michael Jackson? This can't pass our CFI, surely? --Keene 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete this sense, but perhaps allow something like "A diminutive name for people with the surname of Jackson", and follow with a few examples. There are others besides Whacko Jacko.--Dmol 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Could've had a better definition, but I say Delete. --MacReporter 04:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a proper definition and changed the rfv to rfv-sense.--Dmol 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dmol. Delete sense.—msh210℠ 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Michael Jackson sense; changed other sense to the following:

1. (deprecated template usage) A nickname for a person whose surname is Jackson.

— Paul G 11:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

File:MartinellisBottle.jpg

Happy New Year! For the non-alcoholics among us, let's celebrate with a bottle of sparkling cider.

sparkling cider

A distinctly non-alcoholic drink around holidays or a sum-of-parts? Evidently linking to a Wikipedia article about a brand specialising in the stuff is spam. — This unsigned comment was added by 140.112.86.252 (talk).

Keep; more specific than a cider which is sparkling, inasmuch as cider can be either alcoholic or nonalcoholic. In fact, I'm under the impression that this refers specifically to a heavily-processed kind of cider, not just farmstand non-alcoholic cider with some CO2 added. I think we can leave the specific brands to Wikipedia, though. Otherwise "For example, Martinelli's" will inevitably become "For example, Martinelli's and X and Y and Z..." -- Visviva 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspending my vote for reflection. -- Visviva 13:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My impression was that sparkling cider (Martinelli's at least) was just a fancy name for apple juice kids drink so they can feel like they're having wine too. You may be right though. Globish 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has this been deleted already, without explanation, or waiting for the normal 30 days.--Dmol 13:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was speedied first, and then brought here by the creator. I will restore it for discussion, although I'm beginning to waver from my original vote. -- Visviva 13:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Further thought: "sparkling hard cider" gets a surprising number of hits, and there also appear to be European brands of "sparkling cider" ([31]) which are presumably alcoholic. In view of these facts I am having a hard time with the claim of idiomaticity; this seems rather like "sparkling" + "cider," with the full range of possible meanings. Of course, the overwhelming majority of "sparkling cider" hits do pertain to the non-alcoholic beverage, but that is probably true of hits for "cider" in general. -- Visviva 13:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrote a proposal for a new def independent of any individual trade marks, noting also that this appears to be a US term. Hekaheka 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In UK you can buy both still cider and sparkling cider. Cider, in it's basic form is not sparkling. CO₂ has to be added to make it sparkling. The non-alcoholic version benefits most from this, which is why most (but not all) non-alcoholic ciders are also sparkling cider. This is straightforward SoP in UK usage. I would never dream of asking for sparkling cider without adding for the kids if what I wanted was non-alcoholic cider. - Algrif 13:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep. Far more than just cider which sparkles. --Keene 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

变老

• From WT:RFV. DAVilla 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese, "to grow old". Sum of parts or useful term? —Stephen 08:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. It literally means "to become old." If you go from English to Chinese, it is often used as a translation for the verb to age. However, going from Chinese to English, you could probably figure out what the term means by looking up each character. For what it's worth, I have not found the term in any Chinese-Chinese or Chinese-English dictionary so far. It seems to only be included as a translation for to age in English-Chinese dictionaries.[32] I have only come across one Chinese-English gloss which lists it as a word.[33]. Obviously, the definition "olden" is wrong. I could go either way with this one. -- A-cai 10:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds SoP to me. Not idiomatic in the language. DAVilla 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Most Chinese verbs are relatively SOP, but they're more like set phrases than in English. The word for butterfly (蝴蝶) is made up of two characters that both mean butterfly. 死亡 (to die) is about the same. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good argument. I will have to abstain from this discussion. In fact, I would just as well defer to Mandarin Wiktionary (if it's called that). DAVilla 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

in the ballpark

Is this just sum of parts, depending a definition of ballpark (as in ballpark estimate)? --EncycloPetey 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the figurative noun sense of ballpark ever used outside of this phrase, except maybe jokingly? DAVilla 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever? Yes. google books:"in the general ballpark", "in the rough ballpark", and "in the vague ballpark" all get hits (though that last only gets one hit). Even so, I think this might be worth keeping in some form or other. —Ruakh_TALK 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But that's basically the same expression, and if anything more evidence to keep it. I was thinking more like outside the ballpark or big ballpark or something. DAVilla 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this qualifies as a keep on the basis of being idiomatic. Globish 03:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - a set phrase. --Keene 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All that it seems to take for a phrase to kept is not that it meets a strict standard, just that it be in the right ballpark. It really sticks in my craw that our standards are so accommodating, but so be it. DCDuring 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

amidža, daidža, amidžinca, daidžinca

daidžinca

The words; amidža, daidža, amidžinca, daidžinca DO NOT exist in the Serbian language. I have no idea why anyone would put them under Serbian. These words are used in the Bosnian vocabulary and only in the Bosnian vocabulary. Can please someone delete them? Thanks (unsigned comment by User:Mdssm)

Since they were added by User:Dijan, who is a native speaker of Serbian, it would be nice to have more information. --EncycloPetey 15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Serbian myself I know that these words aren't used in the Serbian vocabulary. These words do not exist in any Serbian dictionary nor are they used by the Serbian speakers. They MIGHT have been used two centuries ago but have become archaic and are used mainly by the muslim speaking population in Bosnia who still have an ample amount of Turkish words that they still use interchangeably with the Slavic words. -- User:Mdssm 6 January 2008

The terms are legitimate and in use. They may not be used by certain groups of people that speak the Serbian language, but that does not mean they are not legitimate nor in use. Please do not spread your nationalistic propaganda here by deleting borrowings and Turkisms that are part of the Serbian language. For the past few months you have been deleting valuable etymological information from Serbian entries, especially Turkisms and Hungarisms. You've stated yourself that the terms are used by the Muslim population. Muslim terms and terms that are used by Muslims that speak Serbian are nonetheless Serbian words. These terms are also used in Serbian literature, both historical and modern. --Dijan 08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, we also include archaic and obsolete terms such as might have been used two centuries ago. —Stephen 08:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

being in use /= standard language. Of course, one can alwas play dumb and say that typical Serbian lexeme (such as ) or typical Bosnian/Bosniak lexeme (such as ) are "Croatian", or the other way around - that typical Croatian word (such as < Czech, taken during Illyrian movement, itself calque of German Zug) is "Serbian", or that various standard Bosnian words of Turkish/Persian/Arabic origin are "Croatian" or "Serbian" just because there exist Muslim populations that use them. I suggest user user Mdssm to cite exhaustive modern Serbian dictionaries that mark such lexemes as nonstandard (or better - don't mention them at all), and mark them as such using context labels.

