SOP. It's a piece for playing xiangqi. We keep {{m|en|chess piece}} on [[WT:THUB]] grounds as well as for the idiomatic sense, but neither apply here. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 05:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
SOP. It's a piece for playing xiangqi. We keep {{m|en|chess piece}} on [[WT:THUB]] grounds as well as for the idiomatic sense, but neither apply here. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 05:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Facts707|Facts707]] ([[User talk:Facts707|talk]]) 13:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
== [[:have one's pockets on swole#rfd-notice-en-|have one's pockets on swole]] ==
== [[:have one's pockets on swole#rfd-notice-en-|have one's pockets on swole]] ==
Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).
Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.
Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} oder {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as [[green leaf]]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.
Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
Striking out the discussion header.
(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments6 people in discussion
This more-or-less refers to an app (supposedly) for building a coalition, even if the "building" is being done by outside observers talking about how such a coalition could come together. I thought about sending this to RfV, but it's SOP even if it exists. bd2412T06:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have added a definition to builder, "Software that allows the user to create a certain kind of automated output". Perhaps that can be tweaked, but I think it gets the gist. bd2412T06:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
These seem SOP, the sense of ass (A person; the self; (reflexively) oneself or one's person, chiefly their body.) It is all frequently replaced with "butt" and other synonyms, which makes it less idiomatic in my view. Since it is also constructible with all of these others pronouns it becomes less and less set. - TheDaveRoss13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Strong keep - they're pretty unique in that they're used in place of me/you/etc. as well as myself/yourself/etc. I think the only synonym is my butt/your butt/etc., and that's clearly just a euphemism. You're unlikely to hear any other synonym of ass being used this way (outside of obvious humour doing it for effect), and I can't think of any other tangible nouns which can be paired with my/your/etc. to create genuine pronouns (as opposed to intangible nouns like majesty - though we do have entries for Your Majesty among others). It's definitely not productive in any real sense.
To give an example: even though "save your ass" can clearly be changed to "save your skin", you wouldn't ever hear "get your skin over here" or "why is your skin always so late?" because "your skin" is not a pronoun (but merely a metonym used only in a specific context). On the other hand, your ass clearly is a real pronoun that can be used in any context, albeit with a somewhat modified syntax (and leaving aside whether that would be a good idea). Theknightwho (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete all: ass is used here metonymically to mean one’s self, and this meaning is already recorded as etymology 2, sense 5, at that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
This isn't true, because you can't ask "why is yourself always so late?" You can ask "why is your ass always so late?" The fact it can be used in place of either you oder yourself makes this blatantly not SoP, and is not covered by a definition on ass for the reason that you cannot define a pronoun on a noun entry. Theknightwho (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I see it differently. "Why is your ass always so late?" can be analysed as "Why is your self [oder your body, oder your person] so late?". The fact that your ass, your self, your body, or your person can be replaced by the pronoun you doesn't mean those phrases need to be treated as pronouns. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
yourself =/= yourself. There are no situations where your ass can be used where it could not be swapped out for either you or yourself (ignoring the interjection). It's also completely unheard of to use yourself in the way you have in your example, but if it were, that would make it a pronoun too, because it's referring to someone anaphorically (sense 2) and cannot be preceded by a determiner ("the/a/my/your your ass"), which together define pronoun. It's a bound term.
Exactly the same logic applies to Your Majesty, which has two cites showing it being used as a pronoun in place of you (as opposed to when it's used as a formal term of address following a statement). Again, it's about the anaphorical reference and the lack of a determiner. Theknightwho (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw None of those sound natural though… and I’d be surprised if they could be cited as well. Like no one really says “Get your body up!” unless they’re talking about a workout exercise or something, whereas “get your ass up!” is just normal usage of a pronoun. “Why is your [body/person/self] so late?” straight up does not sound right at all. AG202 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I don’t think this sort of substitution needs to “sound natural”. That’s a red herring, I feel. In “Get your ass up!”, ass is being used as a metonym of a person’s body or self, and thus as a noun. I don’t think it makes a difference that nobody actually says “Get your body up!”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
@Sgconlaw Is it though? Even at the entry written at ass, it says "By extension, one's personal safety, or figuratively one's job", so in that case it being used to refer to one's self or body is faulty. And speaking personally, I certainly don't really parse it as "your body" or "your person" for sure, for similar reasons. AG202 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
It doesn’t seem like “one’s personal safety” or “one’s job” is the relevant noun sense here, so I’d say those senses are simply not applicable. The relevant sense is “one’s body, person, or self”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the thing that clinches it is that it is impossible to use that sense of ass outside of the possessive ("my/your/their"). That means it cannot be a noun, and it is therefore absolutely not SoP. Theknightwho (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
That isn't unique to this sense, though this may be the most common example. "...don't show your face around here..." or "...keep your hands off of me..." are similar constructions. I don't think that means one's face and one's hands are necessary entries, or idiomatic. - TheDaveRoss15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
"Get your sorry white ass out there." Other modifiers include fucking, tired, sweaty, cute, fat/skinny/flabby/bony, yellow, beaten, dragging, loser, old/young, inconsequential. Though some usage refers to the body part alone, other usage is more clearly referring to an entire organism (plenty of usage of "its ass"), and other usage is ambiguous. IOW, DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Löschen. Everyone is focusing on the substitutability of "ass", but it's the other half of the construction that's interchangeable: it's not just pronouns, any designation of a person can be substituted: "I want to see Joe's ass in my office ASAP!" It's just [noun, pronoun or proper noun referring to one or more individuals]+[possession] + ass. The whole purpose of the construction is to attach a vulgarity as an intensifier- you can't say "get your esophagus over here!" because "esophagus" isn't unpleasant or shocking enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Yes, the first word is interchangeable because it's acting as a pronoun. The fact that a name could be put there doesn't change the fact that it can only be used in the possessive. It's also not just any intensifier - it's the only one, with a softer version as an alternative. Theknightwho (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Redirect (merge) to ass or to someone's ass, I think. It seems like ass is the lexical element, since the first part can be any possessive, and indeed the second part can be changed to arse (or dumbass: google books:"your dumbass over") or expanded with other words ("your guys's stupid asses"). I feel like we had a discussion about something of this sort previously, but I can't find it. Maybe I'm thinking of the inconclusive old discussion at Talk:my ass, where someone make the side point that terms like baby are sometimes used pronominally—"when baby is crying". I concede e.g. "Majesty" is also somewhat variable ("your Majesty"; "his Majesty" and "her Majesty" = "their Majesties"; in a few books even "my Majesty"), but that's still a lot less variable (*"I want the director's Majesty in my office pronto"?). - -sche(discuss)03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Can one say something like, “We sent out six asses to reconnoitre the area. Only two came back.”? I mean, can ass be used as a pars pro toto in the sense of “person” without possessive determiner identifying the possessor of the body part? If it is obligatory, this is of lexical significance. --Lambiam10:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think this should be moved to one's ass, per the precedent we've set. (But is it one oder someone? We can't seem to decide.) If this must be a keep or delete vote, though, i consider this a keep because I want the definition re-titled, not deleted. —Soap—18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
If this gets deleted, I ask that we at least maintain the others (all possible forms) as redirects because, while the content at ass is sufficient for a naive learner to use the expressions properly, they might not know where to look on the page without a guide. As for one's ass, in theory it should exist too, but almost nobody is going to use that as a search string, so I'm ambivalent about it. —Soap—20:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Löschen all noun sections. We should add all attestable "interjection" forms (singular/plural, 1st/2nd/3rd person), at least as hard redirects to someone's ass.
I don't see this as a translation target either. Ass is a noun in these constructions that serves as a usually derogatory intensifier, but parallel to such nouns as self, person, etc. The question is how do other languages accomplish the functions of derogation and intensification, either separately or jointly. It need not be done in a way closely parallel to the way it is done in English. As for showing it all lexically, consider that it took Jesse Sheidlower 270 pages to cover, using OED material, idioms involving fuck in The F Word (3rd ed.), but did not include collocations like who the fuck, why the fuck, fuck him, etc. DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
SOP. I had a good chuckle though when I saw that their definitions are literally the parts linked individually. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply Note. Someone has since rewritten the definitions, but not in a way I consider satisfactory. For one thing, these concepts do not only apply to verbs and pronouns, but also to a variety of other grammatical aspects in various languages – for example, the Turkish suffixes of possession. (This applies to our inadequate treatment of first person as well.) And IMO "the dual of the first-person form of a verb or pronoun" is meaningless; there is no such thing as "the first-person form" that has a dual. --Lambiam11:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
My gut is that we should keep these, since we are a dictionary, and we enjoy using phrases of this sort. Also, I never knew there was such a thing as a 'first/second/third-person dual' until this discussion. bd2412T07:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Antwort
You mean in the sense of a grammatical case for precisely two subjects? I was vaguely aware of it existing, but had never heard of or thought of it being in terms of grammatical person. bd2412T06:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Actually, these are not just SOP (at least the duals and plurals), cf. the lengthy discussion in Anna Siewierska's Person. But before adding intricate definitions (e.g. differentiating between the 2+2 (multiple addressees) and 2+3 (single addressee plus others) use of second-person plural), is it the job of Wiktionary to serve as a dictionary of linguistic terminology? –Austronesier (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Only tangentially related to this, I have just noticed that the Translation section of English we is a mess. The "exclusive" box serves as a kind of default space for a lot languages that actually do not have a clusivity distinction, while some non-clusive languages (French, German, Arabic etc.) are represented in both boxes. Maybe it makes more sense to have a main box for clusivity-neutral equivalents of English we, and to restrict the "exclusive" and "inclusive" boxes to languages which do have distinct 1p excl. and incl. pronouns? –Austronesier (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam I have started trying to update them, to at least destubify them, see: second-person plural, though it doesn't feel satisfactory to me just yet. I actually also found that the fr.wikt definitions are more wordy, but do get the point across more clearly and are more open, see première personne du singulier, which I feel could be translated here well, though it would need to include more than just the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and verb forms as you've mentioned. I'm just not 100% sure of the phrasing, so I've paused for now. (Pinging @SemperBlotto as well since you've participated in a related discussion in the past) AG202 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@PUC Please don't drop attacks like that and then say "I have no interest in getting into a debate over this", that's just poor form. To me, this is not SOP per Austronesier's rationale. And then, this section is actually policy if you've read through WT:CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." which imho is what bd2412's rationale relates to. Also, as stated in my comment on the discussion, I specifically mentioned "with words being deleted", which I've gone into more detail in in my comments on WT:IDIOM not being applied as it should be. If you have genuine critiques that's fine, but please don't come for me again like this while taking my comments out of context and not being well-versed in policy. AG202 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I know you specifically mentioned that. You're a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist, of course you'd complain about entries being deleted. This is the reason why I'm attacking you in the first place: you see, what I can't stand is inclusionists taking the moral high ground, presenting themselves as the upholders of reason and argumentation, when they are often the most biased of all and will grasp at every straw to support their POV - like you just did with this ridiculous clause from the CFI. But I've said my piece. Hopefully I've got it out of my system and won't bother you again. (I'm mostly staying away from RFDs nowadays anyway.)
@PUC If you'd actually paid attention, you'd see that I've voted for entries to be deleted. And even if I were a diehard inclusionist, I still have not lobbed personal attacks at editors who are deletionists, and at least try to act in good faith. I'm not presenting myself as the be-all know-all with RFDs, I've archived a ton of RFD discussions even ones that I don't believe should've been deleted, and have often deferred to other editors when it comes to participating in them (@BD2412, @Fytcha, @Imetsia). The original comment in Beer Parlour came from a place of frustration, and to be honest, some entries were closed against policy, like non-Canadian, since folks did not follow or know about WT:IDIOM. You claimed that my vote wasn't in line with policy and so I provided multiple examples of policy that can align with this. If you disagree with that policy analysis, that's fine, but it's rather unbecoming of someone, especially someone who just became an admin, to openly attack and berate folks like that. It's hard for me to not take it personally when it was lobbied directly at me. AG202 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
And honestly, my initial comment was taken completely out of context. I mentioned that line to show that we don't keep every word possible, meaning that our motto of "all words in all languages" doesn't align with what actually happens here, meaning that it should be updated. That was the whole point of the discussion in Beer Parlour. I accept that some RFDs end up that way, and have come to accept it as being part of Wiktionary as a whole. Plus see the policy that I've been strongly pushing for for months: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Attestation_criteria_for_derogatory_terms. If I were as "inclusionist" as you claim, I would not be arguing in favor of those terms being limited, so please at the very least make sure that you're aware of what's actually been going on before you attack folks. AG202 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Sorry for lashing at you like that. As I mentioned in the conversation I linked to above, RFD debates don't bring out the best in me... PUC – 21:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I haven't seen a convincing argument that, say, second-person dual does not mean the same thing as second person + dual. One can always include some encyclopedic content (or just extra words) to make it look superficially as if an expression was idiomatic. We do have an encyclopedic source that we can refer our users to. DCDuring (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep all. Putting things in an appendix as suggested near the top of the thread fall just barely short of deletion since the appendix space is well-hidden. Likewise, bundling the already well-detailed definitions into the parent pages like second person will make them very cluttered, and I imagine if we do that people will just delete them later on. So I think it's best the way it is now. —Soap—12:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Rfd-sense "(military engineering) A damage control system on navy warships which is activated by excessive temperature within the Vertical Launching System."
One thing which is certain is that deluge systems are not exclusive to military engineering, or navies, or ships. Deluge systems are used for land-based rockets for sure, and I think many other applications. What remains then is whether deluge on its own is sufficiently supported in the sense of "a system which deluges", and, if so, how many distinct senses should be here. This is perhaps more of a cleanup, but the sense as written shouldn't remain. - TheDaveRoss15:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring Beyond fire suppression it is used for sound suppression or energy absorption. Every system I am aware of deluges with water, but in the world of fire suppression I wouldn't be surprised if other chemicals are used. - TheDaveRoss18:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
"…, so I am still not sure if deluge on its own means such systems." Yes, it does, at lest people use it this way: I just looked up "deluge" because it was used as a synonym for "flooding system" in a YouTube video covering the rebuild of SpaceX's launchpad for Starship, after this launchpad became badly damaged on its first use, because it was lacking a deluge [system]. I wondered if this is an appropriate use of "deluge", only to discover, that this is debated. I like the current version created by Whoop whoop pull up on 2022-07-07: It is informative and covers exactly this meaning well. Olf, 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Keep revised definition. Some opportunity for further improvement of the entry. See “deluge*”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., which has deluge set and deluge gun as firefighting terms, but doesn't seem to give deluge on its own a distinct fire-fighting definition. But those terms + deluge system would seem to provide support for deluge as a term in itself. Also see Deluge on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . I gather that the term is normally used where any ingredient other than water in the deluge (either literal or fire-fighting sense) is incidental. It does seem to be a noun used attributively, though calling an adjective might be supportable. DCDuring (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
If we can't find usage of deluge in the fire-fighting sense in any of the most common noun roles (subject of verb, object of verb or of preposition), it would be better if we had three cites using deluge attributively with different nouns, like gun, boat, set, method. DCDuring (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The senses "An exclamation of triumph or discovery" (usex Ha! Checkmate!) and "Said when making a vigorous attack" (with some quotations) seem redundant. Or at least, all the quotations we have for the latter fit the former just as well, and the usex we have for the former fits the latter. Can anyone find examples that distinguish these senses?—msh210℠ (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep as it is not based on the sound of laughter. This is more akin to hi-yah and heave-ho, ...a nonverbal expression accompanying strong muscle movements, perhaps to help control one's breath. —Soap—18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm. Now I think about it, there are subtle distinctions in meaning here, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I favour have a break if I'm talking about a brief rest, but take a break if I mean a more significant break for an extended period (e.g. a career break). Theknightwho (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep and soft redirect to take a break if it is a synonym. Soft redirect is better than hard redirect, offering less of a surprise. If it is not a synonym, keep and explain the difference in a usage note. Do not redirect to the appendix: these are unwieldy for lexicographical information. If there is not enough support for the preferred outcome, at least hard redirect to take a break, not to the appendix, to direct the reader to translations, and keep listing it as a synonym there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
A member of one of the four minor orders of the Catholic Church.
Keep for a few reasons:
It passes the once upon a time test at WT:IDIOM as it’s irregular. For example, A cleric in minor orders could no longer see his vocation as a steppingstone to the priesthood. and Don Josef Galindo y Soriano was fiel ejecutor and don Francisco Galindo y Soriano the other cleric in minor orders (he also had a house on the town square).
It’s irregular because minor orders is a countable plural, which should take the definite article (“cleric in the minor orders”), but it doesn’t for some reason.
If you look at the quotations, they’re clearly using the term as the primary term for someone’s profession. In any event, most terms for professions that we have are classes of more specific professions (e.g. there are many kinds of lawyer). Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Technically I think in minor orders would be a prepositional phrase (like in Abraham's bosom, in broad daylight etc; it doesn't seem to meet tests of adjectivity), but AFAICT it'd be SOP as just "in" + "minor orders". I also don't see why "minor orders" would be proper noun, at least not in general, though you could capitalize it to express greater specificity and hence proper-noun-ness, like you could do with the Church or the Website or other things. (And if Talk:Church is to be followed, we could have near-duplicate entries for Everything, But Capitalized... but "church" and "minor orders" etc would still be common nouns AFAICT.) - -sche(discuss)02:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Move to a collocations section in "minor orders". To one Theknightwho's points: it's not a profession ("porter" or "exorcist" could be considered a profession, but not "cleric in minor orders", since that's just a catchall term, akin to "healthcare professional"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I'm inclined to delete because it does seem to be a SOP catchall descriptor, and only about one-fifth at most (historically less) of all the uses of "(whatever) in minor orders", and about 1/17th at most of the various phrases "minor orders" occurs in. It's not tightly bound, indeed the parts can be scattered around a sentence, because it's just a description (and not the title of a profession, but a description of a class of professions):
2009, Joseph Bergin, Church, Society and Religious Change in France, 1580-1730, page 64:
Huge numbers of pre-teenage boys were administered the tonsure, the first of the 'minor' orders, which technically made them clerics and therefore capable of holding 'simple' benefices (that is, without cure of souls).