There are words of Common Slavic origin stric (< *stryjь) and ujak (< *ujь) that have three orders of magnitude more Google hits on .yu domain, for a very good reason. --Ivan Štambuk 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ivan, that's true. However, being a "regionalism" or "provincialism" rather than "standard" does not mean that the word does "NOT EXIST" in the Serbian language. It also does not mean that it should be deleted. Besides, "amidža" is not a term used solely by the Muslim population (regardless of whether they are Bosnians or Serbians). I was using it as an example, because user Mdssm mentioned that it is in use by Muslims. I've mentioned how these words are used and in what context above. These terms may not be considered the "Belgrade standard" of the Serbian language, however they are as common in the Serbian of Bosnia as "stric" and "ujak" are. In the Serbian of Bosnia, "amidža" is considered more of a colloquialism where as "stric" is regarded as a formal term. --Dijan 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on how you define a "language". For anything other then standard language (i.e. anything other than what would *any* inhabitant of Zagreb/Sarajevo/Belgrade understand without problems, and as a lexical basis defined by the books), special care should be taken. One can come up with dozens of terms used regionally but that are based on dialects/idioms not considered part of a standard language, and I'd say that adding them without explicit mentioning of that fact is just POV-pushing. Most Croats don't in fact know what (deprecated template usage) ) (common term is (deprecated template usage) means, and any speaker learning the language could fall under the impression that stupid Slavs didn't a basic word for a door until Ottoman Turks enlightened them. Not to mentioning that it would be tempting for someone to add it as a translations for (deprecated template usage) door. Similarly, most Croats would understand what (deprecated template usage) means, but no one uses that term in Croatia.

There are hundreds of Turkish loanwords present in standard Bosnian and Croatian, but puristic tendencies of policy-makers nowadays have a stance of treating them as second-class citizens (unlike Bosnian, in which new ones are being "invented" out of blue). Unlike Bulgarians, which replaced en masse Turkish loanwords with corresponding terms from Russians, a large number of them have still been in usage in BCS, but not all of them have the status of, say alat and čarapa. What people "say" and "use" is not what defines a standard language, it's that what orthography and grammar books say. It's that defining koine that everyone are supposed to understand, what foreigners are supposed to learn, that compromises "standard language". And I really doubt that daidža and amidža are such words. I'll check Serbian dictionaries (hopefully User:Mdssm will do the same) I have access to in the local library tomorrow (including the supermassive of "Serbian or Croatian" of Akademija :), but scarce google and g.b.c. search results are already quite indicative of them being reasonably classified as nonstandard regionalism. FWIW, Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik (Croatian encyclopedic dictionary) lists both amidža and daidža (but not -ica versions), marking them as regionalisms. --Ivan Štambuk 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dijan, are you saying that these are Serbian words, but largely Bosnia-specific? If so, they should be marked as such, just as we would mark US- or UK-specific terms in English. —Ruakh_TALK 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

These terms are used predominantly in Bosnia by folks speaking both Bosnian and Serbian. In Bosnian these terms have a "natural" standard status, because they are Turkisms and are considered the essence of the new Bosniak language. In Serbian of Bosnia, they are used interchangeably with standard Serbian terms from Serbia, however they are almost always used within certain context. However, in Serbia, they are used only for historical purposes and in some cases they do have a common, colloquial, usage context. For example, in Serbia, the term "amidža" can be used interchageably with "čika", in the colloquial context of "Mr." or "uncle, a friend of the family". It is not used interchangeably with the term "stric" to refer to an "uncle" (a family member), unless there is a context (usually meaning the term is used within Muslim circles as such). --Dijan 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What you have said [Dijan] in the first reply is totaly contradictive. You stated yourself that the words are Muslim terms used by the Muslims so they cannot possibly be Serbian. As I recall Muslim Bosnians speak Bosnian (not Serbian as you have so conveniently put it). I don't know how to explain the made up 'Belgrade standard' other than an act of desperation.

These words have never been used in the Serbian standard in Serbia which is what the Serbian language section stands for (not the diaspora). Your example above is totally unconvincing because the word amidža is not used at all in Serbia let alone interchangeably with čika so please don't try to justify the reason you have put these words under Serbian. These words are only used in the Bosnian Muslim population due to their nostalgia for the Turks and their common religion nothing else.

You are the one that is trying to drown Serbian words with Turkish etymologies which you have no proof for because by just stating that the word derives from Turkish isn't good enough unless you have proof. And just because we happen to share some words with Turkish doesn't automatically make them Turkish (like for example kašika which has a strong resemblance to the Slavic word kaša and the historical proof of Serbians having spoons long before the Turks came). It is really pathetic what you are trying to do. -- User:Mdssm 8 January 2008(UTC)

Iowa caucus

Completely sum of parts as evidenced by the definition, which is not the fault of the person who wrote it. The caucuses are like a primary except the voters (anyone can attend) meet publicly and it receives a large amount of media attention since the 70s. So what? Not idiomatic, just an encyclopedic topic that belongs elsewhere. Globish 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that we should at least have an entry for Iowa caucuses, which is how this event is normally referred to in any case. Note that our caucus entry presently lacks the most common sense(s) of the word, for which see w:Caucus. -- Visviva 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not sum of parts. One might assume from the name that it is a process entirely for the selection of Iowa politicians, but it is not. It is a process for selecting candidates for the US presidency. --EncycloPetey 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the same be said of the Ohio primary (or any other primary or caucus)? Ergo, isn't it really a function of the definition of caucus? bd2412 T 08:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but the usage of this specific term(s) is in reference to the literal meaning as opposed to a non-attributive sense like "the Iowa caucuses are underway in New Hampshire and Nevada" or "Nevada has adopted the Iowa system of caucuses". Ohio is a state that has vied for the media attention, but yes, under this definition, New Hampshire primary would have to have a page. Globish 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination (and bd2412).—msh210℠ 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, delete. bd2412 T 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted — Paul G 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

man's

I thought we voted to not include possessive terms, unless they had a separate meaning like people's. --Keene 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. Applies to all senses. However, we should distinguish man's from men's for the collective sense, and I'm not sure of the most appropriate way to do so. DAVilla 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep to distinguish "belonging to" and "domain of" senses. E.g., "it's a man's world". bd2412 T 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BD: What distinction are you talking about? If I understand it at all, it seems to be a modest potential distinction (not implemented in the current one-sense entry for man's) that might apply to many possessive forms. If so, it is presumably covered by whatever "policy" discussion has taken place to drastically limit the number of separate entries for possessive forms in English. But perhaps if we could see a concrete example of the distinction we might become persuaded. DCDuring 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, how about man's man? A man's man is not the property of a man, but a man who is a particular example of manliness. Same for a man's game or a man's cigar. I guess I'm trying to say these things show something to be in the domain of manliness, rather than belonging to a particular man (in the sense of "the man's umbrella was resting against the wall). bd2412 T 01:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have over-particularized the concept of possession. It is not legal ownership or practical possession of a tangible object. A "rock's absence", a "rock's proximity" to me are examples of more general uses of the concept of possession. A "rock of rocks" (See g.b.c.) is an expression entirely analogous to "man's man" at the concept level. A "slope's slope" is analogous at the level of words. My difficulty is in understanding what is unique about the possessive form of "man". DCDuring 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite - you could refer to a man's absence, or a man's proximity, but a rock's game? A rock's world? A slope's game? But a man's game... bd2412 T 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So what? Of course there are semantic differences between words. But what is the feature of "man's" that would enable it to be excluded from the effect of a general policy against possessives? There may be such a feature. I don't see it and invite you to suggest it. I think the burden is on you to make the argument. DCDuring 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So, with the rock, it suggests the possession of a single rock; with "man's" it can mean that of a single man, or that of men in general. We say, e.g., that football is a "man's game", not a "men's game", even though we are really talking about men. bd2412 T 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is the right path to locating what might be distinctive: counterexample: "granite's hardness" refers to the hardness of all rock deemed to be granite; "the granite's hardness" is more restrictive. I think that in picking rock as my exemplar, I was lucky or, more flatteringly, unconsciously smart. "Rock" can be used collectively, just as "man" can. DCDuring 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But if you to refer to "man's hardness" as opposed to "a man's hardness", you could be understood as referring to the hardness of all mankind (e.g. all humans, male and female). Maybe this is implicit in the existence of that expansive definition of "man", but you just have to be able to sort from the context whether "man's" is referring to that of a man, that of all men, or that of all humans. In any event, I still think referring to football as a "man's game" is not a reference to it being the property of men (even in the abstract sense, as in a "man's absence"), but using "man's" as a stand-in for "manly" - as in, he wore a "man's beard", he filled a "man's shoes". bd2412 T 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I could speak about "rock's hardness" (the class) or "a rock's hardness" (this one) or "the rocks' hardness" (these rocks).

There must have been in earlier modern English a lot of similar usage of possessive forms like the "manly" sense of man's. I think of expressions (much from King James bible, I think, but perhaps from koine greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew) "song of songs", "king of kings", "sea of seas", "rock of rocks", "peak of peaks", and so on (castles, circles, hills, et al.). And also "of kings" or "King's" (King's ransom), "dog's" (dog's breakfast?), "child's" (child's play), "woman's"/"women's" (women's work), and others. The uniqueness of man's still eludes me. But this dialogue has given me more appreciation of the additional functions of possessive beyond the most literal kinds of possession. And of usage forms not captured by idioms. Do we need a wikigrammar, wikiFollettFowler, or a NoamChomswiki ? DCDuring 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Widsith 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

woman's

As above. --Keene 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconioses

As the singular was made up to be the longest word, it seems unlikely that this is pluralisable. Conrad.Irwin 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As the name of a specific disease, it won't have a plural anyway. There is no such thing as rubellas, chicken poxes, or AIDSes. English names of diseases are in the fuzzy ground between common noun and proper noun, and very few of them have a plural form. --EncycloPetey 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lukkengese

Apparently refering to a part of Hong Kong. Google doesn't like it. --Keene 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

pretty damn quick

Just because the acronym PDQ is found in the dictionary, there's no need for this to be. A simply SoP. --Keene 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, delete --EncycloPetey 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, delete.—msh210℠ 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Something we can all agree on. :) Globish 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Deleted. — Paul G 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

instructional design

--Connel MacKenzie 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging from Google:define:instructional design, this seems to pass the prior knowledge test, inasmuch as it has a specific meaning within a certain field. That also accords with my own experience in the educational trenches. -- Visviva 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

could one be any more

Old WF entry. - Algrif 11:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth keeping. A cleanup job though. It might be worth adding something about it being a rhetorical question. And that the verb doesn't need to be "be", i.e. "could he DO any more drugs". Furthermore, there doesn't even need to be a pronoun i.e. "Could there BE any more people here?". Possibly a page move too, to something like could one X any more Y or could one X any more?. Odd edit history too. --Keene 11:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, keep or move until we are certain that there is no elegant way to handle these. DAVilla 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Has been mentioned before at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/01. --Keene 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Implicit in the meaning of be (or do). It's a matter of intonation, not a set phrase. bd2412 T 01:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that; given that the intonation pattern associated with this frame is quite distinctive, this arguably passes the rocking chair test. -- Visviva 15:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Consider the following sentences: You want me to go to the zoo. You want me to go to the zoo? Common intonation pattern; the nominated phrase is merely a different example of a common intonation pattern - which could be applied to any verb: Could we go any slower? Could they buy any more porcelain figurines? Could that professor assign something more boring? bd2412 T 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, non-compositional at several levels (literal meaning, pragmatic intent, intonation). Seems to be quite a recent coinage -- all b.g.c. hits from before 2000 are in the literal sense. -- Visviva 15:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete or add many variant forms that the search engine would find. Virtually useless entry. A user could not find it on first search page without including "could", "more", and "any". Variants involving "less" are not covered. Including a verb other than "be" or a particular personal pronoun other than "one" make it less likely to be found. The problem is that we are not dealing with words, we are dealing with a construction with three (3) variable arguments (2 embedded), whose 2 or 3 invariant terms are common to many entries. '"could" X-noun Y-verb "any" ["more"|"less"] Z-adj' DCDuring 17:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ebb and flow