Delete as SOP (and mention as a collocation if desired). Reviving this discussion a bit: a better question is whether in minor orders by itself merits an entry, which @Theknightwho, -sche touched on above. I think in orders, meaning "ordained" (search e.g. "monk in orders"), probably does, since someone unfamiliar with church usage would otherwise need to either figure out that it refers to holy orders or scroll down to sense 13 of order to figure it out, and even then the definition given there isn't substitutable. Then, if in orders has an entry, I suspect it's harder to justify leaving out in minor orders since it's derivative of in orders and not just an ellipsis of "in the minor orders" as suggested above (the latter is used but is more obviously SOP). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Per above. However, God Save the King / Queen and Star-Spangled Banner may be kept due to the presence of multiple senses in the entry (and also because the USA and the UK are the 2 most important Anglophone countries — and of course, the deletion proposal of the above terms are from the perspective of English; and so for example, French Marseillaise, Japanese 君が代, German Deutschlandlied, Hebrew הַתִּקְוָהare entry-worthy from the perspective of these languages). ·~dictátor·mundꟾ01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree we should keep any that have additional senses, but I don't agree that we should have entries for national anthems based on the perceived importance of countries. Either they're lexically relevant or they're not, so I'm in favour of adding God Save the Queen/King and the Star-Spangled Banner to this as well, referring only to the national anthem senses. Theknightwho (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Löschen unless (1) it is a single word; or (2) it has at least one sense that is not simply "national anthem of XYZ". Thus, "The Call of South Africa", "God Defend New Zealand", "Marcha Real", and "O Canada" should go. I agree with @Theknightwho that trying to determine the perceived importance of countries is inappropriate and unworkable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I would have no idea what "O Canada" intends, and "Marcha Real" (literally "Royal March") does not name any specific country, so the fact that it is the anthem of Spain is idiomatic to the phrase. bd2412T00:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
@BD2412: I feel the names of national anthems are essentially more suitable material for Wikipedia, and am minded only to make the two exceptions which I previously mentioned. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I am not exceptionally attached to the two-word names. I find them idiomatic, but would not lose sleep over them if they were deleted. We might have a soft redirect from those to Wikipedia. bd2412T05:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
If we're keeping some of them, then we should keep all. I agree with Theknightwho that we shouldn't be giving increased relevance to the US & UK because they're the "2 most important Anglophone countries" (debatable). If the issue is that the others don't have additional senses, then send them to RFV. AG202 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand how they're less encyclopedic simply because they have one-word titles. I'm aware there's precedent, since we also have pages for Thumbelina and Iliad, but that doesn't seem right to me. If these titles aren't being used as words (like Bluebeard and Godzilla), and they don't have unique translations (like Mona Lisa and Chopsticks), I don't see how they're within our jurisdiction. We don't include newer works like Rashomon oder Ficciones, and I don't agree with any policy that'd give preferential treatment to older works for no reason other than their age. If anything, we should move non-lexical work titles to an appendix. Binarystep (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
@Binarystep: actually I’m happy for all names of national anthems except those that have an idiomatic sense to be deleted, including the single-word ones. We seem to be wedded to single-word entries for some reason, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
@Binarystep, Sgconlaw: Unlike Rashomon, which is a made-up word without prior meaning, Hatikva and Kimigayo are actual words with prior meaning. These are transliterations from the original Hebrew and Japanese, respectively. We do, as it happens, have an entry for ficciones as a word. bd2412T17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I don't see how they can be separated out. They exist as words parseable in English because they are used as titles in other scripts. bd2412T19:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
The policy is WT:NSE; we do include many names of specific entities, which was voted on. NSE are up to editor discretion. --18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@PUC Can you state a specific rationale, which would include at least one salient characteristic making this not belong in the mainspace? Otherwise, the rationale stated contains no specific content and is at the risk of making your vote discountable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep the single-word ones. Governed by WT:NSE, so this is up to editors. "encyclopedic content" is not a CFI rationale and does not give us any guide as to which NSE to keep and which to delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Keep all to simplify the closure. The multi-word ones are less worthy of keeping, but no harm is done if we keep them as well, and we can per WT:NSE. Those who dislike multi-word names in a dictionary won't visit the entries by accident, seeing immediately what they are. Let this be deleted by deletionists if wished. And if we consider The Call of South Africa and its German translation Die Stimme Südafrikas, this is not a word-for-word translation since "Call" is not obviously "Stimme". Admittedly, considering translations as worthwhile would allow many names of specific entities; OTOH, if we allow Washington County without translations, then these are more lexicographically worthwhile than this county. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I see 5:3 delete:keep, which would be no consensus for deletion. Any more input to make the result less equivocal? (The word "encyclopedic" ought to be banned from RFD discussions as practically meaningless.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Given that several of the keep votes were qualified, it makes absolutely no sense to give a numerical tally for all the terms as a whole. Your unwillingness or inability to understand what encyclopaedic content is does not make it any less relevant. You just don't understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Competence is required for RFD closures, and I'm sorry to say that you lack it. Theknightwho (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The idea of "encyclopedic" content in relation to proper names is nonsense as it does not tell us which proper names to keep and which to delete. Thus, no one has ever explained why "God Defend New Zealand" is "encyclopedic" while "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not. Ideally, the words "encyclopedic" and "lexical" ought to be banned from RFDs, and substantive differentia ought to be invoked instead, until these words can be given anything resembling operational practical meaning that has anything like bearing on actual inclusion and exclusion. Until that happens, the word "encyclopedic" is just a thin veil behind which "I don't like it" is hidden, or something of the sort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Donnanz: Can you state a rationale, in keeping with the strength-of-the-argument-augmented numerical consensus? Otherwise, there is the risk that the RFD closer will discount your vote. A minimum rationale is "Keep per person so-and-so." --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I am arguing that these terms are not SOP or mere titles of songs. They are symbols that stand for what country has that anthem (eg "God Save the King/Queen" is a song that represents the UK, same with the "Star-Spangled Banner" for America and "Kimigayo" for Japan.) Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think some of these are well-known enough to serve as symbols for patriotism, citations like "when I am dead sing over me the Marseillaise" would be persuasive. RFV Drapetomanic (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Drapetomanic: like @Equinox, I do not think the fact that a certain national anthem may be a symbol of patriotism is relevant as it is not a sense of the term. We do not define rose as “a symbol of love”, nor magnifying glass as “a symbol of an Internet search”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Drapetomanic: however, white flag is idiomatic in that sense. One can say “She raised a white flag, and admitted she was wrong”. If you feel that any of the national anthems listed above, or others, are idiomatic in the same way, then kindly find at least three quotations for each of them unambiguously indicating, for example, that when a sentence says “He sang ‘The Call of South Africa’” what is actually meant is “He is patriotic”. A similar discussion took place concerning born on the Fourth of July, which was ultimately closed with deletion as evidence of idiomatic use just wasn’t there. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I thinks it's enough for la Marseillaise' to be used to imply patriotism, just as a literal white flag implies surrender. One can say "the soldiers raised a white flag" and that needs to be searchable so one would know they were surrendering. It's something you need to know to have a full grasp of the language. Drapetomanic (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Drapetomanic: I don’t, I’m afraid. My reading of WT:CFI is that we require proof of idiomaticity, and not some vague suggestion that a term might imply idiomaticity in some contexts. Otherwise, entries will be filled with so-called senses like rose – a symbol of love, and dog – a symbol of faithfulness, which we do not do. I think the entries should all be deleted, and of course if editors can find at least three qualifying idiomatic uses for a particular anthem they can put them on a citations page and request for the term to be undeleted. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep all (I just came across an article from The New Yorker where the author misspells "Marseillaise"–it's useful information to include). – Jberkel07:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Lambiam That wasn't the RFD rationale provided though, hence when I suggested to send it to RFV. However, seeing that it can be cited, I'd vote Keep, based on the fact that we have entries for every book in the Bible, including other books like 1 Maccabees which are also found in the Apocrypha. See also: Category:en:Books of the Bible. It would be very strange to have all of those but then delete this one (though it's up for debate on whether or not this is considered its own book, but that's another conversation). Also, the only RFD that I was able to find thus far at Talk:1 Chronicles, ended in consensus for keeping the entry. AG202 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, AG, I disagree with this. The Bible book is called Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, not just Song of the Three Holy Children. Dan Polansky's argument is characteristically poor, as Merriam-Webster's entry is probably a mistake. Flackofnubs (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Re: "Dan Polansky's argument is characteristically poor" is itself a low-quality argument: a decent criticism of argument involves identification of some part or aspect of the argument that is low-quality. Flackofnubs is Wonderfool, and on my wiki, he would be forbidden from participation in RFD process: it is a person that is banned but the user accounts are tolerated, not because editors want to tolerate them, but because if they won't, the person will keep on creating new accounts anyway and new accounts are going to be target of suspicion of being Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
RFD-kept as no consensus for deletion. I discount Wonderfool (Dunderdool, Flackofnubs). Other than that, there are two keeps and two deletes. As for policy, it leaves editor discretion (WT:NSE). The deletionists had enough time to vote delete, and did not take the opportunity. The argument "encyclopedic material, not lexical" is meaningless on the surface of it; in what sense of "lexical", what definition, is a multi-word proper name not "lexical"? A case could be made that this particular proper name should not be kept, but no serious attempt has been made to make the case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
RFD deleted - overriding the bad faith closure above, there is clearly a consensus to delete. Plus, "by the strength of argument", the lemming non-policy is not persuasive, as it is not relevant. And if it's really needed then I also vote delete, which makes the consensus for deletion unassailable. Theknightwho (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Theknightwho Imho this deletion was highly inappropriate. If you want to stop the closure of it being kept, that’s fine, but deleting the entry was a step too far, especially since it hasn’t been a month since the last comment, breaking RFD guidelines. Let alone voting delete and deleting the entry at the same time. Take your issues with Dan Polansky elsewhere as it’s truly starting to negatively affect the project, and you’re openly breaking established guidelines and policies to combat him. I’d like to request that the entry be recreated to its former form and that this discussion plays out how it’s supposed to. AG202 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
There was no consensus: there were 2 keeps and 3 deletes, where one of the deletes was by Wonderfool; Wonderfool ought not count. The above is incorrect and ought to be undone. The phrase "encyclopedic material, not lexical" is meaningless, as said. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Keep per WT:LEMMING; governed by WT:NSE. The sense is in M-W[11], Collins[12], and AHD[13]; see also “Dickens”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com has entry Charles Dickens[14], which we do not want and have policy against. OED does not have Charles in Dickens but they do not have surname Dickens either, only mentioning the surname in the etymology of lowercase dickens; OED does not have Asia, Ontario and Germany, so it is not much of a guide for us. Having Charles in Dickens matches our long-term practice: more examples include philosophers (Plato), poets (Keats), politicians (Churchill), writers (Emerson), playwrights (Shakespeare), composers (Chopin), explorers (Cook) and scientists (Darwin). Charles is also supported by the uncodified derived-adjective principle with unknown support: there is adjective Dickensian dedicated to Charles. WT:NSE does not provide specific rules for Charles in Dickens, so we have to use uncodified rules to handle the case. Attempts to remove specific individuals from Wiktionary date back to 2010, per Category talk:Individuals, but they never went anywhere. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Needless to say, it is easy to design a policy in either direction, e.g. "There shall be no sense lines dedicated to individual people in entries for surnames, and individual people shall not be mentioned on the surname definition line." And the derived-adjective principle is this: "When an adjective is derived from a proper name and the adjective definition features a specific individual or other specific entity, that entity should also be listed as a sense in the base proper name." The problem is that neither is probably supported by consensus. The result is the apparently unfair inclusionism since deletion has to overcome the hurdle of 2/3 threshold (not official, but no other one is better supported by evidence). This could be amended by passing 3/5 (60%) to be the overridable threshold for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not a single general dictionary in OneLook has Dickens as a surname: each one that has Dickens at all has Charles Dickens there. This is a systematic pattern with biographical names in general dictionaries: not at all or the specific person. Even more dictionaries have Darwin, done exactly the same way. With geographic names, we are hugely more inclusive than general dictionaries; why do we choose the opposite for biographical names? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
The See also is a remnant of the out-of-process deletion (actually moving to See also) that I forgot to remove. The See also does not need to be there when there is a sense line. This See also solution also shows that the disagreement is in some sense really petty: the person is going to be covered anyway if one admits See also for the person, just not on the sense line. And in Mother Teresa, the person is going to be covered in some way anyway, just in the etymology; the term will have no proper noun section, which is bizarre given it is primarily a proper noun. I don't understand this fear of specific entities on the definition lines when the entities are human individuals: there is no such fear with geographic names such as Newtown. I saw no rationale for treating humans different from places. Places are on the sense lines, exceptionally notable humans can too; more generically of proper names: some specific entities are on the sense lines. We don't cover place names by saying "place name" on the definition line and then shoving the specific places to See also or Further reading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Löschen obviously. It's completely normal for texts to not repeat the full name of a person over and over, but that still doesn't endow the surname word with a new sense. I also reject any exemption based on notability. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
There is no "exemption": CFI does not forbid this case. The referents of proper names are their meaning. It is only about practicalities, to what extent to cover the meaning. "surname" is not a sense; it is a function of the word; having it as a definition line is a practical expedient, not semantics. "Dickens" used out of context, without introduction, without repetition, automatically refers to Charles, that's the point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
This person says in other RFDs that "Dictionaries should not contain proper nouns, especially ones that only refer to one thing" and "Dictionaries don't contain proper names", the former being an opinion contrary to our CFI, the latter being manifestly factually wrong. And they have 14 edits in content namespaces, and would be ineligible for a formal vote, although there is no such rigid rule for RFDs. I think votes by someone like that should not count. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep. I can't quite agree with Fytcha's reasoning above because there is an obvious difference between switching to a surname after the referent has already been expressly introduced in a text (i.e. not repeating over and over), and a surname that is well-established in use as a reference to a particular person without any prior context. Of course, the latter can apply to many people with more ephemeral fame than Dickens—so I'm not sure what a good specific criterion for inclusion would be if we need a hard-and-fast rule. If there were to be one, I think it would need to depend on a degree of perenniality and universality (or context-independence), and "Dickens" seems to be closer to "Shakespeare" in that sense than just any surname which would only be understood in a specific context, hence my leaning to keep. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
RFD-kept: no consensus for deletion after several months. Those who would want to delete this would perhaps find it more productive to join forces and handle this is a matter of policy: no senses for specific entities in surname entries. They would need to hope that editors will bother to come to a vote much more readily than come to RFD, since the yield on time is better (delete a whole batch of senses, not just a single one). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I discounted DJ Clayworth, who has almost no contribution to Wiktionary (less than 50 edits in content spaces) and ought not count; that person claimed elsewhere dictionaries do not do proper nouns, a clear untruth. That gives us 3 deletes vs. 2.5 keeps. With Surjection, we get 4 deletes vs. 2.5 keeps, still no consensus per WT:VPRFD; however, the above delete with zero rationale ought to be discounted, and minimum rationale ought to be required. Speculations about "faith" are uncalled for, and closure can be contested on whatever plausible grounds; I am fine with that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
On balance, delete. It is extremely common usage to refer to people by their surnames. While Dickens itself is, I suppose, a relatively uncommon surname, allowing a definition like "Charles Dickens" opens the door to entries like Kim oder Smith being flooded with senses consisting solely of people with that surname. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
As for "on balance", no items were stated that are being "balanced", so it has no practical semantics. As for "opens the door" argument, that seems to be the case of the slippery slope fallacy (if one wants to play the fallacy naming game). In any case, it seems to present some kind of open-floodgate problem although the very top of this RFD presented two gates to stop any flood: 1) lemmings, and 2) existence of a derived adjective. More floodgates can be invented. The argument that "Kin" or "Smith" are somehow in danger of being "flooded" does not have a iota of plausibility. I motion that the RFD closer dismisses the above as utterly baseless and implausible; one has to argue much better than that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. There's quite a number of these, without naming them. It's unfair, therefore, to pick on Dickens. In fact, my Oxford Dictionary of English lists Dickens, the English novelist. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Revise: There is another way around this. Alter the surname definition by adding "notably that of Charles Dickens", then the separate definition can be removed. This has been done elsewhere, and I think it's a good compromise. DonnanZ (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Delete, clearly encyclopedic and not dictionary material. We also shouldn't have entries for the Essex Football Club or the New York City Freemasons. - TheDaveRoss21:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TheDaveRoss: But we often do, to the extent that it's even our habit and custom, e.g. Lioness (and any number of soccer/football and baseball teams). If you are convinced about this, then we need to talk policy and voting. Equinox◑04:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
It does seem we handle players of sports teams differently than the names of sports teams (we don't, to your example, have Lionesses [as a football team] or English Women's National Football Team). It is truly a confused mess. - TheDaveRoss12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Abstain? What if the gang had a single-word name? I know for a fact we've got at least one such term but I can't remember it (it's from 17th-18th century; it was something like "tilters" or "turners" because they allegedly used to throw people upside-down; anyone remember?)... Or more recently, what about Crip, a member of an American gang? I'm on the fence because, on the one hand, it "feels like" a brand name or a company name, how I'd want to delete Pokémon shit, but on the other hand it's sort of a word that isn't that. Hmmmm.... Equinox◑04:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
What is the rationale which makes Lioness different from Lionesses? Crip from Crips? I agree that is how we currently operate, I just can't see why that is the case. - TheDaveRoss12:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I would guess it's because a sense for the gang at Crips would be redundant to the plural of "Crip" sense inasmuch as any English plural can be used to refer to a collective, can't it? Russians("a Slavic ethnic group which primarily inhabits Russia”) think nuclear weapons("a class of weapons which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions”) are dangerous and medics("a category of people who treat injuries”) advise not being exposed to them, but we probably don't want to add those senses to those entries because they're just restating the definition of the singular in a plural/collective way, right? (Whether we should have the singulars / any entry at all in the case of specific groups like Peaky Blinder(s), IDK, but...we do, so if we wanna stop, we should probably discuss it in general and not one entry at a time.) - -sche(discuss)17:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Hmmm - the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that we can just treat it as a simple plural, actually. With most nouns, you can't use the definite article + the plural to refer to all of them collectively, whereas you can with these: compare "the chairs" or "the people", which don't mean "all chairs" or "all people". However, "the Bloods" or "the Vikings" do have a collective meaning, because the plural is itself a proper noun. We take this to silly extremes with entries like Yoruba (which is typical of entries for peoples), which we treat as an ordinary noun that is plural only, capitalised and collective - and it also optionally takes the definite article (when referring to the people, not the language). It is completely indistinguishable from a proper noun. I assume the capitalisation is a tacit acknowledgement of that, in fact. Theknightwho (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Yoruba is part of our longstanding difficulty with defining ethnonational groups, yes... a lot of entries have been entered as plural-only with no indication that they're also singulars (I added a cite where someone is "a Yoruba")... whether we should define them as both singulars and plural/collective (proper?) nouns, I don't know: it's been discussed before, and e.g. Abenaki currently does have both a proper noun for the nation and a section for the count noun; prior discussions are this old, short 2012 one, WT:Beer parlour/2017/June#German_vs_Germans_collectively, and WT:Beer parlour/2021/March#POS_of_words_for_"X_tribe/people,_collectively"_like_British,_Chinese,_Cheyenne,_Xhosa. Re your point about the Bloods, I'm also unsure. On one hand, is that attaching too much importance to one situation (definite article + plural) where they sometimes(!) differ despite otherwise not differing? In "Bloods hate Crips", Bloods is collective without the, and "chairs have legs" is equally collective (and not always accurate, but that's beside the point); "three Bloods shot a man; the Bloods were later arrested" is a noncollective plural, as is "three chairs broke, the chairs were later repaired"; and "as the rivalry escalated, Bloods were shot" and "as the brawl intensified, chairs were broken" is using those words as noncollective plurals without the... so it's in only one of four situations, "use with the to mean the collective", that they'd sometimes differ, and even then, you could say e.g. "On Coruscant, conditions became so dire that the coruscantium miners rebelled" using "the coruscantium miners" (or e.g. "the technicians") as a collective plural. On the other hand, Bloods and Vikings and Abenaki and Yoruba do feel like they also exist as group names, and like the collectives may have come first and the singulars may be derivatives / back-formations... hmm... - -sche(discuss)23:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I do agree with you, but I think the situation where they differ plus the capitalisation (which is another difference) does seem to be relevant, because it’s an acknowledgment that the collective term is a name (which surely must make it a proper noun). It’s a bit blurry with, say, Vikings, but then that’s probably why vikings exists, which suggests that there is a correlation between a shift towards being a common noun and the loss of capitalisation (in those situations, anyway). I think you’re probably also right about the collective names (at least often) coming first. Theknightwho (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Abstain: Although multi-word proper names with no figurative use and no derived terms are less part of the core of inclusion of proper names, multi-word nicknames Orange Man, God Emperor, Pharma Bro, Korea Fish, Vegetable English, and Elongated Muskrat are included, and if we accept these, I don't see what would exclude Peaky Blinders as the name of a gang. And if we include Peaky Blinders as a plural, it would not even be a proper name any longer. I have decided to abstain since I am no longer convinced we need to include multi-word proper names with no lexicographical saving graces such as figurative uses or derived includable terms. About the pluralization: I am not sure we want to redefine Beatles as the plural of Beatle; I think we don't. It seems Peaky Blinders and Peaky Blinder should better be treated similar to Beatles and Beatle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep as nominated by Wonderfool (Almostonurmind), a banned user tolerated not because they are good but to avoid harm to new editor accounts resulting from search for new Wonderfool accounts. Let someone who is not a little devil renominate this if wished. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
It apparently appears in two or three dictionaries- see Further reading there. I am unclear if WT:LEMMING would apply to this case as an argument for inclusion. (My instinct is to go with the authoritative dictionaries to maintain the legitimacy of Wiktionary in the eyes of the readers.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)(modified)Reply
That's a normative opinion, not a fact. I have more at User talk:Dan Polansky § Lemming test, lemming principle or lemming heuristic. The lemming principle is in the spirit of Wikipedia, which depends on reliable sources, whereas Wiktionary is full of opinionated people who love to think for themselves, which is quite attractive but is not without problems. The rationale "encyclopedic" is a blanket statement of ignorance, not a statement of principle. "Quasi sum of parts" is a statement of principle, and I see it here, but I defer to lemmings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
You say yourself that there is nothing lexically interesting about these and that they are "quasi sum of parts", but want to include them solely on the basis that they're included in one other dictionary (Collins). If your principle is just to blindly follow what other publications have done, then my "normative opinion" is that we shouldn't do that. The major difference between Wiktionary and Wikipedia is that Wiktionary is a secondary source, not a tertiary one; that means we generally have to curate at the point of inclusion, whereas Wikipedia has far more scope to vary the manner in which something is included, proportionally to its notability. It also leaves us in the absurd position of including some terms in a class but not others, due to the (potentially arbitrary) decisions of other publications. No thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
That is not really absurd and appears unavoidable anyway. All dictionaries do it and the otherwise excellent OED is quite bad at it, with its apparently arbitrary inclusion of some proper names but not others, as per Beer parlour. One can ask: why should United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be included while National Aeronautics and Space Administration excluded? I see no principle based on purely lexicographic concerns that differentiates the two. Do you see such a principle? And do you have sound comprehensive inclusion criteria for multi-word proper names? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
You not being able to see the principle does not mean that outsourcing it to other publications is a good idea. I look forward to seeing your nomination to undelete Talk:西線無戰事 and all the other novel titles that are included in the Taiwan Ministry of Education dictionary. Theknightwho (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
No one has given us these principles, not me, not you, not anyone else, except perhaps those who say, delete all proper names or delete all multi-word proper names. Is "Taiwan Ministry of Education dictionary" a general monolingual linguistic dictionary? And a single dictionary does not count for lemmings either. Outsourcing inclusion (not exclusion) would give contributors certainty that some of the content they will create would be predictably kept. What we have now is not really consistent either, randomly depending on who shows up in the RFD. Some want United Nations excluded since all organizations are "encyclopedic", some included. The lemmings would give us includable core around which we could ponder expansion into a more uncertain territory. I have drafted some inclusion principles on my talk page, but they are not wholly comprehensive and would probably exclude United Nations, which I don't see happening. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Yes, it is a general monolingual linguistic dictionary which we use very extensively, and you can see the entry here. The fact that you changed your opinion based on the inclusion by Collins alone also makes your point that a single dictionary doesn't count for lemmings irrelevant, anyway, and I shouldn't have to explain why the inevitable variability of who turns up to RFD doesn't justify doing things blindly instead.