Verb sense: SoP.—msh210℠ 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

free*

--Connel MacKenzie 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite humorous, but delete. It looks to me like the article's creator has a grudge against iPods! --Keene 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I only saw the story on Digg, Keene. Otherwise, I'm indifferent. By the way, look at what Ruakh did to the article. --Takamatsu 15:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I still don't like the entry. --Keene 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an RfV case, rather than an RfD case. Genuine citations, please. bd2412 T 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an RFD on merit of the fact that we don't do punctuation in entry titles. The content can be merged into free if it meets CFI/passes RFV (I don't care about that) but it can't be at the entry title name free*. --Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We certainly do "do" punctuation (ergo, we have can't and cant, auto- and auto, man. and man, a.m. and am. You are objecting to an unusual punctuation mark, but it's being presented as part of the word, not as something like a comma, question mark, or end-of-sentence period. If people use the term "free*" without the "*" actually referring to a footnote, then it is part of the word, and should be included. I'm inclined to think it will fail that latter qualification, and would send it to RfV for that determination to be made before we trouble ourselves with determining whether such as entry ever ought to exist. bd2412 T 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to be silly BD2412 - of course I'm not talking about " " nor "-" nor "." nor "'". That doesn't affect the fact that this entry is intended to cause harm. --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Intended to cause harm? Look, it may or may not properly be called a word; your position seems to be that a form including a "*" by definition can not be a word. I say it can, although (as I noted before, and have clarified below, I doubt this one will qualify. Isn't it just as well for it to be deleted for failing verification? bd2412 T 23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Send to RFV (looking for no footnotes), and bring back Micro$oft while we're at it. DAVilla 14:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Deleted with prejudice," wasn't it? No, that particular nonsense caused the [[$1]] bugs in MW itself, let alone elsewhere. --17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts. Note that * is sadly incomplete at the moment. -- Visviva 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only sum-of-parts if the * indicates the presence of an actual footnote. What if there is no footnote, and it only stands for the proposition that the word coming before it is an incomplete statement of the truth? bd2412 T 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly that would no longer be compositional. But no such citations have been provided as yet, and finding them would seem a rather Herculean task. Basically this falls into that RFD/RFV gray area of "citations demonstrating idiomatic use." So I will change my vote to the appropriate grayscale value, delete unless idiomatic citations are provided. Cheers, -- Visviva 04:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that formula completely - delete unless idiomatic citations are provided. bd2412 T 23:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem of verifying this using Google makes me wonder whether Wiktionary would benefit from putting items that can't be readily cited using Google into some kind of more-extended RfV limbo. Words not likely to appear in print (esp in works online), rare uses of very common words, constructions with multiple potential occupants of positions within the phrase, expressions using reserved words or symbols (such as "*") are the classes that come to mind. If it existed, I would vote RfV limbo for this. DCDuring 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a red-herring. Either it belongs here, or not. We've seen that allowing "pseudo-exceptions" like WT:LOP, Appendix:, etc. are only (I repeat only) an end-run around process. With such astronomically low hurdles to pass, it seems more dubious than ever, to allow more exceptions. Particularly, when the entries themselves are harmful. In this case, moving it to WT:LOP is a possibility, but keeping it in NS:0 is not. --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Keep. It would seem to meet criteria for inclusion, though it is not yet well attested. I don't see what is especially sacred about any particular process. We live within the process we have and we consider changes. The possible need for changes arises from instances like these that dramatically illustrate problems. I don't see how this entry wouldn't potentially meet CFI given attestation. The problem with its ready attestation usuing Google is serious because of the wild-card character. I would not object to sticking to the normal deadlines for deciding questions, but would object to having them apply uniformly to the hard cases of unwritten colloquialisms and the other cases mentioned above. Why we keep unexamined our effective procedural bias toward the colloquialisms favored by usenet groups and against other particular types of expressions is beyond me. DCDuring 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a Wiktionary:Limbo has merit, if it is restricted to cases like this and end of, where the usual techniques for locating citations can't be used. That said, I still find the claim that this exists in idiomatic use highly dubious. "Free-with-an-apostrophe" maybe, but just "free*" seems implausible even for geekspeak. -- Visviva 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV - this issue is settled by citations. Widsith 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not just any citations; RFVs are supposed to be settled if a word/sense has three valid citations; this requires three valid citations (an RFV issue) that show idiomaticity (an RFD issue). So wherever it goes, it's going to be somewhat out of place. We are facing an increasing number of such cases, but I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be. -- Visviva 13:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Might as well keep it here. It won't make our conclusion any less valid. bd2412 T 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this serves as an archived use of free*, but if not, it is still quite amusing anyway. -- Algrif 11:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

nu metal

Invented genre? --Connel MacKenzie 23:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was invented. And it is a genre. Any rationale to this nomination? A page move to nu-metal possibly. A widespread genre of music. Undoubted keep. --Keene 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

332 raw g.b.c. hits. What grounds for deletion? DCDuring 03:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Scouts redundants senses (again)

I am listing Scouts again, as it is still unresolved since last June, now more than 6 months ago.
The discussion was closed off by it being moved to RFV for the original sense, but the two are not mutually exclusive.--Dmol 09:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

PS, the original discussion is on the talk page for Scouts. Aslo, I think after six months, and many cites, the first sense RFV could be considered passed.--Dmol 09:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also want to keep senses 1,2 and 5. 3 and 4 are clearly redundant, or one could add Canadian, Scottish, Irish etc. to the list. Besides, they are included in #2, since both Australian and US Scouts belong to the international movement. If they were separate from it, one might consider.Hekaheka 11:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The retrospective on the original RFD here is confusing. The original RFD was for the Baden-Powell sense...moved to RFV and never cited, as far as I can tell. In POV-pushing fashion, the most ridiculous "definition" was reordered to be the primary definition, yet the actual common meaning of the term was questioned. I doubt the reordering was intended to confuse subsequent review, but that seems to have been one effect. The word "scouts" is used worldwide to mean BSA, despite one person's objection (not backed up with any evidence.) Citations were provided to possibly justify a second definition line, to cover UK, Canada, AU, Irish, etc., but the Baden-Powell information (definition #1 at the time this is being written) belongs in the etymology section. --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete 3 & 4, of course. Widsith 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

fruit stone

Unidiomatic - means "the stone of a fruit" and is identical in meaning to "stone" alone. — Paul G 15:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some 610 raw g.b.c. hits, half to two-thirds of which seem to match the sense given. That the authors feel compelled to use the phrase means that "stone" alone doesn't convey the right meaning in every context (e.g., medical, religious). But I suppose, if one looked up stone, the adjective fruit would direct you to the right sense. And searching "fruit stone" would direct a user to stone fruit. weak delete. DCDuring 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per active volcano, vintage car, skateboard wheel, etc. DAVilla 15:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - not used by botanists, so the entry is in error in identifying it as such. --EncycloPetey 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete...not idiomatic, not a common collocation, and as per Paul. Widsith 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted --EncycloPetey 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

DMex

Has this entered the English language? Seems to be "DMeX", anyhow. --Connel MacKenzie 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

aboot

--Connel MacKenzie 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This is only a joke on the Canadian pronunciation of about. I'm sure it's never spelt that way.--Dmol 11:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Delete. This should have been a speedy deletion. This is not a word (not in the OED, not in the Random House Dictionary, and zero hits at onelook.com) nor is it even an accurate phonetic representation of the Canadian pronunciation (see paragraph 2 at w:Canadian raising). Just a feeble joke by an anon. -- WikiPedant 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten. I find Ruakh's rewrite entirely satisfactory. Nice job. -- WikiPedant 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) —Ruakh_TALK 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as modified by yours truly. Very well attested, though not Canada-specific. —Ruakh_TALK 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the speedy delete to rfd for discussion. The original entry was very poorly (possibly offensively) written, but did cover a particular sense that you've now removed. The pronunciation certainly is associated humorously with Canada. It is easy for someone to be offended by any joke, is it not? That said, it seems clear that this joke is not (ever?) intended maliciously. And it does represent a particular regional pronunciation clearly. Restore and rewrite sense. --Connel MacKenzie 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The original entry claimed that "aboot" is used in Canada as an alternative form of "about"; and you amended it to claim that it's used jocularly in Canada as an alternative form of "about". So far as I'm aware, neither claim is particularly true; as in, while it's quite likely that Canadians without Canadian raising will sometimes say "aboot" in a jocular attempt to mimic the pronunciation of Canadians with Canadian raising, in my experience it's nearly always Americans who do it. —Ruakh_TALK 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in my experience, Americans don't make that joke, only Canadians. --Connel MacKenzie 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, needs a section for Scots. —Ruakh_TALK 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Added. Widsith 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

fall classic

Probably should be capitalised as "Fall Classic"; questionable whether this meets CFI. — Paul G 11:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

memory

Two computing definitions should not be distinguished. DAVilla 14:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree; delete redundant sense. --Connel MacKenzie 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant sense.--Dmol 18:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redundant sense deleted (along with translation table) SemperBlotto 22:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Pineapple

And The Big Pineapple. --Connel MacKenzie 20:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might refer to Honolulu, by analogy to NYC. DCDuring 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not dictionary material - deleted (and the redirect) SemperBlotto 22:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Information vault

tagged in 2006. --Keene 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tosh - deleted SemperBlotto 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese food

Japanese + food. SoP. --Keene 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. bd2412 T 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  -ed. —Ruakh_TALK 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• No strong objection to the deletion, but, um, the referent is a concrete item (no, I don't mean the rice is rock-hard) not something completely abstract. Could you explain why this class of food is considered sum-of-parts? --Connel MacKenzie 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This sense is generally a sense of (deprecated template usage) food. If I used the term (deprecated template usage) Kalamazooan food, you'd know what it meant, even though that's not a term you'd ever heard before. Even so, since there seems to be disagreement about this, I've restored the entry pending fuller discussion. —Ruakh_TALK 14:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete.—msh210℠ 18:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this different from Egyptian pyramid ? Kappa 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Humorous answer: Japanese food isn't as gritty, though an Egyptian pyramid will stay with you longer.

Serious answer: An Egyptian pyramid is a very specific kind of architectural structure, with very few known examples. Japanese food is a broad class of items. --EncycloPetey 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And? Kappa 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And what? One term is a specific sort of item, the other is a broad class of items. That's a significant semantic difference. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One year ago, we talked about this word. (see. [34]) We reached the conclusion "Keep". and again we need to talk? I should put out same comment as 1year before.

As far as they have the specific cuisine and the restaurants of their own styles are familliar, yes, we should keep. And there are already entries of Chinese cuisine and Chinese food.

FYI:

• google search with "Japanese food" 1,280,000 hits (currently 2,090,000 hits).
• google search with "Japanese cuisine" 1,050,000 hits (currently 1,220,000 hits).
• google search with "Chinese food" - 1,480,000 hits (currently 5,430,000 hits).
• google search with "Chinese cuisine" - 1,200,000 hits (currently 1,550,000 hits).

If you think Japanese ones violated the wiktionary policy that you think, I think you should tag {{rfd}} to the Chinese ones either. But you didn't. why?

FYI2: wikipedia holds the article of Japanese cuisine

So I'd like to request to revive the deleted word, Japanese cuisine. Thanks --Carl Daniels 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At least someone is paying attention here. I'm inclined to say that polywords should not be deleted unless there is no reasonable doubt that they are unworthy for inclusion. There clearly is reasonable doubt in this case; ergo, keep. -- Visviva 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese cuisine

As above. --Keene 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. bd2412 T 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  -ed. —Ruakh_TALK 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  Restored. -- Visviva 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Carl's arguments above. There is enough genuine crud lying around that we don't need to spend time re-hashing arguments over entries that have a plausible case for inclusion. -- Visviva 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

penetration selling

--Connel MacKenzie 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost all g.b.c. hits are false leads, with the word "penetration" coincidentally followed by "selling" (e.g. "...obtaining the deepest market penetration. Selling to manufacturers is a highly specialized..."). Three possible hits, but none seem to match up to the definition offered (or to each other, particularly). bd2412 T 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Probably worth keeping. I tried the search on Google by using quote marks around the term - "Penetration Selling" - and found a good number of definitions and usage which are consistent with the submitted listing. I did also find a couple of false leads scattered throughout the first two result pages, but the predominence of listings, when searched with the quote marks around the term, did match up to the definition offered. --winbizwin 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Winwinbiz (talk • contribs).

This definition does not seem to consistent with the generally accepted definition of market penetration. It seems instead to reflect some particular consultant/writer's definition and implementation of a selling methodology. Some clues: the fairly recent date, the reference, a specific number of steps. There might be an acceptable generally accepted definition, but this isn't it. I'd recommend delete and start over. DCDuring 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A Google Books search on "penetration-selling" limited to books that offer at least limited preview yields only 3 hits, none of them in books about selling or marketing. My business teaching and consulting experience tell me that only very vague definitions truly reflect the range of actual usage, but that consultants and teachers will supply precise definitions because students and trainers want them. Also the realities of economic and business conditions change fairly quickly (but differently in different industries and in different firms in the same industry so that terms differ widely over time and across industries firms. DCDuring 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Probably keep. In the Google search for the term, when I did the search with the term in quote marks ("penetration selling"), -- among the results which demonstrate consistent usage with the submitted definition, there is, on pg. 3 of the search results, an AMAZON.COM listing and link to a book, published in 1997 (Listed as ISBN# 0966193105), which has a clear reference to the exact definition and use of the term as offered here.