Let's be honest, here: you dislike the uncertainty, and would rather have an arbitrary line than a fuzzy one. If you don't trust our collective judgment in excluding these kinds of terms, then you also have no basis trusting our collective judgment in including others, either. Theknightwho (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
The full NASA name is in Collins and Dictionary.com so that's two; it is also in WordNet, but that does not count. If one argued that Dictionary.com should not count, I could perhaps be convinced and change my mind. The count of two does matter and was required in the failed vote. Predictably administrable policies are a widely recognized good, while you seem to be inexplicably dismissive about this good. Presumably, contributors prefer to be able to predict that the content they create will be kept. The notion that we should trust collective judgment of varying groups of decision makers, who do not agree on inclusion principles among themselves and each votes according to different inclusion principles and keep changing their minds as time passes, seems bizarre. Even with lemmings, the line would be fuzzy since we would include things beyond lemmings, but there would be a secure core. I created the vote that replaced the attributive-use rule with today's open-ended uncertainty, so it is really not about me personally. The derogatory use of "blindly" has no force: our CFI for geographic names has the RFD participants do things "blindly" for them, and that was presumably the purpose of the place name policy, which seems rather arbitrary from lexicographical standpoint but does exactly that which you dismiss: let us do things in a predictable manner. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Yet you do trust the "collective judgment of varying groups of decision makers, who do not agree on inclusion principles among themselves and each votes according to different inclusion principles and keep changing their minds as time passes" when it comes to the inclusion of terms not in other dictionaries, as I have already pointed out. You're just trying to sweep the fuzziness under the rug, but that doesn't make it go away - particularly as those very same points apply to the people that made those other dictionaries in the first place.
Including things on a per-class basis is not the same as your proposal, because those are decided on the basis of what the terms refer to, while your proposal is decided on the basis of what other people have decided. That's why it's a useful signpost, but not a distinguishing characteristic. Theknightwho (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Sure, lemmings do not eliminate all uncertainty, just some. Better than nothing. Fuzziness remains as admitted: no sweeping under the rag given the admission. Deciding on the basis of what the terms refer to is non-lexicographic. It is not obviously better than deferring to others: both is predictable and both is lexicographically arbitrary. There does not seem to be anything lexicographical about Small Magellanic Cloud, but CFI has it included. CFI has "X County" terms included, lemmings don't. You may like the arbitrary referent-based policy better, that's up to you, that's not a matter of objective facts. You have not posted any inclusion principles and you have not even voted yet; you just ask us to trust inconsistent collective judgment. That's pretty empty handed, if you ask me. If that's the readers' and users' policy preference, I can't help it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I didn't object on the basis that LEMMINGS doesn't eliminate all uncertainty - I objected on the basis that the removal of uncertainty is not justified by implementing arbitrary rules. The fact that you say "better than nothing" actually confirms my point that you're only doing this because you want to make the decisionmaking process simpler, ignoring that it removes editorial control from users and does nothing to solve the underlying problem. That is not a good approach. It was also soundly rejected by vote (and having checked, many users had the same sentiments as me), so please stop trying to force it.
"Deciding on the basis of what the terms refer to" is an inherent aspect of the sum of parts principle, and the basis of several guidelines at WT:IDIOM. Fundamentally, those are all "arbitrary" too, in that we've decided that they best suit the purpose of what a dictionary is for (which is a normative judgment, as you say). However, there is a clear, qualitative difference between deciding based on the meaning of a term and deciding for each individual term on the basis of whether other dictionaries have included them or not: the former is based on a property of the term itself (and the classes it fits into), while your proposal is not, and leads to random inclusion/exclusion in cases such as 西線無戰事 (which is the title of a novel) - and before you object by saying that 西線無戰事 is only in one dictionary, I am obviously not just talking about that one entry.
It's also all very well to point out that there are other arbitrary things as well, such as who participates in RFD discussions, but that's not persuasive because (a) the decisions are not random, (b) they're governed by Wiktionary policy (unlike other dictionaries), and (c) that objection also applies to any decision we make in respect of LEMMINGS, so it's self-defeating. Theknightwho (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I disagree with most of the above. The SOP principle does not depend on classification of referents at all. Again, two lemmings are the minimum. I feel this is getting repetitive and unproductive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Ignoring the primary point while misrepresenting what I said about the SOP principle is not an adequate response. You very clearly have no response to the major flaw in your proposal that it allows for random inclusion/exclusion based on the whims of other publications, and just don’t want to admit it. Theknightwho (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
The so-called major flaw is a real downside. But the upside is much bigger. What we have now is whim of randomly varying amateurs; whim of the pros seems much preferable. Just recently, Bank of England was deleted while non-SOP and European Central Bank was kept while SOP. Lemmings would have prevented that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
There is no upside - it’s just sweeping the arbitrariness under the carpet by making it look like it isn’t, which is a point you’ve failed to address with anything other than saying what we do is already arbitrary, while ignoring the difference between inclusion on a per-class basis versus a per-term basis and the difference in outcomes that creates. Nevermind the disdain you have just shown for your fellow users, which is a whole other issue. Theknightwho (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
The upside of improved predictability and consistency is as undeniable as the downside of partial loss of autonomy and gain of certain arbitrariness (attestation is still a requirement). Wikipedia is doing fine deferring to pros for inclusion and even for fact. I have no disdain: I am as much an amateur as others here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
It has “certainty” in the way that including every attestable string of more than 5 characters has certainty, but that doesn’t mean we should implement it. We are also a secondary source, not a tertiary one like WP (and you must not be familiar with how hotly contested AFD can be - notability is not straightforward). I haven’t even begun with the other flaws, such as the fact that other dictionaries copy from each other (making inclusion in two often non-independent), errors, the question of historical dictionaries (and other hybrid works), propagandistic material (plenty of those in Russian from the Soviet era), the inherent biases of the authors and so on. It’s not workable, and is - to boil it down - lazy scholarship. Theknightwho (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
(outdent) The lemming principle's arbitrariness is nowhere close to as bad and off topic as "include all 5 character combinations"; that's pretty much a non-argument. The principle is obviously workable; it is not ideal, but workable. I guess Wikipedia editors are also "lazy scholars" by depending on potentially erroneous authoritative sources instead of diligently doing their original research, which is much more work than taking over sentences from sources and rephrasing them. Whether we are a secondary or tertiary source makes no difference; our being a secondary source for WDLs (not always for LDLs) does not bar the lemming principle. And we would not even depend on them for matters of fact, merely for matters of inclusion. At worst, we would scope in too many redundant entries, no error of fact. Including a million entries for all the taxa from Wikispecies is the real elephant in the room, the king of avoidable redundancy; no one ever talks about that. About dictionaries copying from each other, the way in which they wary in their coverage of proper names depending on the name one picks suggests they are not trying particularly hard to outdo each other in covering anything anyone else has; the non-independence claim does not seem to be borne out by observable facts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
If you agree that there are degrees of arbitrariness, then your argument that our current practice is also arbitrary falls apart, because it is self-evidently more arbitrary to include terms on a per-term basis than a per-class one. You also seem to have missed that I said that WP’s notability requirement is not comparable, because notability is hotly contested, and they don’t just include anything simply because it’s sourced. The latter would also be lazy scholarship. I also don’t care what Wikispecies is doing - another project making an error (and I make no comment on Wikispecies either way) is no justification for us making one too. Oh, and being a secondary source does bar the lemming principle, because other dictionaries are secondary sources. You realise that’s one of the things that distinguishes dictionaries and encyclopaedias, right? Theknightwho (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
(outdent) My complaint is above all that our practice is inconsistent and unpredictable since it depends on who comes to RFD and since RFD voters often state no usable criteria, instead throwing around the buzzword "encyclopedic". Our place name criteria are arbitrary, but that can be lived with; at least they are predictable. If adopted as a policy, the application of the lemming principle would be pretty straightforward and not hotly contested; in this we would differ from Wikipedia's AfD. We would at worst discuss whether a particular lemming counts, and we could keep refining our lists of accepted lemmings. Wikispecies is not making any error: it is their core business to document taxa. It is us who is making the error of avoidable redundancy to Wikispecies, which is not our lexicographical business. Right. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Predictability has no value if the outcome is arbitrary, and including things on a per-term basis instead of a per-class basis is a lot more arbitrary. We often self-correct mistakes, and we do not need a straitjacket like this which short-circuits productive discussion by simply deferring to people with inclusion criteria that we don’t even know. Theknightwho (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
To the contrary, rule design usually buys predictability at the cost of increased arbitrariness. To wit, the number 3 of attesting quotations is arbitrary: it could be 2, it could be 5, and it could be left unspecified and discussed on a per RFV basis. Setting it to 3 increases predictability. Any lemming principle acceptable as an approved policy would have to be overidable anyway, so there would be no "straightjacket". What about Wikispecies? Any point taken so far? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have pointed out that arbitrariness is not all-or-nothing numerous times now, and you have stonewalled that every time (except when you felt it convenient when I used a ridiculous example to prove the point). It’s very clear that you are not engaging in reasonable discussion, whether you realise it or not, so I’m done here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Polansky (CC: @Theknightwho though I assume you already know this) The UK & UAE examples are automatically included with WT:CFI#Place names. If you’re going to argue that Place names shouldn’t be a policy, that’s a different discussion, but under our current policy, there’s a different between those and the full name of NASA. No comment at this point on the others though. AG202 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Sure, but what I am investigating here are universal lexicographical principles, not those taxonomy-based arbitrary rules currently in CFI. "Exclude all multi-word proper names that name in a transparent manner", or exclude quasi-SOP names, sounds like a fine universal principle, but we do not intend to comprehensively enforce it. About the value of lemmings, let's consider the recently RFD-deleted Bank of England and the recently RFD-kept European Central Bank. The former is not quasi sum of parts (the bank serves the U.K., not England), while the latter is quasi sum of parts (it is the central bank of the EU and the meaning of European includes "of or pertaining to the EU"). The result is the opposite of what should be done, and lemmings would have prevented that. ECB was kept by near unanimity and BoE was deleted under the 2/3 threshold, so maybe it should have been kept. This happened because different groups of editors voted in the RFDs, and for BoE the deletionist ignored all the non-SOP objections and deleted the term anyway. Both terms are supported by lemmings: if both were kept, the situation would be better. One could object that we do not apply the "exclude quasi-SOP names" principle consistently, and the response would be, we mostly do except where overriden by lemmings. Dismissing lemmings would not improve the consistency all that much since we ignore the delete-SOP principle for place names; for states, this would be fine, but we include all those "X County" terms for no apparent reason. NASA is a more important organization than counties so if we include quasi-SOP county names, we can also include quasi-SOP full NASA name, together with quasi-SOP full ECB name. This leads us to classifying referents and not terms, and without lemmings, we now have to figure out which referents are large, important or powerful enough. One can also work with the lemmings principle flexibly, if one wishes: one may say that Dictionary.com does not count and that the sole Collins is not enough, and therefore NASA full name should be excluded; that's actually pretty convincing. If we had an overridable lemmings policy (overridable since otherwise it won't gain support), we could explicitly forbid Dictionary.com and make the lemming application more predictable and uniform. Without lemmings, what should be done for NASA? It is quasi SOP, but is it perhaps as prominent, notable or significant as ECB to warrant an exception? We can now ponder the principles to apply to NASA and "exclude all-SOP names" does not seem to be accepted without exception, as per ECB. One of the deleters of BoE said "the name of an institution, which in itself is not dictionary material"; to me, it is the nearly all lemmings that include United Nations, including OED, which suggest the "not dictionary material" to be blatantly incorrect. There are too many editors on the project who seem to love to arbitrate that names for some class of referents are not dictionary material even when almost all lemmings disagree. So all names of organizations are supposed to be gone, while nicknames of some individuals should be kept: that is absurd even from the point of view of prominence or importance of the referent. In any case, for those who see some value in the overridable lemming principle, NASA is weakly supported by it, and WT:NSE gives discretion to RFD voters. One may decide to require 3 independent lemmings, that's flexible; United Nations is supported by 6 lemmings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete all as above. The only possible exception being the last one, as fundamentalist doesn’t really mean polygamous (though it is, or was, a fundament of the Mormon church). Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep all except the army: I changed my mind. Our churches are listed at Thesaurus:church and we are not flooded by them. I thought it would be preferable to delete quasi-SOP names of organizations, but I am no longer convinced; it seems preferable to have some importance/notability criteria for them and keep some of the most important ones. Right now, we have no such criteria. In general, translation of proper names is a hard problem and Wiktionary can render a lexicographical service there. Wikidata has translations but not tracing to sources for them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Another step toward complete circularity: adding links in discussions to you talking to yourself in userspace. Whatever your intention, it makes it look like you have your own CFI that you consider more important than the real one, because everyone else is too stupid to think like you do. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
No circularity here. CFI's official WT:NSE requires editors to figure out their own inclusion criteria and arguments. Yes, I have my own CFI, and everyone who participates in WT:NSE-driven RFDs has their own CFI. There is no other way. The links serve concision. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep the Latter-Day Saints one (not SoP), the UN ones (feel relevant enough that someone would look it up, though I wouldn't be devastated if they're gone), & NASA (LEMMING). The other church ones I'm ambivalent about, and then delete Army of the Republic of Vietnam. AG202 (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I feel the LDS one should be deleted as well since it is very long and covered by Wikipedia anyway. The implied rule behind the keeping seems to be "include all attested multi-word names of organizations that are not transparent names", but that would still lead to a huge redundancy to Wikipedia since there are so many of them. Going by length of the name seems terribly arbitrary, but it's better than nothing. Another arbitrary aid are lemmings: org name in WP & not in lemmings => out. No purely lexicographical principles to aid the filtering come to mind. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
So now you do want to exclude things based on how many characters are in the string? This one has more value than some of the others, as it isn’t immediately obvious what it refers to, or why they differ from other Mormons. “Fundamentalist” is playing a role here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Number of words, to be precise. Yes, it's terribly arbitrary. If we are going to include all intransparent proper names of organizations, we are heading into a major redundancy. But I am actually happy to use lemmings instead of the number of words. There has to be some additional exclusion principle, I feel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I’ve had an idea: how about we consider terms on merit by discussing them, and then formulate a general policy once we can actually come up with one that isn’t arbitrary? How does that sound? Theknightwho (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think it’s time for a general discussion about organization names at the Beer Parlour again, rather than trying to deal with this one entry at a time. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm confused to be honest as to why the LDS church name would not be SOP whereas the Assyrian Church of the East would be. The latter is a specific denomination and does not mean either a local church province (as the Orthodox ones can be read as) or the "church of Assyrians that's in the east". Any criterion that matches one goes for the other too. I also think attestable religious denominations ought to be included in general since it's not clear to me where the line ought to be drawn between minor ones that are encyclopedic and larger ones ("Roman Catholic Church" etc) that apparently aren't. So Keep both of those at least, I'm ambivalent on the rest. (Perhaps leaning keep on the Orthodox ones too, since they also represent distinctive practices and the precedent would otherwise logically lead to e.g. keeping Assyrian churches but deleting the sister Chaldean church since it happens to be in communion with the pope, which seems troubling.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion
I request undeletion. 1) It is in M-W as a "geographical name" and Collins; also Dictionary.com, but this is not a classic lemming. 2) The deletion discussion nomination "Not dictionary material" gives us no observable properties to work with. The name is covered by Wikipedia, but so are United Nations, Red Cross and Red Crescent. Being covered by Wikipedia is alone no reason for exclusion. 3) The principle could be to exclude all full multi-word names of specific entities, but we do not apply this to geographic entities, astronomical entities and biological taxa. All of them are covered in Wikipedia or Wikispecies. 4) We could want to delete transparent multi-word names of specific entities, but the NATO name is not fully transparent, unlike National Basketball Association, from which we know it deals with sports, whereas for NATO we do not know it is a military organization. It is semi-transparent by being an organization relating to North Atlantic Treaty. Even the kept Royal Navy is more transparent: it is a royal navy, we just don't know the country. 5) Fully transparent multi-word names of countries such as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland get a free pass, and it would be a natural extension of that to give a free pass to names of important international organizations, and NATO is as important as countries; this would cover United Nations Organization, European Union, OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (redlink), Warsaw Treaty Organization (recently deleted), and bluelinks International Court of Justice, International Maritime Organization, International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank, European Free Trade Association, World Health Organization and World Trade Organization. From a purely lexicographical standpoint, NATO full name is not unambiguously includable, but it is no worse than the full name of the U.K. Undeleting NATO name would give a better consistency in what we do: we do consider importance of referents for human-related aggregates. 6) It was said that the spirit of WT:COMPANY is relevant, but I don't see that: this is nowhere close to being a company. And there are much fewer important international organizations than companies. 7) Whether this should be kept for translation I do not know. For Czech, the most usual term is Severoatlantická aliance, matching North Atlantic Alliance; the translations could be in North Atlantic Alliance if we had the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep deleted. The vast majority of names of specific entities should be relegated to encyclopedias, there is not sufficient lexical value to bother including them in a dictionary. Keep NATO with a pointer to Wikipedia, people who are actually looking up "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" want an encyclopedia entry not a dictionary entry. We should also delete most of the class of entries which Dan has highlighted as blue links. - TheDaveRoss13:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Keep deleted until there has been a proper discussion or vote on the criteria for including or excluding the names of organizations. Dealing with the matter piecemeal is unhelpful. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I will add that NATO is as important as European Union and United Nations. EU is political and economic but not military; NATO is military but not economic. NATO is a quasi-empire, or 1/4-empire. Since we keep EU and UNO without explaining why, keeping NATO would be very much in keeping with that, even if we delete IMF, for instance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Undelete. While I think the number of multi-word entries about organizations should be kept very low on Wiktionary, I think this entry would be helpful to readers based on WT:LEMMING, the subject matter's considerable notability and its somewhat unconventional name. Einstein2 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep as lexicographically useful: allows us to say that this is more common than "bullet list", and this could be "list with bullets", but "bulleted list" is the lead. The translator may use bulleted to find a translation of the adjective, but it is the whole phrase that needs translating, e.g. into Dutch lijst met opsommingstekens. I was trying to find Polish translation and the best I could quickly find is "lista punktowana", but that is rare in Google Books; "wypunktowaną lista" also finds almost nothing in Google Books, but is used in Wikibooks. This illustrates the translator's problem: the translation is not an easy sum-of-parts job but rather requires quite some labor. And it does feel like Talk:free variable. Whether it may meet WT:THUB is unclear, though. It would be better to have a standard way to mark entries as arguably SOP for the reader, e.g. by saying "sum of parts" as a label before the definition, than deleting useful content whose usefulness is not articulated into a specific testable rule made part of policy. Policy-wise, we have WT:CFI's unvoted "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Dan (a non-native speaker) says "it's not a bullet list", but of course it isn't, because a "bullet list" in English would be a list of bullets, not a list that has bullets. Equinox◑17:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Web says: "What exactly is a bullet list? The simple definition is that a bullet list is a series of items with a heading broken up by dotted points. These lists can be used for anything you need them to, whether it's as informal as an agenda or as formal as a business plan at your workplace." If this is wrong, bullet list needs to be deleted as wrong. But web search finds more places using "bullet list" as a synonym of "bulleted list"; are they all wrong? And this only reinforces the notion that we are dealing with useful lexical information here. In a RFD for the Dutch translation, we are now discussing which one is the most natural, most fitting for a Dutch speaker. This all shows this is eminently useful. One should not look at it from the standpoint of a native speaker who knows which term is most natural anyway, but rather of a non-native speaker and a translator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Free variable: Consider Talk:free variable, and from linguistics, transitive verb and the content of Category:en:Verbs, 19 items. The question is what is the most natural location for the definition of these notions. It seems "bulleted" is predominantly used with "list" per google:"bulleted", so the definition in bulleted is there mostly for "bulleted list". Like "transitive verb", "bulleted list" is not syntactically fixed, and can be found e.g. in "bulleted and numbered lists". The free variable argument was sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected. We still have many free-variable terms, especially in math, e.g. continuous function. Talk:acute angle was restored via consensus, yet it is covered in acute. Talk:prime number was kept via consensus. Dictionaries sometimes define terms supported by the free-variable argument, and often don't. continuous function is less useful than bulleted list: the translations are sum of parts.