It also appears that among the Google search results, there exists a confusion, and subsequent lack of clear distinction in usage, between the terms "penetration marketing", "market penetration" and "penetration selling". In Google searches for the term "penetration selling" (both with and without the use of quote marks) I found at least three instances where the term "penetration selling" was inaccurately and inappropriately presented, in which, what was being described was actually "market penetration". On the other hand, I found numerous references, including the AMAZON.COM reference mentioned earlier, that were fully consistent with, and supportive of, the currently submitted definition for "penetration selling".winbizwin 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Winwinbiz (talk • contribs).

Please note, Winwinbiz, that no amount of discussion is particularly persuasive without citations showing the term to be idiomatic. See the discussions of Home Depot and Pepto-Bismal above - perhaps you can provide us with some citations showing equivalent idiomatic use of "penetration selling"? Also, why do you keep signing as winbizwin while you are editing under Winwinbiz? bd2412 T 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

elizabeth regina

--Connel MacKenzie 06:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Elizabeth Regina is abbreviated as ER on British currency etc, but I don't think it is dictionary material. Deleted for now, SemperBlotto 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Chantilly cat

Was this "merge" correct to do? --Connel MacKenzie 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I created the article and I merged it, the word or breed is called chantilly or Chantilly/Tiffany NOT "Chantilly cat". See my User page User:WritersCramp summarizing the work I am doing on domestic cat breed definitions. I created them all, now I am fixing them, to meet a higher standard, as time allows. WritersCramp 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Kia

We don't do car manucturers, do we?--Keene 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a whole CFI subsection for cases like this - Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names. bd2412 T 04:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've done a quick search of usable citations, and found none. Perhaps a more intense search would come up with something, but usually a quick search will provide at least one good pointer, and I saw nothing. bd2412 T 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Khrushchev

Russian politician? This doesn't meet CFI --Keene 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Historians and reporters researching the Cold War, Soviet Union, etc., need such information, especially the translations. —Stephen 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And, perhaps, as a surname. bd2412 T 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As a surname it would seem valid prima facie. Knowing whether it was a common on would have a little value. A link would be nice to WP dab page if there is one or to Nikita's WP entry. Are there any issues in its transliteration? DCDuring 12:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as a surname this returns us to the bald-faced foolishness of considering surnames and other proper nouns to be language-specific; do we treat this as an English, French, Italian, German, Icelandic, and Indonesian proper noun, with separate language headings, do we decide to pretend that Russian is written in Roman characters, or do we finally bow to the inescapable fact that these are in fact ==Translingual==? -- Visviva 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As nice as it might be to treat proper names as translingual, they are very much short of that ideal. Khrushchev is clearly an English word, since English may be the only language in which the name is spelled that way. I checked about ten languages in Wikipedia, and at least those were all different from each other. "Bush" is not translingual either, since the name is spelled that way only in the languages which use Latin alphabet. Hekaheka 16:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on Khrushchev, thanks. As for Bush, I don't buy it. Translingual need not mean pan-lingual. Even classic cases of translinguality such as scientific names require translation in certain languages. For instance, Canis is 개속 in Korean and イヌ属 in Japanese. But this discussion really belongs elsewhere, if we're going to continue it. -- Visviva 06:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion on translating translingual words in Beer parlour. Hekaheka 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendokasper

The only web hits are in German. Also, Wiktionary's Kendokasper page is the first hit, which almost always spells dubiousness for me. --Keene 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a joke entry from the same guy who created the article Kendospacken (German), which was deleted a while ago. Kendokasper in German can be translated as "Kendo clown", which could be used as a valid word in rare contexts, but is not a word for putting into a dictionary. Also, the definition in the article does not fit the meaning and the given plural is bogus. Delete --Zeitlupe 05:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

avering

Misspelling, averring has two Rs. RJFJR 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have converted it into a misspelling entry. (But you can delete it if you want) SemperBlotto 09:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It looks like it maight have been an alternative spelling at one time. It appears in 19th C. in law reports and some more substantial works. It is certainly not a common misspelling. Most occurrences seem to be scannos/OCR fails. Would "dated" alternative spelling" be OK? DCDuring 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

j'ai

Same reasons as #n'est. Is simply j' + ai. --Keene 15:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep j'ai, keep n'est. Also keep au, du, and des, as well as al and similar. —Stephen 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - we've tended to delete contractions in English. --EncycloPetey 02:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we’re native speakers of English, it’s not so important to have English contractions (although we should). Those of us who do not know much French, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian might actually wish to find out what some of these very common words mean. —Stephen 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't j'ai pretty much a match for I've? We wouldn't get rid of that one, I'm sure. Of course, the difference is that you could write "I have" instead of I've, but you can't write "je ai" instead of j'ai, as it would be incorrect. bd2412 T 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Very common. And anyway, a contracted word is still a single word and so we should have an entry for it. The definition only has to say "contraction of je + ai", I don't see the problem. Widsith 11:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course keep - ALL words in ALL languages. SemperBlotto 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. This is SOP, with (deprecated template usage) j'- being one of its parts. The comparison to (deprecated template usage) I've is flawed, because (deprecated template usage) -'ve is mostly restricted to a handful of contractions, usually being written (deprecated template usage) have in other cases (even when pronounced Template:IPchar), whereas (deprecated template usage) j'- is simply a form of (deprecated template usage) je used in a broad swath of contexts. However, it does look like a word to English speakers, and it's incredibly common, so I'm not going to be all militant about it. —Ruakh_TALK 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, in case my comment above does not clearly convey my direction. I would agree with deleted, for example, [j'attends]] or j'apparais, even though they are correct, because they are just not as fundamental to the language; but avoir is one of the two basic combining forms for creating compound tenses, and j'ai is therefore exceedingly common in French speech. bd2412 T 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugly Betty

Seems dubious, as this show has only been on telly for about 15 months. Having 3 attributive quotations "spanning a year" as required by WT:CFI probably isn't plausible. Mind though, as there will be lots of noise when searching for reliable quotes. --Keene 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The English version has been on for about 15 months. It was originally produced in Colombia and ran on Spanish stations in the US for ages. I knew about the show long before there was an English language adaptation. That's not to say that I would keep this term; I'm just clarifying the word history a bit. It is conceivable that quotations predating the English version of the TV show might exist. --EncycloPetey 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Colombian version was officially known as Yo soy Betty, la fea (literally "I am Betty, the ugly"), with the short name Betty, la fea (literally "Betty, the ugly"). Did anyone refer to it as Ugly Betty? —Ruakh_TALK 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The title was contracted to Betty, la fea by American Spanish television stations, which translates as "Ugly Betty". I had seen the show referred to as such. --EncycloPetey 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Afghan

rfd-redundant sense. "ethnic Pashtun." at Proper noun. This sense is included in capitalized, pluralized noun PoS at same entry. If this is wrong, as I think it is, I wonder how many more like it there are. DCDuring 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, delete sense, there's lots more gunk like this floating around. -- Visviva 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Typhoo

Previously discussed in June of last year; see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/06, prior to the CFI modification vote. Does this now meet our criteria? -- Visviva 14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How militant are we supposed to be about the context conveying the "tea-ness" of Typhoo, rather that "Typhoo" conveying "tea-ness"? In a really strict approach, only one quotes 2 and 4 would work, IMHO. DCDuring 15:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the question. I would lean towards militancy, myself; but if it fails the test I would simply vote to move it to Appendix:Brand names/Typhoo, since good work has been done here. Or maybe we should just have an Appendix:Proper nouns to simplify placement of good entries which don't meet mainspace CFI. -- Visviva 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ulterior motive

and ulterior motives. What's next: red hen? This is an ulterior (either of the only two senses of that word that can possibly apply) motive (the most comon sense of that word, though currently for some reason not the first listed).—msh210℠ 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: A very established set phrase (at least in sense 1 of "set phrase"), with about half a million Google hits. -- WikiPedant 17:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect: that sense says "whose wording is not subject to variation". See google books:"ulterior or * motive" (400 results, which when compared to 1610 for "ulterior motive" is a nice percentage). Moreover, it can get adjectives in the middle, like ulterior political motives: see google books:"ulterior * motives" (664 results, which when compared with 1570 for "ulterior motives" is an even nicer percentage than the previous).—msh210℠ 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the meaning currently given in the entry is compositional, I'm not sure it's accurate. My gut feeling is that this means (or can mean) something more like "extrinsic motive," i.e. a motive apart from the thing or activity itself, but not necessarily hidden. The point of the Doyle quote (is that apostrophe really present in the original?) seems to be not that the flower has no secret motivation, but that it has no extrinsic motivation, i.e. no motivation outside of beauty itself. Similarly in the Time quote, it doesn't seem to me that profit would need to be secret or hidden in order to be an ulterior motive. -- Visviva 06:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that in most contexts where "ulterior motive" is used there is a connotation that the motive is concealed, but the "extrinsic" sense also strikes me as sometimes valid, so the defn should probably be expanded to allow for it. It would be nice to find one absolutely unequivocal quotation where the term definitely does connote "extrinsic" and definitely doesn't connote "hidden". Regarding the "it's," yes it was spelled that way in the original web public domain source, but this is an obvious error, so I have fixed it in the entry. -- WikiPedant 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

google books:"I have an ulterior motive" has 272 hits. Not all necessarily preclude hidden-ness — in some cases it could mean "I have an ulterior motive that I'm telling you about but not telling so-and-so about", and in some cases it's part of a clause like "you think I have an ulterior motive" — but some seem to. It shouldn't be too hard to find a compelling example. —Ruakh_TALK 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It is what it is. bd2412 T 02:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A very common set phrase, in fact I can't remember ever hearing the word ulterior when referring to anything else. Also very idiomatic in translation. Widsith 10:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

صور هيفا

Obviously it's not English and the definition given is nonsense. In Arabic, it means "pictures of Haifa", and hence doesn't meet CFI. Paul Willocx 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For obvious errors like this (which was probably someone trying out Wiktionary), you can simply tag the entry with {{delete}}. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hornburg

Tolkien place. --Keene 14:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also a town in Lower Saxony, German proper noun, i added that. Mutante 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Appendicize to Appendix:Place names/Hornburg or points beyond. No attributive use. -- Visviva 10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RFV under proposed criteria for fictional universe. Will probably wind up being shredded. DAVilla 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignacio de Allende

The name of a rebel. --Keene 14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, not dictionary material. -- Visviva 10:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization

It doesn't quite seem right. Almost sum of parts, but it strikes me as an encylopedia article more than for Wikt. --Keene 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work has been done on the entry, but it does not meet mainspace CFI. Move to appendix, suggest Appendix:Proper nouns/Indus Valley Civilization as part of larger merger. -- Visviva 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In the past terms such as this have consistently been deleted, but I have always voted to keep names of such entities. This is not SoP because not any civilization in the Indus Valley is properly the Indus Valley Civilization. DAVilla 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

JSLib:filtercontribs.js

Whatever this is, it needs moving out of the 0th namespace, assumedly to Mediawiki:JSLib:filtercontribs.js. --Keene 14:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the tentative new namespace name (realizing there has been no vote yet, true.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept per WT:GP#JSLib: namespace. DAVilla 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheetrock

rfd-senses:

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)

Jenga

A building game. It's a pretty famous game, but I'm sure there's a generic name for it. --Keene 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Each word on its own merits. If it's entered the lexicon, it deserves an entry. DAVilla 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I'd consider that Jenga is the generic name for this game. There are other copies that probably get called Jenga also.--Dmol 10:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Joe's

No thanks. --Keene 12:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete just like all compositional 's compounds, but move the last citation to Citations:Eat at Joe's, since Eat at Joe's is a very plausible candidate for inclusion. -- Visviva 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete but keep the last and any citations where Joe's refers to a generic eatery. DAVilla 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete possessive/contractive senses but keep as a component of Joe's Diner and Eat at Joe's, both of which use "Joe's" as a shorthand for the everyman's place. bd2412 T 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

났

Test case:

1. This is not a Korean word.
2. This is a syllable occurring within Korean words (principally in the penultimate syllable of past-tense forms of verbs which happen to end in 나다), but is not in any sense a "root." We don't normally include random syllables for other languages, so it is difficult to see why Korean would be an exception.
3. Heretofore the ===Syllable=== heading for Korean has been used only for hanja roots, for which no other suitable PoS header is available.
4. This is a Unicode codepoint.