Setness: WP says "Lists made with bullets are called bulleted lists." It explicitly defines this as a term. One can say "are called bulleted." but more often does not. More at google:"called bulleted".
Translation: Covered above. I'll add that I tried to find a German translation (I speak German) and failed. Some contexts use Aufzählungsliste as a contrast to a numbered list, but I don't feel confident to enter it. A German speaker could enter that as a translation if confident. An exercise for the reader: pick a language you know or are learning and try to find the best translation by considering the translation of bulleted together with "list" and see how far it gets you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I will add that bulleted list is as often visited as bulleted and much more often than noncholestatic.[15] Users do find a reason to look it up. Also, Diuturno added an Italian translation and JackPotte added the French one; they cannot be expected to show up in the RFD and protect the entry from User:Wonderfool (Flackofnubs) and from non-differentiating deletes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Rfd-redundant: "Isn't it true?"
The other definition is "Isn't it that way?", but there is only one translation table. Are these two equivalent in all languages? If not, then we need two translation tables. DCDuring (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep "Isn't it true?" sense as a plain and literalist rendering, covered by TheFreeDictionary. As for the 2nd sense "Isn't it that way?", I am not sure how this is supposed to differ from the 1st sense, so maybe this one can be deleted. Or does anyone see why sense 2 should be kept? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Löschen as SoP. Not sure the reference to Black's Law Dictionary is that helpful; as it is a specialist dictionary, it contains entries that we would regard as SoP for the purpose of explaining the legal principles. A parallel example would be referring to a dictionary of chemicals, which is sure to contain many SoP names of chemicals as entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
@Sgconlaw: Why should we be less helpful to readers than the most widely used specialist dictionaries? It's not as though this is only found in an obscure dictionary of an obscure field. bd2412T23:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I second the comment of BD2412. If Wiktionary doesn't include specialist words, then what's it for? Does descriptivist ideology extend only to documentation of racist neologisms? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I think that’s a specious argument. If the test for inclusion is “what a reader might find helpful”, we might as well have no other criteria for inclusion. The meaning of “retroactive law” is simply “a law which is retroactive”, and if a reader does not understand what retroactive means they can just look up that word. A law dictionary is intended to contain terms, whether SoP or not, that judges, lawyers, and law students might come across in the course of their work, so one may expect to find entries that do not meet the CFI here in such a dictionary. For example, in the 1st edition of Black’s ({{RQ:Black Law Dictionary}}) there are entries like Institutes of Lord Coke (well-known set of law books) and insurance agent.
The definition we have is very poor, I agree. Retroactive laws can do lots of other things besides making acts illegal, such as legalisation, the application of civil liability, taxation etc. It's a reasonably common term, but I don't see how it isn't SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I thought retroactive law was a more natural entry to look up, but the page view data shows users are looking predominantly for retroactive.[16]. This is very different from bulleted vs. bulleted list, where the list wins[17]. On the other hand, the term is in “retroactive law”, in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1996–present. (I find their definition much clearer than ours). But WT:LEMMING requires at least two lemmings, and it requires "general monolingual dictionaries". The rationale might be that "specialist" dictionaries may tend to include encyclopedic heads? LEMMING did use to speak of specialized dictionaries, so the matter is not settled in any way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete, SOP, as also indicated by its terrible wrong definition, showing that someone just did not know what he talks about. Law dictionaries have all kinds of magic words that are inclusionworthy there for their being often recommendable to be used in a specific context, which is the essence of collocations. Fay Freak (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments5 people in discussion
This should IMHO be deleted as redundant to -tomy. All the items can be analyzed as Xo- + -tomy or X + -o- + -tomy if need be. For instance, adenotomy can be analyzed as adeno- + -tomy or aden- + -o- + -tomy if need be. To place e.g. metrotomy to multiple suffix categories, one for -tomy and one for -otomy, seems to create avoidable redundancy. See deleted Talk:-oscopy for a similar treatment. We have no -oplasty. A check in Category:English suffixes shows we do not have this all that often, relative to the total number of suffixes we could treat like that. -ocracy, and -ology are some examples of what we do have. Here, again, czarocracy can be analyzed as czar + -o- + -cracy, with no need of -ocracy suffix.
An alternative to this RFD would be to make it a matter of policy, but we have some precedent so let us see whether there is support for deletion here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
The proposed treatment is in keeping with WT:MWO: It has no -ometry, -ostomy, -otomy, -onomy, and -ology. But it has -ocracy. It has -onymy, traced by Wiktionary to ὄνομα, so the -o- is not the interfix but rather part of the etymon. It has -osis. By contrast WT:OED has no -otomy, but it has -ocracy, -ology, -ologist, -ological, -olol, -ometer, and -ometry, all as combining forms. It has -osis. I propose to follow MWO for minimalist treatment. -onym is a special case, etymologically. Why MWO has -ocracy I don't know. We can investigate whether -osis is a special case as well. We can expand our suffix entries with notes that some derivations are sometimes analyzed as containing an -oX suffix but that we chose to analyze it as -o- + -X. That should do and help up avoid double suffix entries and double categories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I added sources to our -o- entry. MW has speedometer as an example using -o-; AHD has acidophilic. We analyze both entries using -o-, not using -ometer oder -ophilic. If we keep -otomy, some editors will invariably keep using it in etymologies, resulting in inconsistent treatment. As for whether -o- is a morpheme, that does not seem decisive: it is a "linking element". Perhaps it is "speedo-" and "acido-" that are the morphemes; it is not clear why "-ometer" and "-ophilic" should be more of candidates for morphemehood than "speedo-" and "acido-". Category:English terms interfixed with -o- has over 1,400 entries; many cases of similar analysis/etymology can be found there. However, some should perhaps be analyzed using Xo- combining forms: archaeography could be analyzed using archaeo-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
The entry for -o- even admits that it is not a morpheme, and you are still basing your argument on how our categorisation structure works, which is wrong. As for why it doesn't attach to speed oder acid, that's because they aren't prefixes and don't behave like them. Basic stuff. Theknightwho (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Our entry on -o- is no authority and does not even say "not a morpheme". Furthermore, so what if -o- is not a morpheme but perhaps a "morph" or "linking vowel"? It is an element of analysis. Suffix -y attaches to "skin" to create "skinny", and similarly, -o- could attach to "speed" to create "speedo-". Affixes do attach to free morphemes. Linking elements -n- and -o- are accepted in German, Czech and other Slavic compounding etymologies, avoiding the need to create combining form entries such as Wolken- for Wolkenkratzer, Bundes- for Bundestag oder modro- for modrooký. Thus, modrooký = modrý + -o- + oko + -ý. What is to be avoided is duplication, not only of categories but also of suffix entries. The minimalist approach is well enough sourced to be a linguistically acceptable option. Is the proposal here that -o- should not be used in our English etymologies? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
It’s not relevant that it doesn’t use the exact words “not a morpheme”, as it says it’s inserted between morphemes - a completely unnecessary statement for anything that is itself a morpheme. You’ve also provided nothing to suggest it is a morpheme, so we cannot assume that it is one, either. This is relevant, because it determines whether the suffixes that include it are alternative forms; evidently, they are.
The idea of avoiding duplication in alternative forms also goes against our approach everywhere else on the site, as you very well know. Given your heavy focus on categorisation, I can only conclude that this is yet another misguided attempt to sweep anything awkward under the rug when it goes against your own over-hasty analysis and attempts to pigeonhole everything based on whatever your latest category obsession is. That is a terrible approach to building a dictionary. Theknightwho (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
(outdent) 1) Search for google:"linking morpheme" finds linguistic sources using the term to refer to linking elements. They do think linking elements are morphemes. 2) The claim that it is not a morpheme is not backed up by any linguistic source so far; it is based on an uncertain inference from wording. To describe an interfix as connecting two morphemes is natural (it follows from its definition) and does not really imply it is not a morpheme. 3) If it is not a morpheme but rather a glue-like element used to link morphemes, then like glue it does not attach with priority to one of the connected surfaces. 4) If we accept "inserted interconsonantally between two morphemes", this does not imply -o- creates -oX but rather that it is inserted between X and Y to create words. This description does not imply -ometer as an intermediate product. 5) Spellings like cool-o-meter are a hint at this kind of analysis. There is no need to create -o-meter alongside -ometer to account for cool-o-meter and clap-o-meter. 6) I propose to keep analyzing speedometer as speed + -o- + -meter rather than changing it to speed + -ometer. To make sure this analysis is consistently applied, having no entry for -ometer is the most practical option: when there is no -ometer, it is not available in etymologies. I propose to follow a) Merriam-Webster, b) Wiktionary current predominant practice, c) the result of Talk:-oscopy, d) even OED to a large extent (see next point). 7) A minimalist approach is practical and would serve the readers well. Looking just at the neo-classic compounds starting with "acido-" that we have and that are in OED, we would need -ocyte, -ogenesis, -ogenic, -oleous, -olysis, -ophil, -ophile, -ophilia, -ophilic, -ophilous, -ophyte and -opore (-ophilic is the only bluelink, created in 2018, used in zero etymologies). Not even WT:OED has any of the forms; it has e.g. -genic. OED on "acidogenic": "acid n. + -o- connective + -genic comb. form." So even OED does not consistently and fully play the -oX game (it has -ology). My proposal: let's take the practice that we follow in all but a few cases and apply it consistently. Let's go by the Occam's razor heuristic. Let's not invent (a + (b + c)) when (a + b + c) is fine and does not prefer the former over ((a + b) + c). Let's not create a plethora of -oX forms that we never had and most of which are absent from most dictionaries, e.g. per “-cyte”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. vs. “-ocyte”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Calling it "uncertain inference from wording" only makes sense if you're intentionally refusing to understand why I don't think it's a morpheme, as you've failed to engage with my explanation. 3 is completely false, because it ignores the option to simply model the two variants as alternative forms that depend on whether the stem ends in a consonant or vowel; you cannot argue that there are two variants of the stem, however (and examples like archaeo- are not relevant, as they are prefixes where my argument also applies). The existence of terms like cool-o-meter is also completely irrelevant, because (a) that only exists with the suffix -ometer, and (b) is riffing off the English word meter(“something which measures”). Just because you don't like the fact that acidophilia doesn't neatly fit into your model doesn't mean that you have to model the existence of a semantically irrelevant morhpeme in order to explain it. Much simpler to take the usual approach of noting that the suffixes often have phonetic variants that depend on the final consonant of the stem. An approach that is, in fact, a lot more common in linguistics than yours.
As for "taking a minimalist approach", you've failed to explain why we should only take that approach here, while we don't anywhere else on the dictionary. As someone who is usually highly inclusionist, it is one of the more glaring examples of the way you will argue totally contradictionary positions depending on what you want in any given moment (such as trying to brush any awkwardness under the rug to make categorisation easier while using the WT:LEMMING argument to argue for exclusion; the latter of which is something that you explicitly said you should not do on more than one occasion). Calling my approach (a + (b + c)) is also a pretty obvious misrepresentation of what I'm saying, too. Theknightwho (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Maybe you could provide some external sources to support the notion that -o- is not a morpheme and that the -oX approach is more common or "usual" in linguistics. I provided sources for existence of -o- as an element of analysis (multiple dictionaries including MW and OED), sources lacking most -oX forms while having -X forms (multiple dictionaries including MW and OED), and anyone can search for "linking morpheme" to easily find academic sources online. I find my analysis compelling and well backed by sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Perhaps you could engage with the main substance of my point instead of fixating on the word "morpheme"? It just comes off as though you've only read the first sentence of my reply, because you haven't addressed my main argument(s) at all.
Again, as for "An approach that is, in fact, a lot more common in linguistics than yours": if that is true, it should be easy to provide at least one external linguistic source. I am eager to learn more from external sources, to broaden the perspective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Again, you're avoiding the substance of my argument. It's intellectually dishonest. I also said that modelling suffixes as having variants is more common than inferring the existence of a link - it was a general point you've not only hyper-fixated on for disingenuous reasons, but obviously misinterpreted in order to feel like you've "won". Egotistical nonsense. Theknightwho (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
You seriously want me to source the use of epenthesis with suffixes, and how it doesn't involve the creation of a morpheme? That Wikipedia article should help.
Go on then - please explain what the morpheme -o- means in -otomy. If it's a morpheme, it must have some kind of semantic value. By the way: the fact that linking morphemes exist does not inherently mean that -o- is acting as one. We even define it as an interfix, too, and interfixes are not morphemes (unlike infixes). Theknightwho (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I don't trust Wikipedia. When a Wikipedia article is well sourced, it is possible to trace a statement to the sources it traces to. What needs external sourcing, not Wikipedia, are the claims that are subject to disagreement, e.g. "interfix is not a morpheme" or "the -otomy analysis is more common in linguistic sources". As for semantics of morphemes, cranberry morphemes have no known meaning. I played the sourcing game by tracing -o- existence to multiple external sources, by tracing interfix to multiple external sources, by creating empty morph and tracing it to multiple external sources, by pointing out to "linking morpheme", where the tracing to external sources is available in Google search. There is empty morpheme (semantics-free morpheme), but I found only two sources to trace it to. I will quote one of my sources, boldface mine: "Interfixes (also called linking elements in English and Fugenmorpheme in German) refer to the phonetic material some-times found in compound words at the constituent boundary."[18]. The source may be wrong; I don't know. If you give us an external source claiming that an interfix is not a morpheme, we will have a more complete picture of what sources are saying. Without it, we have your claim against the claim of multiple sources found by searching for "linking morpheme", and as far as I am concerned, the multitude of external sources win. I may well be wrong, the sources may be wrong, you may be right, but that's the sourcing game. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
You have seriously (and I think disingenuously) misrepresented what a cranberry morpheme is, which is a morpheme that has an opaque meaning to speakers because it exists in fossilized constructions. You also don't seem to understand that morpheme and morph are not synonyms.
The concept of an empty morpheme is also controversial, and it also doesn't appear to be relevant here given that we can explain the presence of an -o- here as being a purely phonetic element.
Given that Wikipedia has plenty of sources, as you can already see, and the fact that you are calling a single paper that you've pulled from Google a "multitude of external sources", I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, as you are clearly not engaging in good faith. Theknightwho (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Sure, let's talk about me. Good idea. Now, let's try something different. Should Wiktionary be allowed to mark up Czech word mrakodrap(“skyscraper”) as mrak(“cloud”) + -o- + drapnout in its etymology? If so, does it mean that Czech etymologies are allowed to use -o-, although it has no semantics and therefore is, allegedly, not a morpheme? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It is spurious to analyse the intermediary "o" as a morpheme in its own right. This is clearly an epenthetic alternative form. To delete because of categorisation issues is also totally wrongheaded - that problem is obviously possible to solve in other ways, and is an issue that exists in many languages. Plus, the idea of regulating content based on how well it conforms to our current categorisation system is the opposite of how we should be approaching things, and therefore something I will never support. Theknightwho (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sense 2: "To settle in one place rather than moving to another". If you look at the citations, they all have a negative connotation of getting nothing done, making no progress, and thus ought to be under sense 1. Equinox◑13:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Not a separate sense. However, I miss in the current definition of sense 1 the aspect of failing to timely move on to a further destination, which is also present in the quotations for sense 1. --Lambiam11:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
"(with the verb "take") An act of kneeling on one knee, typically to acknowledge an injury or sacrifice or otherwise to show respect. After Kyle went down hard on the ice, both teams took a knee as he was carried off on a stretcher." — This is always in the expression take a knee, which has its own entry. So it should be listed as a derived term, not a sense of its own, I think. Equinox◑15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete – yes, could also be RFV, because “to take a knee” means primarily to put the knee forward etc. with some implications of what this could mean but not the act of kneeling itself, so this only works if found outside this phrase, which we have as “An act of kneeling, especially to show respect or courtesy” which makes this sense redundant so we should have a combination at least. “A blow made with the knee” should also be deleted for the same reason, @Equinox. If I gave the dog food it does not mean “food” means “eating” or “feeding”. Fay Freak (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: I'm not totally convinced that "a blow made..." should be deleted. We have the example where "Winnie gave him a knee to the jaw". This wouldn't otherwise necessarily suggest a "punch" or violent action. (Suppose I said "I gave Bob a chin to the leg." We imagine that two body parts make contact, but there isn't a suggestion of aggression.) However: if you dislike that sense, please challenge it separately. Equinox◑09:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox: I am not convinced either. The consideration or argument was to be made though. It is difficult to think of examples where this sense is totally necessary by reason of not being used with verbs implying movement, impact or attraction like “give” or “get”, thus containing the notion of a “blow” or similar already in the environing words, which makes this kind of an optional sense. Fay Freak (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Isn't the usage example already covered by determiner sense 3? I don't really get the difference, if there is any. I guess that "Most times when I go hiking" is an adverbial phrase, but the word "most" itself is not being used as an adverb. 98.170.164.8806:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Indeed, its syntactical function in the usage example is that of a determiner, the same as that of many in “many times when I’m lazy”, or most in “Some people succeed because they are destined to, but most people succeed because they are determined to.” The difference is that one (determiner) is correct while the other (adverb) is incorrect. --Lambiam10:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Would it change anything if the sentence were worded
Most times I go hiking, I wear boots.?
I was the one who added the usex, but i realize now that my sentence doesn't illustrate adverbial use. Still, I think this is possible to interpret as an adverb if we simply omit the word when, since it will then make times function like sometimes, which is an adverb. Since only an adverb can modify an adverb, I'd say that the questioned sense does exist. —Soap—16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Here the word most modifies times, which is the plural of the nountime, sense 3.4. Adverbs do not modify nouns. The grammatical function of most times in the adverbial clause most times when is not affected by the omission of the relative adverb when. --Lambiam --Lambiam19:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Antwort
These are all SOP - particularly given that it's much more common to hear that a program is "in alpha" or "in beta", which shows that those words are simply acting as plain adjectives on the word "version". We don't currently have an entry for pre-alpha, but it works in exactly the same way. Theknightwho (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Weak delete. I work in this industry (occasionally): there are alpha and beta (and sometimes other) releases, and alpha and beta candidates, and just "alphas" and "betas". Same thing. It may be the case that these terms all derived from "alpha (etc.) version" (in which case we might want to keep it, as "mobile phone" despite "mobile"), but in that case I think we ought to have some strong sourcing. Equinox◑01:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ambivalent on this but the OED considers "alpha" and "beta" in the software sense as clippings of alpha testing and beta testing (rather than version), which seems plausible enough since their citations for the latter go back to the 1960s. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Err on the side of keeping: these are the headwords I would use for lookup. In Macmillan. Mark using "sum of parts" label if desired. Very good page views[19]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not sure if I can vote without an account here, but as someone who looked up the word through Google and the Wiktionary definition was exactly what I was looking for (and I was very perplexed by the deletion message), I obviously want to keep this. --62.245.80.3100:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Like the previous commenter I was someone who looked up the word through Google and the Wiktionary definition was exactly what I was looking for (and I was also very perplexed by the deletion message), I obviously want to keep this. The fact that pre-alpha is a red link is not a good argument to delete this, and I would say having the page arguably is a positive to help people keep the same meaning in discussions. -- 2001:4645:3D47:0:D1F6:24E6:6D:15D0; 2023-03-20T11:44Z (11:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC))Antwort
Before 1950 alpha test" was often Alpha test or Alpha Test, referring to the w:Army Alpha test, one of the first widely used intelligence tests. There was other usage of alpha test to refer to a test that was applied first to test objects, preceding a possible beta test. I found a 1950 HP Journal article that referred to alpha test as "Lab Test of Functionality" and beta test as "Marketing Test of ..." (snippet view only), which is close to modern sense. Before 1970 "alpha version" appears in Google Books mostly in comparison of different sources (eg, manuscripts) of old documents and not at all in the context of electronic devices, software, etc. This, plus the OED's treatment suggest that alpha test and beta test are the expressions that introduce the modern senses of alpha and beta. The myriad modern uses of alpha and beta in their technical hardware and software senses seem SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments3 people in discussion
Rfd-sense, "the right for someone to practice their religious beliefs," the Etymology 1. This is SOP and a literal definition, do we really need this if it necessitates a separate etymology? This'd be like if we had a separate etymology for learning permits (plural of learning permit) to define for a phrase like, "Learn as much as learning permits!" PseudoSkull (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep: when an entry covers some senses, it should also cover other senses of the same term in some form. A minimum way is to invoke {{&lit}}, but explicit coverage as is seen in religious right seems better; otherwise, a non-native speaker needs to consult the polysemous right entry and figure out which of the multiple senses are meant. Picking the salient sense for the reader adds value. As before, I would find a label "sum of parts" on the sense lin perfectly fine, to make things explicit for the reader. But these are not two etymologies: the different senses of "religious right" are under the same etymology of "right". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
That isn’t relevant to how we decide what etymology sections to use for this entry. You also seem to now be trying to include senses which you admit are SOP, which is contrary to both policy and established practice. Theknightwho (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
As for common practice, I know of no evidence to that effect. As for policy, WT:CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers". But that is arguably not about SOP senses; I know of no policy regulating inclusion of SOP senses. Let others comment and we will decide together; my position is that the current explicit phrasing is better than {{&lit}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
WT:CFI: "including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic". No talk about senses. A search for the word "sense" in CFI did not reveal anything. Indeed, if SOP senses were excluded, there would be no use for {{&lit}} at all, but since we use {{&lit}}, there is some support for SOP senses. And if we interpret that language to cover senses (which we shouldn't), then what I quoted allows inclusion of SOP items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Arguably, the sense is not even really SOP. Since, "right that is religious" would well fit Sharia law, but what is meant by it is the right to practice a religion. The "to practice religion" part does not have the same meaning as "of or pertaining to religion" and cannot be easily derived by it. The plural "religious rights" seems less ambiguous; Sharia is not "rights" in plural. I maintain there is only one etymology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
The right to practice religion is not the only right which is related to religion, and not the only religious right. Being an inadequate definition should not save it.
Unless the same sense of right is being used, they have different etymologies, because the route to get to the term in question differs. The fact that it forks at the term right and not earlier is irrelevant from the perspective of how we lay out the entry religious right. Theknightwho (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Are 6 edits to compose a single post really needed? Now to the point: What, then, is a proper definition of "religious right" that covers the right to practice one's religion and perhaps more? I for one cannot obtain it from "right" and "of or pertaining to religion". And since Sharia is not "religious right", I rest my case about non-SOP until shown otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
So you're unable to deduce that a religious right is a right which relates to religion from "right" and "of or pertaining to religion"? That suggests a competency issue on your part, not that this term is not SOP.
Doesn't strike me as SOP: Fiber internet which is transmitted using fiber-optic cables does not fall under the umbrella of cable internet even though a SOP interpretation says so. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I think it's understood as being short for cable (television) Internet because it is delivered by television providers. At least in the USA. So keep, as not being sum-of-parts after all. —Soap—17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments8 people in discussion
I don't really think this makes it a...term. The cites appear to use italics to refer to the movie, and this usage of movies/games/whatever in these kinds of contexts is pretty common, for example, "Well the movie was pretty bad, but it was surely no Manos: Hands of Fate". PseudoSkull (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep: the non-proper-name uses (the X of, Xes) need to be covered in some way, whether via the current common noun sense or as part of proper name sense indicating what the entity is noted for. (The proper name sense in Joan of Arc ought to be restored: it was deleted using low-quality rationale.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete, merely being used as an object of comparison is not sufficient to be included, even if well known enough that the comparison can be made without further context. The sentiment above about a test being created is well taken, though I don't have a good suggestion for such a test. - TheDaveRoss12:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think this should be MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE ʼ instead of MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA ʻ. At least this is what man uses to transcribe for instance Ottoman Turkish where for ع(ʕ) they had a glottal stop (so logically it would not only be transcribed words but ultimately incorporate thence into English sentences, typical for scholarly works in the field that can’t shy away from incorporating Arabisms and Turkisms and what ever is local to their field). Fay Freak (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Leaning keep. It's not transparently SOP: per the OED, at least, run of luck is specifically a series of gambling wins, the more generic use to mean any spell of good fortune (not listed at our entry) is a later transferred sense. There, it has a sub-entry as a noun phrase under luck (alongside stuff like devil's luck—mere collocations are shunted to their own separate list). We also have the very similar lucky streak. There's another more general historical aspect, since etymologically it appears that the sense of run as a series or a spell might have been generalised from its use in gambling: "run of fortune" is attested from the late 17th century, whereas the more general concept in reference to events is 18th-century. Compare etymonline. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete, SOP. The collocation is not reserved to gambling contexts.[26][27][28] One can also use the synonyms streak of luck[29][30][31], run of fortune,[32][33](déjà vu)[34] and, to complete the list, streak of fortune.[35][36][37] Furthermore, the luck can be qualified, as in run of good luck or even of bad luck.[38][39][40] I see no reason to think that the use of run in the sense of “series of like items” originated in gambling. --Lambiam12:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambian: Just to note, my argument above was a historical one—it is obviously used outside of gambling contexts, but this now-SOP use is transferred and not the original sense according to the OED. The "series of like items" sense of run is also listed as a subsense after "spell of luck" (similar earlier attestation is to continuous and abstract referents like "the run of time" and not a discrete series). The OED is only one source, but it seems reasonable enough and I'd want another citation to feel comfortable rejecting it out of hand. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
I do not have access to the current edition of the OED, but the 1933 edition of the OED defines a sense of run as: “A course or spell of (good or ill) fortune, esp. in games of chance.”[41] The first three supporting citations, which are ordered by date, are:
1697John VanbrughAesop: “forced to cut down his Timber, which he would willingly preserve against an ill run at dice”.
The rest contains, in order, the collocations “a good or bad run of luck at cards”, “a long run of evil fortune”, and “a run of ill-luck”. With the 1933 OED definition, “run of luck” is definitely SOP. In my opinion, this sense is actually merely a specialization of a sense defined by the 1933 OED as: “A continued spell or course of some condition or state of things”. The aspect of fortune and the role of games of chance, if applicable, are conferred by the context in each of these quotations. --Lambiam22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
The current edition is rather more detailed, yeah, but the 1933 would then seem to in fact support that it originated in gambling, no? All of those early uses relate to gambling. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the full passage containing the third quotation is interesting and seems to support the contention that "run of luck" in fact originated as a term specifically related to gambling: [42]. Note that it's introduced without prior context—the reader is expected to infer that it refers to gambling and not just any old luck—and also that it's italicised in a way suggesting that it's a term of art. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
These six quotations are uses of the term run. Obviously, they have been selected by Murray to support his definition, involving fortune – and a good source of discussions of fortune is provided by games of chance. So what we have here is a selection effect. Only two contain the specific collocation run of luck. We see either stand-alone uses of run or in various transparent combinations: with at dice, of luck, of evil fortune, and of ill-luck. As I said, IMO these are SOP uses of run in a more general sense. This sense of run is old enough. For example, a book from 1677 has “a run of 20 Years”,[43]viz. of the Ark residing in the house of Abinadab. Why shouldn’t one expect to see it applied to other spells or courses of something, including good or bad luck (in gambling)? The collocation “a constant run of Fortune” occurs in a book from 1694,[44] unrelated to games of chance. Is there a reason to think this is by extension of a sense originating in gambling, instead of simply being the more general sense? --Lambiam18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep – but the definition needs to be replaced by or extended with a figurative sense. In several of the given quotations, the term clearly is used in a figurative sense. Even when not (it is not always clear without further context), these uses appear to be independent of reference to the Monopoly universe. --Lambiam22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep: since the original sense gave rise to a figurative sense, the original should be kept as well. Some will prefer to have it etymology-only, but I don't see a benefit of moving semantics to etymology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
We should probably keep this one then[45], though I don’t feel qualified to vote on Chinese entries myself. We should also define ‘football pitch’ to be the area of a soccer pitch, IOW a typical 1.76 acres according to Wikipedia (see[46] - this this author works on the basis that a pitch is 1.79 acres if you do the maths) and perhaps also have another sense at ‘football field’ defining the area as 1.76 acres (if such a sense can be attested of course). The current definition at football field is based on the area of an American football field (1.32 acres) --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
We know the park exists, we need to verify this sense is used, if any quotations can be found, preferably in English. It's really an RFV matter. If some decent quotes can be added, I would keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Read my first comment, it's definitely attestable. There's like dozens, if not hundreds, of uses in different constructions in SCMP (the local newspaper). – Wpi31 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Any locally well-known geographical feature can be used for area comparisons, like, in NYC, “the size of three Central Parks”,[47][48] in England, “the size of three London Olympic parks”,[49] and even “the size of four Belgiums, plus Crimea”.[50] Likewise for volume comparisons: “the equivalent of three Lake Eries”.[51] This does not make Lake Erie a “unit of volume in North America”, irrespective of how widespread attestible uses may be. --Lambiam13:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
The category may be empty, but we assuredly have some. The idea that we ought to include a word which appears in three My Little Pony fanfics which will never be read by anyone, but we ought to exclude words which are intentionally included in the most-read books in the language may indicate a misalignment of policy. There is a pretty good chance someone may encounter dwimmer-crafty and be curious what it means. Policy can be wrong, and when it is we should keep the words it would exclude, or exclude the words it would keep. And perhaps fix the policy. - TheDaveRoss21:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I suppose the first order of business is to RFV, although yes, if it's only used by one author it'll be deleted. We used to allow words used in only one work, but voted to remove that in 2014, see diff, voted linked in edit summary, so English terms do actually have to have been used (three whole times) and not just coined by a celebrity. If there are citations, we may nonetheless return here to RFD, because the current definition is basically "crafty in the art of dwimmer", and this works for the one cite given, and is arguably SOP. - -sche(discuss)22:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Antwort
Weak Keepthen again and but then both mean on the other hand or however but you wouldn't say on the other hand again or however again. You could say but on the other hand, though but however is much rarer and unidiomatic, perhaps even grammatically unsound. The phrase could plausibly be thought of as but+then again but not really as but then + again but I'd say but then again is idiomatic rather than SOP and keep it, personally. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Stuff like this seems pretty interjection-y to me: "They were poor, but they were rich in faith, and when they died they shouted, 'Victory, victory!'" [52] "In the severest moments of the death-struggle, there was no intermission of the cry. 'Victory, victory, victory,' was still repeated." [53] "when in the rear of the army, and he heard the cannon, far from being frightened […] he cried, Victory! Victory!" [54] etc. Inclined to keep. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Antwort
In a hortative sense (as in your example 3, or a Braveheart caricature) I think "freedom" can be usefully defined as an interjection, yeah, with similar reasoning for "victory". The second example I am ambivalent on, I don't think that use is generically different from saying "A man!" when you see a man and the like—I selected the "victory" examples specifically because they're cases where it is not just an observation of a victory. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Lovely. These are all unambiguously interjections syntactically: the question is which ones merit inclusion in a dictionary as such. The OED thinks victory does. The problem with the slippery slope idea is that we already have a good number of interjection lemmas that can be dismissed on similar grounds as any of these, e.g. (picking some random examples) apologies, condolences, battle stations, newsflash, checkmate, heads. So we might want to think about what the actual test(s) for inclusion are for an interjection, rather than simply stockpiling examples (of which we already have plenty)—unless it's just about lemmings. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I guess it's not really something like that hinges on fine points of grammar like the participle vs. adjective discussions that people enjoy having: if you're shouting out a word by itself then it's an interjection by definition, even if it's also some part of speech (these are called "secondary interjections" in the literature). The question's just what the point of listing it as one would be. FWIW I don't get the conniptions about listing stuff like walkies or freedom or whatever as interjections if they're attestable and someone cares enough to add it, we're not short of space. The one category I'd probably exclude is "vocatives" or generally just exclaiming because something exists/happened (goal etc, and imo checkmate). I won't die on the hill of victory anyway, it just might be worth having a beer parlour discussion or something. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
The information of whether a given lexeme has been used hortatively within the corpus doesn't strike me as lexical information of that word. Additionally, having a distinct interjection section for these semantically indistinguishable cases isn't really worth anything from a usability perspective either. I'm casting a weak delete for now. I also think we should consider creating a new binding policy page for our parts of speech and their specific inclusion criteria. First English participles/adjectives, then German adjectives/adverbs and now interjections. We'd do ourselves a favor by writing down the consensus somewhere so that we don't have to relitigate everything or, even worse, end up in an internally inconsistent state (as we currently are with respect to ex- terms). Related: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/January § skill issue and whether a noun phrase should be included as an interjection only because it is frequently uttered in isolation. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep if it's in the OED. That is, err on the side of; clear case it is not. (Oder so. Ist Deutsch erlaubt or streng verboten? Na ja, es gibt nicht unbedingt viel Sinn, in einer englischen Diskussion auf Deutsch zu schreiben. Aber macht Spass. Also lieber ignorieren und meine Fehler entschuldigen.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's certainly not idiomatic in English, but as a THUB it doesn't have to be. I can't speak for the translations. Justinrleung, who speaks Chinese, seemed to side with Surjection in the above discussion, which may mean there is nothing special about "outside a window" in Chinese as compared to e.g. "outside a door". The Finnish, Japanese (first), and Vietnamese translations seem SOP, as they link to their individual components. So that leaves potentially Korean and Japanese (second). Those still look SOP to me, though. 70.172.194.2501:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
As you must know better than me, the Finnish translation, ikkunan ulkopuolella, is also non-idiomatic; compare oven ulkopuolella.[62] --Lambiam20:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Abstain: I don't think I have ever used "elbow pit". Is it an Americanism? It is anatomically different to an armpit. In Norwegian it is armkrok. We could do with crook of the arm (plural: crooks of arms) as a synonym of that, which shouldn't be subject to the SoP limitations. I would support that. DonnanZ (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
These kinds of technical terms have exacting, often even safety-relevant, distinctions, the collective system making the individual terms more inclusionworthy than their trivial technical nature would suggest, thus are beneficial to collect. Perhaps Wonderfool should discern it with a real job, but I may also be projecting. Weak keep. Fay Freak (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep since sense 2 (which did not exist when this request was opened) is idiomatic. For context the entry was created on 9 December 2022 by EquinoxFan2022, who tagged it for RFD the next day, and later repeatedly tried to remove the tag. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)21:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just attributive aorist + tense. Not comparable to future tense, past tense since the latter have trans-linguistic meanings whereas "aorist tense" is just "the tense(-aspect) of the aorist", whatever that implies in a given language (perfective in Ancient Greek, habitual in Turkish, etc). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep since apparent contradictions in terms should be kept, and their usage documented, to render lexicographical service to the users. (I guess I will be outvoted, but that is fine.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep since apparent contradictions in terms should be kept, and their usage documented, to render lexicographical service to the users. (I guess I will be outvoted, but that is fine.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the complaint is that sense 2 ("Some thing or things") is redundant to sense 1 ("A placeholder name for a person or thing"), in which case I agree, delete, or merge. such-and-such has "placeholder or generic thing", which might be a better definition. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Nothing for that sense in Collins and Oxford hard copies, but I notice it crops up in phrases like "at so-and-so a" (time, place etc.) which could be replaced by such-and-such. Probably best described as non-standard. A quote or two would be useful. DonnanZ (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Rfd-sense (mathematics) a vector whose value in every dimension is zero. i.e. . It's just a special case of the second (more general and correct) definition. The word has only one discernible sense. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Keep in RFD: the requirements of WT:BRAND are requirements on existence of certain kinds of quotations. Entry created by @Atitarev; entry edited without RFD nomination by @Equinox, @J3133 and @Adam78. In terms of general/universal lexicography (word documentation), the entry has valid lexicographical content. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Yes. To explicitly itemize: 1) RFD is inapplicable; WT:BRAND-related deletions are for RFV. 2) WT:BRAND does not trace to any credible arguments supporting it as a rationale, and therefore, WT:BRAND is not supported by Wikipedia-consensus, where Wikipedia-consensus is the concept of consensus as understood by Wikipedia. 2.1) Wiktionary ought to undergo a cultural change in which Wiktionary-consensus becomes more like Wikipedia-consensus, strongly incorporating the element of the strength of arguments, and in particular, those who make no pretense of making arguments ought to be dismissed as decision-making participants. 2.2) some steps toward 2.1 were already taken, e.g. in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes, linked from WT:VPRFD. Ironically, it was me who argued that consensus has to be determined numerically, not based on the strength of the argument. In part, I was wrong: at a minimum, those who make no pretense to make arguments (e.g. by saying "Delete" with no rationale) can be dismissed, and lack of argument is easy to deterministically/algorithmically and objectively determine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The wording of WT:BRAND is supported by the following votes. A careful reader will note that vote 3 explicitly approves the full text of the section:
That is a good point. However, the formal vote that decided that formal votes ought to completely dismiss the strength of the argument (which I opposed) did not provide any credible arguments for doing so. Therefore, the meta-vote itself fails to comply with Wikipedia consensus process, and in so far as the principle of the strength of the argument is taken seriously, is illegitimate. Those who want to push the strength of the argument principle can do so, in so far as that reveals their true and free will and their being members of the rational universe in which mere numbers of very stupid or inarticulate people supporting something do not count. Incidentally, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2 is a perfect example of a gross violation of Wikipedia-consensus process: the voters make no pretense of making any arguments at all. On the strength of the argument principle, the conduct of that vote participants is unacceptable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
There's also Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes. You seem to be trying to argue that anyone who supports closing discussions based on the strength of argument should, by extension, want to ignore any formal votes which don't meet that standard; ignoring the fact that those votes still passed, whether we wanted them to or not.