So, do we include all Unicode entities on principle, regardless of their lexical significance, or not? It would not be terribly difficult to robo-add minimal entries for every Unicoded hangul syllable. But is that really what Wiktionary is in the business of doing? -- Visviva 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably obvious from the above, but I incline to delete this and any others that are lagging around. But if the consensus is to keep, I'll get on with the business of robo-adding all the others. It's silly to just have a few. -- Visviva 12:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and add them all. Just as we have all letters of the Roman alphabet, and characters from other alphabets/writing systems to boot. bd2412 T 13:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's not a Korean letter, it's a sequence of three Korean letters, not particularly distinct from any other possible sequence. We don't have xyg or pga either. -- Visviva 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My thinking on this echoes Cynewulf's comment below. English really lacks anything comparable - we don't change the shape of our characters just because we happen to group them together (except in the rare cases of æ and œ. If we did, these alternative shapes would surely have entries here (as those two do). bd2412 T 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep all Unicode characters, even deprecated compatibility characters, and characters whose normalized forms are decompositions into sequences of other characters, and the characters with not-safe-for-work glyphs that Messrs. Uni and Code added when they quit the Consortium and decided to burn bridges on their way out, and that one character that decomposes recursively into two of itself. —Ruakh_TALK 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: my rationale is not that Unicode is magical (I don't know whether it is), but that pretty much every Unicode character is actually used, and Unicode characters are typically the minimal unit of copy-and-paste. —Ruakh_TALK 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reverse myself here and say keep. Here's why: Imagine somebody who doesn't know Korean comes across some bit of Korean text, say 감사합니다, and tries to look it up on Wiktionary, but it's not there. So they think "Hmm. Wiktionary has 'a' and 'あ' and '字', maybe I can look up the 'letters' and figure out what this sounds like at least." So they try to look up 감 and 사 and 합 and 니 and 다. So, in the interests of explaining all language, I think we should include composed syllable blocks that might reasonably form Korean words, as "Korean: Pronunciation: (however) Symbol (or Syllable, or anything reasonable): A syllable block composed of ㄱ ㅏ ㅁ." I don't know whether Unicode includes the equivalent of "bxd", sequences that don't appear in any word and can't really be pronounced, but I think that's a different question. Cynewulf 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could see "Symbol" as a header. On the other hand I don't foresee us including Middle Korean syllables here, either in the PUA versions that everyone uses or the conjoined Unicode versions that only we use. Seems unfair that we provide this rather extraordinary service only for the modern form of a single language. -- Visviva 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To expand, how is someone who doesn't already know hangeul supposed to know that 감 can be broken down to ㄱ ㅏ ㅁ, but 盟 can't be broken down to 日 月 皿? Cynewulf 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect. We are not Unicode's bitch. DAVilla 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Davilla's got the right idea here. If there is an argument for letting a user get helpful results from inputting this character in a search, but there is no argument for having an actual entry, a redirect is the best solution. Atelaes 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to what? Cynewulf 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Appendix:Unicode/Hangul? -- Visviva 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to have redirects, we may as well have a short informative entry on the specific symbol along with a link to such an appendix. Or else we're going to have an enormous appendix page. bd2412 T 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything there is to say about such a symbol -- decomposition, transliterations (two), codepoint, perhaps keystroke sequence -- would fit comfortably onto a single line in a table. Granted, we have a lot of entries that could fit on a single line in a table, but in general such entries can be expanded. Here once the basic technical stuff is filled in, there will never be anything more to say. Unlike virtually all other Unicode characters, these are not meaningful graphemic units in any context. -- Visviva 09:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we are Unicode's bitch. But we don't need to feel bad about it: the vast majority of the Web is Unicode's bitch. And I'd be hard-pressed to think of a coded character set whose bitch I'd rather be. Most don't even have decent bidi algorithms! —Ruakh_TALK 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. What is this character? I have no idea, and I want to look it up! You have explained above that it is not a word but a syllable ocurring within Korean words, all of which is very useful and pertinant and should go on the page for this character, rather than here on RFD. Widsith 09:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this logic would not apply to any other random sequence of characters (which is what this actually is). I can't necessarily tell where one Hebrew or Arabic letter ends and another begins, but that doesn't mean we should have entries for every conceivable combination of letters in those systems. -- Visviva 09:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If a random sequence of characters is encoded as a single separate character, then we certainly should have an entry for it. Besides, what harm does it do exactly? Widsith 09:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. We’ve discussed this several times before. There is nothing exactly like it in other languages or writing systems, but it’s close to a letter of the alphabet (please don’t bother to explain more precisely what it is...I know what it is). It is a syllable that cannot be divided into smaller parts by people who can’t type Korean. I think it is important to include these syllables for the purpose of showing pronunciation. A user might not find a particular word or form anywhere, but at least he could find out how it’s pronounced by searching for each Unicode point (syllable), just as we can do with words written in Russian, Arabic, etc. And, as Widsith points out, what harm does it do? —Stephen 17:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, since it's not a word, it doesn't have a pronunciation. Any information the user might imagine himself to be gleaning thus would be illusory. But the rest of your points are well-taken. -- Visviva 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I'm not sure I understand why we're so eager to take on items that are far outside our mandate, but so be it. Further question: Is it because it's a recognized Unicode character, or because it's the smallest pasteable unit? Specifically, I'm curious if an archaic Hangul syllable such as  (that's ᄂᆡ in the Unicode-compliant version nobody uses) would be accepted here. It occurs in archaic Korean texts online, and you'd be surprised where odd little bits of archaic Korean end up that someone might want to know about. However, it's a Private Use Area codepoint, not part of Unicode proper. Would it also be acceptable to have an entry for this entity (possibly including other PUA applications of the same codepoint, if any)? -- Visviva 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

satya

IAST transliterations in NS:0. Valuable content transfered to (deprecated template usage) अक्षर, (deprecated template usage) इच्छा, (deprecated template usage) अश्व, (deprecated template usage) चक्र, (deprecated template usage) सत्य --Ivan Štambuk 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is in line with the policy on Wiktionary:About Sanskrit (at least, after Robert made his modifications to the page :)). Deleted Atelaes 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

QOM

Doesn't meet CFI as it is a specific event. Conrad.Irwin 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You tagged mountains classification, but listed QOM here. Which are you nominating? —Ruakh_TALK 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

rockabilly

Redundant noun senses. 2 and 3 are included in 1. -- Algrif 10:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sense 2 and 3 are basically the same as 1. (BTW, Shouldn't this be on RFD as a redundant sense listing).--Dmol 10:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ((Yes, it should. Moved. Algrif))