It is exactly that 2019 vote that I referred to above as "meta-vote", and about which I pointed out that it fails to comply with Wikipedia-consensus process by its disregard of the strength of the argument principle and that, from the standpoint of the strength of the argument, is illegitimate. Wiktionary editors do in fact have the option of rejecting the results of votes that fail to comply with Wikipedia-consensus process; whether they ought to take that option is another matter, but they do have the option or they can reject such votes as illegitimate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
As for "sorry", internal emotional states of discussion participants have no logical bearing on correctness, plausibility, verifiability, falsifiability, or strength of arguments. Put differently, such an internal state is irrelevant and does not need to be revealed as part of a RFD discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Reading Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes reminds me of the time when I was working on FreeMind, the free-as-in-freedom mind mapping software, and one of the users in our fora posted to the effect that FreeMind is a rare sign of the presence of the intelligence on the planet. In a kind of analogy, the vote shows that there is some rare presence of intelligence and Wikipedia-consensus spirit in the English Wiktionary, and it belongs to me, not to the other vote participants. That is an arrogant thing to say of oneself, but the objective evidence in that vote is very clear in that regard. It is the inferior behavior of the great majority of the English Wiktionary editors that makes me arrogant, comparing myself to what is arguably much more inferior than the general Wikipedia editor, who necessarily respects the strength of the argument principle in Wikipedia Requests for comments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
They can reject such votes by passing a vote which overturns them. This just seems to be a (particularly tortured, even for you) way of arguing that we should ignore consensus that you don’t like. Theknightwho (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Editors do have the option to ignore numerical-consensus as an opinion of those who do not even pretend to have anything resembling an argument and to insist on Wikipedia-consensus as the only acceptable process on wiki. That is a fact; they do have the option, whether they ought to take it or not. (I am repeating myself since there is not much else I can say to the above pseudo-argument. Maybe I should say nothing and leave it to the reader.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The fact remains that the only way they can exercise that option is by passing a vote overturning current policy. It's not a pseudo-argument just because you don't like the fact that certain policy exists. I suggest you stop conflating your personal feelings with objective fact, because it's an absolutely typical move of yours to start claiming that people aren't making arguments when you don't have an adequate response. Theknightwho (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
In BP, the stupid and/or dishonest people who supported WT:BRAND without a proper rationale/strength of argument would shoot my proposal down like a breeze, consistent with their long-term problematic behavior. In recent discussions on various subjects, editors freely revealed themselves as free of anything resembling a strong argument, in a completely unashamed way. But I do not entirely give up on my fellow co-humans or co-persons or Mitmenschen or whatever they really are, in their ultimate unknowable being. Maybe BP would be worth a try. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's a difference, ... we've had plenty of single-sense RFV's, such as sleepwell ... it does seem to me that RFV would make more sense since a brandname has a pretty clear-cut definition. Nobodys debating whether KakaoTalk exists ... I dont know how to explain it, but .... to keep a brand name in the dictionary, we want to see that it's used as a *word*, not just a name. —Soap—21:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Brand names are words or word sequences, just like all proper names. That is obvious, and the repeated claims to the contrary are cases of pathetic lying or pretending to be very stupid. The obvious can be articulated: brand names have pronunciation, etymology, inflection (not so much in English but e.g. in Czech), part of speech, referents (like other proper names), etc. Put differently, brand names are words or word sequences by duck test: that which has all signs or characteristics or behaviors of a word is a word. But maybe I, a non-expert, am wrong and there are authorities explaining that this reasoning is incorrect. If so, it should be possible to trace the statement that some brand names are not words or word sequences to authoritative sources; I would ask those who support that statement to do so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
RFD deals with deletion of entries "for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested" as it says at the top of the page. RFV handles attestation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
For some context, KakaoTalk (aka Kakao or KaTalk) in South Korea is the primary messaging tool, it's probably much more common than Facebook, Skype, Twitter or Instagram for which we have entries. It's also common with anyone who has to communicated with Koreans, since many people in South Korea don't even have any account on other platforms or don't care about them.
From the Web: "According to Kakao Corp, in Q3 2022, there were 53.5 million active users worldwide and more than 47.6 million were based in South Korea." Or "It is found on more than 90 percent of phones in South Korea." --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)07:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nominally, Facebook, Twitter, etc. need to meet WT:BRAND. However, editors have the option to treat WT:BRAND as invalid given its failure to comply with the Wikipedia-consensus process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Its possible that they were such obvious non-candidates for RFV that nobody's bothered to send them there. Im sure we could easily find the required three citations using Facebook as a common noun outside the context of Facebook, and likewise for Twitter. Im not as familiar with Skype but Im sure that sooooooomewhere we could scrape up three cites and probably a lot more. KakaoTalk may be more difficult to support if its primary language is not English. —Soap—09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Skype would be trivially easy to cite as a verb. Up until the pandemic, it was still being used as the generic word for video calling (at least in the UK). Theknightwho (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Dan Polansky seems to suggest that the fact that I edited the entry means I approve of it. No way! Sometimes I'm too busy to RFV/RFD, or feel sadly sure it would pass. Equinox◑23:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete, fails WT:BRAND. (In the unlikely case that someone manages to find three CFI-conforming uses of the name in a context that does not reveal it is a messaging app, the entry can easily be recreated.) --Lambiam12:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Administrators ought to block Wonderfool User:Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais already, protecting the project against this little playful devil. This RFD ought to be dismissed; Wonderfool ought not be allowed to create RFD nominations. Wonderfool's social standing ought to be demolished. Wonderfool ought to pledge to stop using multiple accounts, stop editing irresponsibly, and pledge to become a respectable adult citizen of the English Wiktionary. Wonderfool ought to stop being a playful child in the sense of little funny mischievous rascal and become a responsible adult; age-wise, it is probably about time. Wonderfool is one of the most useful and productive editors the English Wiktionary ever had and ought to do much better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Might be one for RFV since I can't find any examples of this in actual use outside of dictionaries. In earlier specialist military dictionaries it's used as an adjective or adverb, and refers to the whole formation, not a single rank, e.g. [63]. There may be a game of telephone at work: the gloss copied from Webster's 1913 is "The rear rank of a body of troops when faced about and standing in that position", Worcester's 1847 has "a company or body of men when faced about, and standing in that position", citing Crabb; Crabb 1823 has "a term applied to a battalion, troop, or company, when it is faced about, and stands in that position". For the RFD as such, I would say keep since the meaning of the term, judging from the source I linked which essentially defines it as the troops individually facing backwards without the formation itself being rotated, is not really straightforward. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Definition's word for word from Webster's and seems to be wrong so I'm afraid there's no reason to remove the notice @Donnanz, it's re-pointed to the right entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Re-pointed to a load of other stuff too. Anyway, it seems to be archaic, I don't know what was in vogue in 1913, the year of my father's birth. DonnanZ (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep, I think. Ostensibly the term means "material that is suitable for adults", but because it is really only used to refer to pornography (perhaps euphemistically) and not, say, movies and novels where the characters are adults, points to the fact that it is idiomatic. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
You are looking at the wrong definition of "adult," this is the sense "intended for use only by adults" e.g. "adult content", "adult movie", "adult magazine", "adult website", "adult language" etc. - TheDaveRoss16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would say keep. It's from sense 3 of the adjective, and sense 2 of the noun material. It may be "material suitable for adults" but it's also "material unsuitable for children". DonnanZ (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you on all but adult bookstore, which Ive just now created. I think it's good that we're taking these on a case-by-case basis. Another good example is adult beverage, because there's no other context where the word adult means "containing alcohol".
As for this discussion, I can see both sides .... I'd even say the nominator undercut his argument by stating that it's not just for porn .... that makes it less sum-of-parts and means we might just need to clarify the definition instead of deleting the page. Yet, I could apply the same logic to adult and say we should rework definition #3 to clarify that it doesn't just mean porn. For now I abstain. —Soap—13:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Side note: I found "adult drink", "adult root beer float", etc. prominently on Google. On this basis, I'm going to add another sense to the adjective at adult. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
If someone is said to be "noted for creating adult fingmippets" and we know that a "fingmippet" is a work in some creative medium, it will be obvious which sense of adult applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The reason I felt the need to create a page for adult bookstore is that it's not sum-of-parts ... knowing what adult and bookstore mean would not tell you what an adult bookstore is. An adult bookstore, so far as I know, sells primarily sex toys, with video and books being less profitable. I worded the definition conservatively out of caution. I don't think adult movie is sum-of-parts either because, while less common, there are movies with no sex but such graphic violence that they are also restricted to adult viewers in theaters, and adult movie as presently defined does not encompass that (and I believe the current definition is correct). As for adult star .... well, few native English speakers will misunderstand the meaning, but I always think of English language learners first .... for someone with an incomplete grasp of the language, it's very easy to misunderstand this as simply meaning someone who is both an adult and a star. I still don't have a strong opinion on what to do with adult material, and I promise I wont just vote keep just because Im in favor of keeping the other three .... I'd say all four of these phrases are different from each other, really, and should be treated as such. —Soap—22:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be at least two references: "Common School Education https://books.google.com books 1889 · Education - By the time my grandsons are grown up, or maybe even sooner, They'll go rushing 'cross the ocean in a fifteen-masted schooner." AND "Marine Review - Volumes 19-20 - Page 21 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com › books 1899 · Marine engineering ... need be no limit save draught to the building of large schooners and he sees no reason why a fifteen - masted vessel should not be built is necessary." But I think it is SOP and better suited to WP. Facts707 (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
That definition is much broader than sense 1, so I don't think it's redundant in principle although it's not familiar to me. Might be one for RFV? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Löschen: I'm a little confused here... It appears that sense #3 is actually redundant with both sense #1 and sense #2 - I can't picture a control panel that is wouldn't be either physical controls or virtually displayed controls. I've also never heard of this being synonymous with control unit, which seems to uniquely refer to CPUs and unrelated to this term? – Guitarmankev1(talk)19:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The user who added the sense, @Espoo, is still around—maybe they can explain what they meant since I'm also (still) struggling a bit. Otherwise I'm inclined to agree after looking at it again, delete. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
We probably should have military justice, and we have military police, so it is logical to keep it as an institution. I doubt that it is “just a prison” consequently; considering also that it has purposes different from what is usually understood “a prison”.
Prison is for criminals and suspects and some civil law and other public law detention cases (in Germany: Ordnungshaft, Persönlicher Arrest; Erzwingungshaft, Zwangshaft; the historical debtors' prison probably was partially in separate buildings and so also warrants an entry; Abschiebungshaft “detention for deportation” recently was also equal to criminal detention but this has been found a human rights violation so there are also separate facilities for it now)
A military prison may be for those who are only subject to disciplinary action or are prisoners of war (notably not SoP either). In accordance with this typicity observation, Wiktionary defines prison very restrictively as a building “especially of long-term confinement for those convicted of serious crimes or otherwise considered undesirable by the government“, which is barely an applicable definition for a building housing soldiers. Fay Freak (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Fay Freak, I think you have digressed way too much by mentioning different types of prisons in Germany. Also I think your Wikipedia definition (especially of long-term confinement... undesirable by the government) was not that useful here: there's plenty of prisons worldwide that hold both convicted criminals and pretrial suspects, in which the actually-used meaning is much broader.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
That’s what I say, criminals and suspects. The definition (especially of long-term confinement... undesirable by the government) is from Wiktionary. But my point was that this or similar is the usual implication of bare “prison” or what its purpose is understood as (and additionally some other purposes I am only informed about for Germany, so one may doubt the accuracy of our definition), while military prisons are more neutral towards this: Different purposes, particular facility worth inclusion? Fay Freak (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
military prison or brig, -- there was something else, 'lockup', for the lower ranks, often you have to use calques or combinations like these where distinct and separate terms exist in other language ex. russian VOENKOMAT for conscription office, enlistment office ... the volunteer editors ofsuch a dictionary and language project of your stature (your -- that is, you , as WIKTIONARY) -- should know that terms and ideas don't map across languages one-to-one .. so maybe this isn't used very much in english where it couldn't be replaced or << broken down >> into its constituent parts and still clearly carry meaning .. but if there are textual references as the earlier users said I can't oppose to retain a term for its use in understanding other languages Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
VOENKOMAT i think is actually an abbreviation for << military commissariat >> voennij kommisariat ? hundreds if not thousands -- probably thousands actually of these soviet bureaucratic conjunctions, disgusting utilitarian butchery of the holy and ancient russian language, the bolsheviks spitting on the graves of a conquered people, an enslaved people.. and now of course it;s showing up in english. i reject all neologisms, anyone tells me how i should use language like stanford 'inclusive language' manual, pronouns, AP manual of style talking about 'people who are' (homeless, french, illegal immigrants ( in the country illegally) ) as opposed to -- french people, homeless people ---- so none of us have intrinsic characteristics ? yes, we're all interchangeable.. people are in the country illegally. just regular people, because we're all the same people -- it could just as well be you or me but it's them .. so we're the same, who are we to judge or characterize at all ?? you know, things like this tend to make the world much more difficult to understand -- stripping away all distinctions and paradigms of understanding -- through which you can navigate the world maybe not perfectly but more effectively. now in this imaginary world where people are 'liberated' of their instincts there is no distinction, no stereotype -- you're walking at night, and you should cross the street as much to avoid a grandmother, as you would to avoid a young man -- maybe even an ethnic minority young man ? -- .. as i say anyone who tells me how to use my language i tell him to talk to the ass (zhopa ) , anyone who shoves a neologism in my throat or cringe diction he'll get something in his throat in return, but you see in english the most relevant meaning doesn;t map directly to the russian words which were used to construct the term Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Wikipedia further states: "Military prisons are used variously to house prisoners of war, unlawful combatants, those whose freedom is deemed a national security risk by the military or national authorities, and members of the military found guilty of a serious crime". If this was purely SOP then we would expect any prison in a country that is a military dictatorship to be a "military prison" since the military runs everything, but obviously they are not. bd2412T19:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
No reference is made at smoked to flavour, compared to unsmoked which does refer to flavour. When it comes to flavour, I prefer unsmoked bacon to smoked bacon. This entry doesn't explain that smoked salmon is considered a delicacy, and that may be due to its flavour. I am inclined to keep, subject to revision. DonnanZ (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Löschen as SoP. I am not sure how a flavour should be defined in this case, or why this is necessary since it is essentially the flavour that food has after it has been preserved by treatment with smoke, which is sense 1 of smoked. It seems redundant to define smoked as “preserved by treatment with smoke, or having the flavour of something preserved by treatment with smoke”, unless there are foods which taste smoked without actually having been smoked. Would such foods then be called “smoked”? Even if smoked should be redefined in this way, smoked salmon would still be SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The name is Donnanz, and I was illustrating a point. Flavour or taste, if the smoking of food products affects those, it can affect people's preferences. You may or may not like the flavour of "smoky bacon flavour crisps". DonnanZ (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
That is an error in the existing definition of smoked; it should indeed either say "flavoured or preserved ..." (Wikipedia has various other verbs) or simply something like "treated with smoke" (the OED has "impregnated with"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep .... I'm really of two minds with this entry. I always think of English language learners and young children first when something like this comes up .... what seems like an obvious sum-of-parts definition to us might not be so obvious to someone who's just picking up the language, and who might not be familiar with eating habits in the wider world. For example, until now, there was no definition of salmon indicating that people sometimes eat just a small part of the fish. Seems obvious to us, right? Well, I figured it couldnt hurt, so I added a new definition to the base word. However I admit that this eliminates the need for a separate page for smoked salmon. All I can really come up with, besides what I've said already, is that the existence of this page shows readers that this dish exists and is more common than for example smoked chicken, smoked flounder, and the like, which probably also exist but are not popular enough to be every day items in a restaurant or supermarket. A particular combination of two words that is more common than other semantically similar combinations might be arguably, weakly, something more than the sum of its parts. Lastly, there is lox, which is listed as a subtype of smoked salmon, and would be orphaned if we delete this page. —Soap—14:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Searching for collocations of "smoked" on COCA gives us dozens of other such words. Should we include all of those? I think not, it'd make more sense to add many collocations. Vininn126 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete as SOP, except possibly as a THUB, this is what collocations are for. I think it's unhelpful to learners because it makes it seem like something that should be learned as a unit. Drapetomanic (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Donnanz and Soap, with the entry modified. The definition should add that it is a delicacy; merely stating that it's a salmon which has been cured by smoking fails to capture this aspect. This additional nuance separates "smoked salmon" from "smoked jerky". Furthermore, it is useful for hosting translations. Megathonic (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Leaning keep. There are certainly cultural nuances within which "smoked salmon" specifically means the fileted delicacy. I know some mothers who would expect it to mean only that (the same ones who refer to a standing rib roast as roast beef). bd2412T19:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment The vast majority of the time 'smoked salmon' refers to smoked thin slices of raw salmon rather than cooked salmon that is smoked to flavour it but it CAN refer to cooked salmon. I recently had cooked smoked salmon for the first time ever in fact, so I don't have strong opinions about this entry. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I've separated and slightly rewritten the idiomatic meaning and used the &lit template to cover the literal meaning, so that even though the literal meaning is technically SOP it can still be included. This is a similar approach to take a knee, which is the entry that inspired me to handle it that way. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Observations: our definition does not agree with Wikipedia's; and I don't see why the citation under sense 2 cannot go under sense 1, unless it's about being "cut into strips", which is not AFAIK a necessary criterion for smoked salmon anyway. Equinox◑01:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia article deals with the idiomatic sense of smokes salmon and refers to salmon being cut into either strips or fillets, which are surely just thick strips anyway? It does say that fish are sometimes hung from hooks and smoked whole in Scotland but they would be cut into strips before being eaten, usually after being sold and served first. The quote I added refered to 'salmon flakes', which tells us that the salmon in question has been cooked before being smoked - demonstrating that it is talking about smoked salmon in a literal but non-idiomatic sense. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Doesn't even deserve the redirect, when "be" is present. Compare "he seemed unable to believe his eyes". No need for "be" verb. Equinox◑01:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for listing this and sorry for neglecting to do so. The transitive sense "to conclude" seems to me to be covered by the first sense "to end something". On second thoughts the intransitive sense "to issue or result" could potentially be distinguished from "to end, conclude, or cease; to come to an end" if it is intended to cover usages such as "the river terminates in a waterfall" or "the integer sequence terminates in three prime numbers". If so, some quotations would help to clarify the distinction. Voltaigne (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would guess that "to conclude" is meant to cover "to occur at the end of something", but it should be rewritten in that case since "to conclude" is rather opaque. The dictionary.com definitions don't seem to support "to issue or result" as a separate sense, though I'm also confused by why dictionary.com have "to end" (intransitive) and "to come to an end" as separate senses. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Lambiam: Slightly confused by this comment—"to occur" is intransitive in that phrase, yes, but "to occur at the end of" (or rather "to occur at or form the conclusion of" in their wording) is substitutable for "to terminate", hence it being listed as a transitive sense at dictionary.com. (e.g.: "This scene terminates the play." = "This scene occurs at the end of the play.") —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Those two accounts are the same person, so this could be considered a self-nomination, if it matters. Anyway ....
Löschen. I'd say this definitely exists, but I suspect the meaning is so vague that it would be difficult to pin down ... it can serve as a euphemism for shit on, which itself has several different senses, and I found a children's book just now where a dog says "I really pooped on it this time" which seems to mean "I really messed up big time". I suspect that poop is the singular and standout "bad word" among small children, and essentially can substitute for just about anything. (Though I also suspect that euphemistic usages like this are more common in novels where characters have their lines fed to them, as opposed to real children who are unlikely to know the adult expressions these euphemisms are meant to replace.) Unless this expression is in common use by adults I don't think it can really be assigned a single definition. —Soap—17:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC) edited 21:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC) to place a formal vote instead of just a commentAntwort
Yeah, I can't find any non-literal use apart from the one children's book. I think it may be that we typically don't combine metaphors with safe-for-kids euphemisms ... most kids won't understand what it's a euphemism for, and among adults it sounds awkward. —Soap—16:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Inquire further Actually I'm familiar with the general term you can say that someone is trying to << poo poo >> ( sp ?) an idea, if we're going to have this particular usage, i don't knhow if we have different spellings or forms, i would require textual references with this exact spelling before would support keep Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I agree it's not sum-of-parts. This RFD was added on behalf of a new user who may not have known the difference between RFD and RFV .... it took me quite a while to figure it out myself, so I dont hold that against them. To be honest, I didnt notice it was on the wrong page .... but since I've been thinking of this as an RFV, I've done what I could to find the required three cites and come up short-handed. I thought earlier that I'd at least be able to find three uses of the phrase metaphorically and that they'd all have different meanings, but I couldn't even find that.
If someone wants to transfer this to RFV and start the clock over, I guess that's what we're supposed to do, ... and other people might remember something from a kids' TV show, or a book that I wasn't able to access. Or it may be that adults do say this and I'm just wrong. But I honestly feel we're overthinking this, and that my original intuition is correct ... we don't typically combine vulgar metaphors with child-speak, and when we do, it's meaning is likely dependent on context. So, even if we do find three uses, I expect they won't share a precise meaning. —Soap—09:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
LöschenAbstain. The numerology sense is mentioned on Wikipedia at w:786 (number) and I think it is best kept there, since to explain the significance of the number to a naive reader in a dictionary would require so much background information that it would become an encyclopedic entry. —Soap—16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Im sitting this out for the time being, as the recent improvements to the page and the comments below have convinced me that this is a valid entry in and of itself. But I'm still reluctant to vote keep because numerology could also provide us with definitions for numbers like 19 (also significant in Islam), 616 (a variant of 666), 777 (used in Christianity), and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. That we haven't added entries for these already makes me wonder whether we've just never gotten around to it in all this time, or whether it's best considered outside our project's scope. —Soap—12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
it's ridiculous i think there was a subject here or maybe on wikipedia about how many numbers -- as numbers and not years -- should have separate entries ... delete it immediately this is just absurd ... Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete as defined. It doesn't have a meaning: it doesn't explain what it would mean if you spoke or wrote this in a sentence. Equinox◑21:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
This book suggests it could be found in Indian Islamic books or letters as a shortening of the basmala, in which case we should definitely include it, but I don't know where to look for attestation. However, this book indicates that it is used in "truck art or other mediums vulnerable to the dirt and defilement of the outside world", in which case it may be difficult to find durably archived quotations. 70.172.194.2500:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Thanks for the pointers—I found an example in diplomatic correspondence (in translation) here: [64] though worth noting that the original (scan given on previous page) uses Eastern Arabic numerals. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Al-Muqanna: I think this is another example, in English and using Western Arabic numerals: [65] (it occurs in the front matter, definitely not a page number). This might be a similar example in Urdu: [66] (I can't see the whole page, but it seems to be at the top of page 2, so it wouldn't be a page number, and I'm not sure what else it could mean). Accordingly, keep. 70.172.194.2500:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I agree, it's redundant, but perhaps sense 1 should be reworded since I think "other people's property" is too restrictive (apart from software, someone who decides to tear down a historic building that they own might still be described as a vandal, for example). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
agree with your assessment and with al-muqanna have to agree also when we're namedropping different enwiktionary users Dan Polansky wrote on his talk page -- was it here or on cz.wiktionary that he found it << insolent >> for those with under 50 edits to comment, vote on discussions .. where he waited years ( ?) or in any case until he had thousands of edits .. someone made a remark about his edit totals -- essentially his wiktionary +talk edits were equal in percentage to his main-namespace edits to he was there to cause trouble -- or << rule >> , impose on other people there ideas of how the project should be run -- still unclear to me .. but i agree with you it seems completely extraneous can't this wonderfool find something better to do -- or people in general who add extra definitions and senses not only here but on WP -- i've been in that position actually, i know how it is, such foolishness, such a waste of time, if you want to make your mark on the world, why don't you go outside, why don't you develop yourself as an individual rather than anonymously editing an internet web site Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment: A person who damages software is not likely to go on a "spree". I think this sense is confusing the Wiktionary or wiki vandal (who can damage a lot of pages quickly, but those pages are text content, and not software/code) with the traditional virus writer or "hacker" (who might do a lot of damage to programs and systems, but doesn't go on a "spree": it involves writing careful code and releasing it in one place). I also can't remember any situation where I heard a virus writer or "hacker" called a "vandal", and I'm very old (I remember Chris Pile!). Equinox◑07:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
To be fair when I mentioned people vandalising things that aren't other people's property above one of the thoughts I had was someone going rogue on Github or NPM or whatever, which could easily amount to a vandalism spree on software and doesn't even have to take much effort nowadays. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
well it;s an idiom yeah ? if it's in that category, i don';t know , maybe it should be .. i guess i could look on the page and even add myself with hotcat before i post the comment .. whoops ... well yeah of course many idioms, phrases which exist on wiktionary -- not only in english, but in other languages, involve forms of verbs, nouns and so on which already exist .. can't you see that the meaning and context is different ? might as well get rid of all idioms, all sayings .. take for example one's name is mud -- you can say name, named for verb form -- why not nominate it for deletion ? sorry i think i've made the point yeah don't mean to pound you into the mud here trout the new editor beat a dead horse and so on yeah KeepFishing Publication (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This phrase may have originated from the King James Bible, Revelation 21:17, which says And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. Now *that* is what I would call sum of parts, because it really is a literal usage of the phrase. The new meaning is much more specific and its meaning would not be immediately obvious to someone who had never heard the phrase before, or perhaps someone who had only come across it in the older Biblical usage. —Soap—16:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The OED citations for this sense of measure (the standard by which something is judged) go back to the 14th century and don't involve man so I don't think it's derived from that Bible passage, which is using a different sense (literal measurement). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Well I think we agree that the usage of the word measure in the questioned sense is older than the King James Bible, and that the verse in Revelation is using in a truly literal sense. I'm saying that this phrase is not sum-of-parts because there is a literal sense used in the Bible and a nonliteral sense which is up at RFV right now. I see your point, though .... and I understand that something can be considered SOP even if it has more than one definition .... but it seems helpful to me to have a page with the two different senses listed just for those few people who might be familiar with only one sense and be confused when they see the phrase used in the other sense. —Soap—14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete as an SoP common collocation/cliche. In addition to the collocations Lambiam pointed out above, there are numerous uses of measure, in this sense, of the form take [X]['s] measure, where X can be a pronoun or a proper personal name (eg, Jack's/John's/Fred's). DCDuring (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
the article just loaded too and it does seem to describe a distinct species or type not only usage or variant of the same meaning term i.e. eagle in english vs slavic languages sokol Fishing Publication (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
It seems that the US-based OneLook dictionaries (eg, MW, AHD) do not mention use as a symbol of the US, whereas the UK-based ones (Collins, Cambridge, Oxford) do. DCDuring (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Delete. While the bald eagle is indeed a national symbol of the USA, the meaning of the term bald eagle is not “a national symbol of the USA”. It is like giving a sense “the birth year of Albert Einstein” for the term 1879 ; although 1879 is indeed the birth year of Albert Einstein, this is not the meaning of the term. --Lambiam10:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't be opposed to a sense "the flag of Canada". If it exists it should be easy to find examples of "fly/raise/wave the maple leaf". Ioaxxere (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep, I'm not sure I understand the point about the circle? Nobody sees an unadorned circle and thinks of South Korea. At any rate, it's not saying that any physical maple leaf also happens to be a symbol of Canada, it's saying that a particular red design which is commonly referred to as a "maple leaf" is a symbol of Canada. Perhaps the wording could be changed to clarify this, but it's similar to sense 3 of leopard. It isn't primarily referring to the physical object that the symbol is based on, as in sense 1. AllenY99 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The disagreement here is about whether the term maple leaf is a symbol of Canada (which is not the same thing as the maple leaf itself). Backpacks with maple leaves on are completely irrelevant to that. Theknightwho (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Not if a Canadian backpacker intentionally buys a maple leaf backpack, or attaches a maple leaf symbol to their backpack, to signify where they're from when travelling abroad. DonnanZ (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Looking at the convo, it seems rather evident to me where such allegation would come from. Please allow me to bolden parts of all of User:Theknightwho's responses.
After saying this three times, while you are still going on about hiking and photographic evidence without addressing the points does appear trollish. You are on a dictionary. We talk about words and junk. So please speak about the words. Thank you.
Delete. Similarly to what I argue above for #bald eagle, while the maple leaf is indeed a national symbol of Canada, the meaning of the term maple leaf is not “a national symbol of Canada”. --Lambiam17:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
CounterpointApple pie figuratively represents Americanness as a figurative expression, beyond being a national symbol. Stars and stripes are included because it is used as a synonym for the flag. Would this be parity?
Keep (I didn't vote before). I sympathise with WordyAndNerdy about US-centrism, US spellings take precedence over British spellings too, which often annoys me. DonnanZ (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Commentbald eagle's entry is about a national symbol, while Stars and Stripes is a nickname (term) for the US flag, which happens to be a national symbol.
Looking at the one quotation provided for our term, maple leaf, it is used as the flag. However, the so-called definition "A national symbol of Canada" makes it out to be more like the former. Akalendos (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Perhaps this is a question for RFV? If this is really used in the same way as apple pie then it should be kept (with an improved def). But I don't think people really say things like "O Canada is a maple leaf", which is what the definition as currently written implies. This, that and the other (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would change it to Alternative form of Maple Leaf just to cover such uses. FWIW, the OED has as one of their definitions "The five-lobed palmate leaf of the sugar maple, or a stylized representation of it, used as the national emblem of Canada. Hence also (with capital initials): the Canadian flag, which features this emblem". Ƿidsiþ09:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments14 people in discussion
This is not an "alternative" spelling of Umlaut, it is just a silly mistake, and no more deserving of an article than any random typo. Of course in the vastness of the internet you'll find a couple of rare examples. But the citations given do not suggest that anyone is being funny or sensational or trying to create any other effect - they are just errors. An n-gram search produced exactly zero hits, so it is not even a common error. This should just be deleted. Doric Loon (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
The citations given look like me to be simple spelling mistakes by people not familiar with German. Etymologically interesting or not, I don't see the argument for documenting this if it is not a common mistake. Should we document the misspelling ‘apartement’ for appartement? --Lambiam10:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The difference is that apartement is most likely a simple typo (though it does exist as an obsolete spelling, for what it's worth), while ümlaut is an intentional (though proscribed) spelling, similar to the other examples I mentioned. This RFD contradicts over a decade of precedent, which has largely leaned towards descriptivism in situations like this. Binarystep (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I wouldn't oppose creating apartement, though I shan't be bothered to create it and add the necessary quotes personally, but while investigating the apartement situation I came across our entry apartement-sits which is surely a simple typo. I've just RFD-ed it. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
It takes extra effort to type ümlaut instead of umlaut, which indicates that its users mistakenly believed it to be the standard spelling. On the other hand, a misspelling like apartement could easily be explained by someone accidentally skipping a key when typing. Binarystep (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete in principle, if it is indeed true that it has no independent semantic meaning, and nobody using it really means anything by it, and it's just an error. But I don't feel confident in my ability to confirm that as fact. AllenY99 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Binarystep Of course Wiktionary is descriptive. But if a variant is really just an error, you have to ask about the usefulness of documenting it if the error is not even common. I would be more generous with variants where the speech community is pronouncing something differently, but wouldn't document everything that, say, a dyslexic might write. At any rate, if this is to be kept, it needs to be clearly marked as non-standard or misspelling. Doric Loon (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
All but one of those strike me as more mentions than uses: the writers are demonstrating what an umlaut is by putting one on the word itself. It's sort of like "ALL CAPS", bold or "italics". I'm not sure any of them would spell it that way in other contexts. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I'm not sure that application of the use–mention distinction works: even if that is true, they're still all using the word umlaut in running prose (or poetry), in its accepted meaning. They aren't mentioning it (or the form ümlaut for that matter)—the only thing that could be considered as being mentioned is the diacritic itself, but that seems like an odd takeaway. In general spellings that are intentionally different to make a point are still valid spellings from a lexicographical standpoint; they don't then become mentions. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Just a comment ... am I right that our traditional policy of requiring three citations is meaningless here, because the hurdle to jump is that it must be a common misspelling? Meaning that it must have some appreciable ratio relative to the proper spelling, perhaps 1/100 or even 1/10 rather than just three uses against millions? I just want to be sure, since there is no explicit policy given. Thanks, —Soap—17:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Weak delete. It doesnt seem very common relative to the correct spelling. All we've got is the one hit from the travel guide and the Usenet hits, which are mostly in German and thus presumably purposeful misspellings .... this would pass RFV, but that doesnt seem to be the hurdle we're jumping. One difference with habañero is that the latter error also extends to pronunciation. —Soap—05:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I apologize for not clicking the links to print books that Muqanna posted. However some of those might be purposeful misspelling as well. I still want to stand on my point that this is readily documentable, but not particularly common in proportion to the correct spelling. —Soap—05:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep, sufficient caution is provided by labels. Technically people can also look it up to see our stance on its lexical status. Fay Freak (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment this is often paired with rest in piss in a well-circulated meme, so arguably the RIP is not the traditional one, but the more vulgar one. This is a weak rationale, though, so Im labeling this as a comment rather than a vote. —Soap—17:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think it's formally more just a collocation than a set phrase... ? "Bozo" isn't constrained here and there's no additional meaning, it just happens to be more common than (also well-evidenced) alternatives like "rip idiot" or whatever. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep - I don’t think rounded in this sense can be applied to any other noun, which means we should keep this under WT:FRIED (terms that have specific restrictions to the meaning of constituents). Plus, I think this passes WT:PRIOR (terms that have a specific meaning in a technical field). Theknightwho (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
We do not have that general rule about technical vocabulary.
Keep as the corresponding consonants are called labialized instead, so this is not sum-of-parts. Nobody says *labialized vowels in linguistics. No comment on the other two entries. —Soap—12:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep all per Theknightwho. Stronger on keeping nasal and oral vowel since the contextual meaning of nasal and oral is arguably less clear; the definition of rounded is more obviously restricted by its semantic context. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
SOP: “a vowel which resonates through the mouth (because the velum closes the passage of air through the nose)”. (Auxiliary request if the outcome of the motion to delete “nasal vowel” is successful.) Fay Freak (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The translations don't impress me as THUB-worthy but are they really SOP? It's not obvious to me what in is doing here exactly, and it's also hard to think of any synonyms that would work for "presence" and "absence", which suggests they're fixed phrases. For example, "in the lack of" does not work in the same syntactic contexts as "in the absence" ("in the absence of a spade, we used a spoon", *"in the lack of a spade, we used a spoon"), and "in the existence of" does not work for "in the presence of" ("we were in the presence of a genius", *"we were in the existence of a genius"). Perhaps that's because of semantic nuances, but it's hard to pin them down if so. Abstain for now. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Yes I think they might need to be treated separately, and I agree they're not antonyms: the opposite of "In the absence of a spade..." is not "In the presence of a spade...", and likewise saying you are "in the absence of" something only really works as a joke. One option for an SOP decomposition might be to interpret someone or something's "presence" as a kind of conceptual space, which would make it similar to earshot (hence "in earshot of", "within earshot" etc). In that case we would expect "within the presence of" to work, and at least with a pronoun ("within his presence") it does—though the specific form "within the presence of" seems to be a non-native-speaker thing. This idea doesn't seem to work at all for "absence", though: "within the absence of" is just wrong. In general there seems to be a stronger argument for treating "in the absence of" as non-SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Doesn’t the response “not entirely” mean “she only made it to part of the wedding” (e.g. she was late/left early)? Or I guess it could mean “only part of her turned up” haha. I don’t interpret it as meaning “not exactly”, but this could be a regional thing.
On a related point, the quotation on the entry doesn’t seem to support this definition: “His analysis is not entirely unsound” means “his analysis is not completely unsound” (i.e. it’s partly unsound, but not fully); it doesn’t mean “his analysis is not exactly unsound”, which has a very different connotation, implying that “the analysis is actually fully sound [but might not look that way at first glance]”. There’s a much stronger argument for not exactly being idiomatic, to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
While few adults are likely to misunderstand the phrase, it is not strictly sum-of-parts, as the above example makes plain ... i can imagine a cartoonist using this to set up a joke. It seems odd, but I'd say that the fact that we're so used to this construction that we don't notice it's idiomatic is the very reason it must be idiomatic. I held off from this until now but I will still vote keep. —Soap—05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ah cripes the definition sucks! (I was probably a bit tired when I wrote it). Anyways, to remedy this issue I propose we change the definition to this: "(Of a degree) Mostly but not completely; somewhat". I feel this better illustrates the intention and meaning of the phrase. E.g.: "Are you enjoying the party?" "Not entirely". Any thoughts? Mailmanmickey (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Mailmanmickey I think that would make the definition SoP. Even if we consider the fact that "not entirely" tends to mean "at least somewhat" (even though a literal SoP reading would include the possibility of it meaning "not at all"), the same is true of not completely, not really, not totally, etc. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)22:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@ExcarnateSojourner Ah I see. I suppose that means that this term will likely remain in a weird limbo state until either a better definition is given, or the term is just outright deleted.
On a related note, it would probably be most logical to change the definition to what you describe as the common interpretation (or something close), i.e.: "(Of a degree) At least moderately". I believe doing that should solve the SOP issue while remaining sort of true to the intended meaning. E.g: "Did you enjoy the buffet?" "Not entirely".
My point is that x-word has its own entry as an informal spelling of crossword, so it's not only redundant in the way you described (which the community appears to believe is OK, although I'm not convinced myself), but also in a more straightforward way that has nothing to do with the redundancy of the entry crossword puzzle. * Pppery *it has begun...03:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. As people have said, if crossword puzzle is valid in principle, then this alternative form is valid in principle too. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Mmh, but this would suggest we could create an & entry for every and entry, which is tedious and unnecessary. I note that we only have x-word alone; presumably xword is okay, in which case that would suffice and I wouldn't mind deleting this SoP. Equinox◑00:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep I think this is well established as a stock phrase, standing on its own, and that the other formulations are much less used. In fact they might be just variants on the face phrase. The "face" part of the phrase is used literally, yes, e.g. if you search google for that plus the word "fish", you can see pictures of ugly fish. But *fish only a mother could love isnt likely to turn up much of anything. —Soap—15:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think occurrences of "someone only a mother could love", or "person only a mother could love", etc, vastly outnumber the faces. Kiwima (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Rfd-sense
Someone has added an entry for "bait" as it appears as part of a compound. Do we have any precedent for such an entry? Especially as the sense is really just the same as sense 3 (that which allures). Kiwima (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
There are plenty of entries for terms or senses that only appear in combination, the more relevant question's whether it's actually a separate sense. I'm inclined to delete unless someone can demonstrate a meaning that's distinct from sense 3—the current examples (queerbait, sequel bait, Netflix bait) don't, to me at least. A usage note for sense 3 that it's often used informally in compounds might be more appropriate. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion
This is a highly uncommon misspelling, not an alternative variant. A Google search revealed maybe only a handful of newspapers that made this error. (Either that or computer digitization confused "o" and "a".) I did find results for some completely different definitions. It may refer to an exceedingly minor medical instrument invented in 1894 [80] or a train whistle that was trademarked under that name in 1918 [81]. While the latter of those two is probably not worth a definition, the former might be. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I created this. I imagine I did some basic research at the time but I can't remember. But look at this interesting text, which suggests it might be a musical instrument, but something using an electric circuit, not a vibrAphone: 1895, The Journal of Electro-therapeutics (volume 13, page 47): "The main part of the vibrophone is simply the body of a violin, the power of which as a sounding board cannot be equaled." There are more but I won't bother right now. It certainly seems to be a word so let's not delete it without some peeking. Equinox◑05:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Yes, that's the same device I linked above; it was used to treat ear problems. (Think something like ear trumpet; despite the name, it is a medical, not musical, instrument.) However, I think I figured it out after more digging, and will close this as a keep per an entry in this dictionary [82] and this [83]. It should point to vibrometer, not vibraphone. I added its second definition to vibrometer, too! Why? I Ask (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel qualified to make a more detailed definition as sources are slim and it's fairly outside of my scope. Heck, the definitions I provided just say that the two devices have the same purpose, but I think they may be slightly different in function. So for now, I would support just blanket defining them by their purpose. (And yes, I believe it is electrical.) Why? I Ask (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
There are some publications that have made that typo, so maybe just emphasize that it is an uncommon misspelling. It is not an alternative form of vibraphonist, at the very least. Just a typo. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. It can be mentioned as a collocation at the appropriate entries. As for Donnanz's argument, all that means is that it belongs (as a collocation) to a different register of speech than "kick in the bollocks," not that it is equally idiomatic. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
For the record when @Hekaheka created this their justification was "This is potentially SOP, but 1) ground meat is essential everyday term and it's good to have the translations somewhere and 2) it's not any worse than "ground beef" which we have since 2006". (Though the translations were removed as redundant to mince in 2021.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is like an industrial product with certain target properties, so not SOP. Editors just struggle to define words in a way that points out those typical properties that distinguish a term from an SOP one, as they are low-level, and it will depend upon it whether one suffers an RFD. If you are not that into details, there are lot of terms that can be crudely broken down into their parts, and it needs attention to detail to adhere to WT:FRIED. Fay Freak (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I updated the definition from the rather circular "Any meat which has been ground" to "Any meat that has been finely chopped, often with a meatgrinder". I also added a (US) label. Is this only a US thing, or are we aware of this term in any other countries? I think this should definitely bekept per WT:FRIED. – Guitarmankev1(talk)19:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
In my experience, any meat can have a collocation with "ground": "ground turkey", "ground pork", "ground mutton", "ground buffalo", "ground squab", etc. Here is a quote that demonstrates this:
Recently my wife had trouble understanding someone who was talking about ground squirrels. She thought the topic was some exotic kind of burger meat. Looking in the Oxford English Dictionary, Ethel learned that a ground squirrel is a terrestrial squirrel-like rodent...
I've also seen it for various cuts of meat: "ground chuck", "ground round", "ground sirloin", even "ground filet mignon". I would say that it has more to do with the fact that meat is customarily ground with a meat grinder, giving a product with a specific appearance and texture regardless of what the item fed into it was like. This has led to jokes by generations of US kids about what exactly went into the meatloaf in the school cafeteria, but I digress... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
In that case ("chopped and ground mushroom") the inferred meaning of "ground" depends entirely on the semantic context so it doesn't meet the FRIED criterion. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
For me as a foreigner it is important to understand the meaning of this phrase, even if it consists of two understandable words (they have many meanings themselves). Yaroslav Nikitenko (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. WF correctly pointed out in creating it that the OED does have this as a phrase. I'm not really sure why, though, it seems exactly equivalent to more than + determiner enough ("Sufficient; all that is required, needed, or appropriate"). In an unrelated language the Hungarian word-for-word equivalent, több mint elegendő, works just as well and in about the same contexts, which suggests to me there's nothing special going on. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Weak Delete. As well as this phrase, where green can have one of two meanings, there's also the phrase red-green coalition, where green normally means environmentalist and red-green axis where green normally means Islamist. The meaning of green isn't transparent in any of these phrases but would be if we created a new sense at green (there is also green threat, green menace and green peril) and red-green instead. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Binarystep. No, green does not mean Islamic in and of itself, .... just as yellow doesnt mean liberal by itself, black doesnt mean conservative, etc .... those are just the traditional colors of the parties in Germany's w:Jamaica coalition. —Soap—06:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Do you really think this is the best way to help our readers understand an unfamiliar phrase? As we have it now, all a reader needs to do is look up the phrase red-green alliance, and the two definitions will be right there in front of them.
If we delete the page, they will need to first figure out which words to look up .... should it be red and then green, or will it be at red-green? If they go with red-green, then they'll be back where they would have been without deletion. But why make them take an extra step?
Anyway I think it's likely a lot of users will find themselves looking up the terms separately. Red is probably easy enough to figure out, but as you yourself admitted, you didn't know about the less common Islamist sense of green, so Im sure a lot of readers will be unfamiliar with it as well. So a reader trying to figure that out would need to go to the entry for green and then pick out from among the dozens of listed senses the one that was actually intended, which you've just listed under the Noun section, making it even more difficult to find. Why do we expect our readers to jump all these hurdles? Why not just leave the red-green alliance entry in place? —Soap—11:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
When I said it wasn't transparent I just meant it's not immediately obvious to the general reader what the phrase means because of the multiple meanings of green, especially environmentalist. I have encountered green used to refer to Islam in political contexts before. The existence of other phrases such as red-green axis means that red-green has a meaning outside of the phrase red-green alliance, thus making it SOP. I feel more strongly about keeping the senses I've just created than deleting the challenged phrase though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Just as a side issue for the moment, can we agree to compress the etymologies on the red-green page into one? They're both from the colors. I wanted to add a literal sense just now, for red-green colorblindness, but realized I would need to create a third etymology section or else merge them into one. I think having three etymologies is a bit excessive when all three meanings derive from the same two words juxtaposed in the same way. This has no bearing on this RFD, ... I just bring it up here so that if I merge the etymologies on red-green it doesnt look like I'm trying to undo what you've been doing. Thanks, —Soap—12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Löschen. If it was ever an AAVE expression, it has not been so limited for a long time. See xkcd number 37, which would have been from 2005 or 2006. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
There are a few words with arse ... see the arse#Derived_terms section for examples ... many of them are plainly adaptations of pre-existing American coinages, but open-arse is not .... it's just a question of whether it's the same "arse" or not (I'd say not). —Soap—08:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep all, for more than one reason ... but I dont think I need to list them all .... just the fact that there's three different meanings of "ass" used in this list (intensifier, anatomical, and unwelcome person) is enough in my mind to rule out their being sum-of-parts. I get that other people dont see it that way, but rather than have the same argument on every RFD I'd rather just stake out my position in the shortest and simplest way possible. Thanks, —Soap—08:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I understand, thank you. But my rationale is based on the existence of the open formation process which gives the words unpredictable meanings, and so applies to every word in the set, even if we only consider one at a time. —Soap—18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Soap. Americans seem to be blissfully unaware that this word may not be used elsewhere in the English-speaking world. DonnanZ (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep all. Please avoid doing batch nominations. Some of these blatantly pass by policy with WT:COALMINE. See also: WT:HOSPITAL. I don't get why we have these checks if no one uses them. It's extremely frustrating. AG202 (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@AG202 This is not a batch nomination; I've learned my lesson with those. (See my reply to Soap above.) Thank you, J. It seems I've confused multiple people with my list, so I've struck the entire list for the sake of clarity. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)17:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Undelete. In all of my years of reading math texts in classes and industry I have never seen this spelling nor do I have any idea why it would ever be preferred over Gaussian in English texts, but you are correct that it is apparently well-attested in Google Books. – Guitarmankev1(talk)12:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't necessarily understand SoP, but fuck up is very similar to fuck it up. it could be normal to express this on the pages, as on the page there is already a link to fuck up. i only made the page because it was requested entry, but at the same time i believe the definitions are unique (in a sense).
@SURJECTION I don't understand what people mean when they vote to delete an entry as "encyclopedic". Do you mean the entry contains encyclopedic information? If so, cleanup seems more appropriate to me than deletion. Or do you mean that because of the nature of the term itself, any entry we could have for it would be unavoidably encyclopedic? That there is no meaningful lexical information to record? (I honestly want to understand.) — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)19:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@SURJECTIONKeep: In the case of this term we have a meaningful etymology, a definition that can be shortened to one descriptive sentence (so as not to be encyclopedic), and a Wikipedia link. I think that's enough to justify an entry (assuming CFI is met). — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
It's a "name of a specific entity" under our terminology. I fail to see why we should document international agreements. It's the encyclopedia's job to describe such real-world concepts, not that of the dictionary, where we describe language and not these entities. Even place names are iffy under this definition, but the contents of their etymologies and translations generally outweigh these concerns. With an agreement like this, it doesn't apply. They are regularly named after the place in which they are agreed and the translations are completely transparent. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /20:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Are there tools other than needles that have their own ‘eyes’? I have never heard of those; I can understand why somebody would make an entry for this. Personally, I would redirect this to eye#Noun, but that’s very arguable. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Romanophile: see senses 9, 10, and 16, though I suspect eyelet is more common in some cases. Eye is, of course, also used to describe various eye-like things like buds on potatoes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I can't find any evidence of anyone using the name "Dollywood" other than to reference the theme park itself; for some reason I thought there would be. If no one else can find anything either, I suppose we can delete it. Wikilackey (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would not include this because it's the actual official name of the park, thus an encyclopaedic proper noun (and not as famous as Eiffel Tower etc. which we might include for sheer fame). It's not a separately invented nickname like Wiimote for the Wii game console remote controller. Equinox◑07:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Overlordnat1: Nobody seems to know what the policy is re theme parks. There is Category:en:Parks, which includes parks, including national parks, and Category:en:Schools, which is about the topic rather than individual schools. I guess Eton and Harrow schools got included because they are in settlements with the name. And yes, you could add an entry for "Eton crop", which resembles a short back and sides (!) DonnanZ (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Yes, like castles and malls. I am not sure that the wording “gardens, parks, and beaches may only be attested through figurative use” in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Place names excludes theme parks. Due to the environment, it seems more about those that aren’t more relevant than gardens, or beaches, where one can have fun within palms but which are like streets. Also it says “Most manmade structures, including”, so if the group of most manmade includes these things no statement is made about when they are forbidden. Apparently the construction must be relevant enough to have region-constituting relevance. For this reason, biomes like forests and coral reefs are included as they “constitute geographical regions”. Fay Freak (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago29 comments17 people in discussion
Rfd-sense-- @Acolyte of Ice, J3133, LlywelynII At Talk:Běijīng, LlywelynII is really opposed to this term being an English language word. I personally am ambivalent-- J3133 made this English language sense and added three good cites (see Citations:Běijīng). Acolyte of Ice was against keeping it. I'm just not sure what to think!! I don't know if this is English or not. I'd love to see the smart people take a look at this one. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) (Modified)Reply
@Sgconlaw Thanks for your input! That makes 100% sense, and I really agree. I get it! But what about these three cites (Citations:Běijīng) that J3133 found?? Do they prove the Mandarin pinyin sense? Do they prove some Translingual sense? What is that linguistic phenonmenon in those cites, and how does Wiktionary deal with it? Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
You are bound to find some uses of pinyin diacriticals in English language text, but I don't think this should be taken as an indication that the use of such diacriticals are the norm in English texts. It could just be code-switching, or sometimes texts aimed at people learning Mandarin Chinese will include such diacriticals. I recall, for example, that the print version of the South China Morning Post used to do this—when referring to something with a Chinese name such as a person or a place, it would give the name in Chinese characters and add the pinyin transcription with diacriticals. But this is far from the usual case. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep (change from Neutral above): In this diff from March, I explored the three good cites that J3133 had used to make this sense. Today, I found three more cites which I added directly to Citations:Běijīng. I think that Sgconlaw has missed the point- these cites don't document the "common" version of Beijing- they document an alternative form that occurs in specialized literaure indpendent from the presence of any Chinese characters or parentheses. So I have changed my mind personally to believe that yes, this is a (as J3133 says) "rare" alternative form of Beijing. The fact that English does not use the diacritics for anything doesn't change that in my mind. Those six cites at Citations:Beijing show a linguistic phenomenon that I think is beyond 'Translingual' and beyond 'Mandarin'. So I agree with J3133's original creation of this sense in this diff. I would never have made that edit, but now that I have confirmed J3133's three cites and I have found three more myself, I think there's some "there" there. If you all decide against this, I totally understand! (I have no further comment to make on this issue; please vote as you will below.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I would just comment that this may mean creating an English entry for many, many pinyin transliterations with diacriticals. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete: Pronunciation-wise, the version with diacritics suggests to me that it should be pronounced as if it were pinyin (with tones and phonemes not found in English and what not), which is different from the usual pronunciation of the English word Beijing without the diacritics. Also agree with Sgconlaw that this would result in many, many English entries for pinyin transliterations – I know this is rather of a slippery slope argument and perhaps these entries may never be created and cited, but it is obvious that this will be done very soon if someone (e.g. Geographyinitiative) puts in their effort. Wpi31 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment: in some print Bibles (and maybe still today online) you can see ample diacritics on transcribed Hebrew names, and I think possibly Greek names. These are an aid to pronunciation, and may also provide a one-to-one transliteration from the original language. Does anyone know what this is called? Its possible I havent seen it lately because it's mostly used with children's Bibles. In any case, I think we could all agree that there is no need to create an entry for, e.g. Nĕbücḥadnĕzzär even if it appears spelled that way in three different Bibles or other religious texts. On that rationale I'd be leaning towards deletion, however I'm not sure it's actually the same thing. Putting tone diacritics on the name Běijīng isnt likely to change anyone's pronunciation of it in English ... since they represent tones, it wouldnt be English anymore if someone did pronounce them. Also, Im not too worried about the prospect of more diacriticked entries like this. Creating properly cited pages is a lot of work, and it will only get harder if we move on toi less common placenames. —Soap—19:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete: this should be considered a direct rendering of Mandarin. It might also be worth noting that at least two citations are explicit about the non-English nature of their use of diacriticked text (i.e. what they record is not the nativised English pronunciation such as /beɪˈ(d)ʒɪŋ/, but instead Mandarin proper), so they in particular might not be good cites after all:
People's Peking Man p.xvii: "Rendering Chinese: [...] Where Romanization of Chinese is necessary, I use the pīnyīn system, complete with tone marks. Tones are essential to the Chinese language, and readers who hope to discuss this subject in Chinese will benefit from knowledge of the correct pronunciation."
Similarly, The Shortest History of China p.8: "Chinese is a tonal language—the contoured pitch at which words are spoken is integral to the meaning. When using Pinyin, I add diacritics to indicate the four tones of Putonghua in the first instance a word appears, as well as in the index, where you’ll also find the Chinese characters for individuals’ names." 蒼鳥fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 12:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Kommentar. Note that we voted (maybe it was just in RFD) to remove Sanskrit entries that were written in the Latin alphabet with diacritics, rather than include them as either English or Sanskrit entries. It was a while ago, and I'm too lazy to hunt it down, but I would think this should follow that precedent. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Keep. The cites mentioned are in English, without an explicit intent to help the reader understand Chinese. I have a feeling that there are very few citations like these in English for other Chinese place names. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@CitationsFreak You would be wrong. The sources are explicitly (outside the quote) using pinyin to help the user with Chinese, as pointed out at length in the posts above yours. The tone marks have no possible meaning in the English language, except as a transliteration system of Mandarin (not English) pronunciation and the sources acknowledge that. They're just supporting using Mandarin to speak Chinese names, instead of using English.
More importantly, it will be possible for editors to create thousands or tens of thousands of these on the basis of random apparances of pinyin in English running text. It doesn't seem particularly helpful to do so, especially when you realize similar code switching happens in dozens of other languages and we'll need #French #German #Italian etc. entries for tonal Beijing. It's a waste of everyone's time and a misguided sense of formatting.
Alternatively, all pinyin entries need to be moved from "Chinese" to "Translingual", which is both more accurate and solves the problem coming and going. This is exactly the situation with using plants' Latin names in running text. — LlywelynII07:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
All pinyin entries are (or should be) under the Mandarin L2 label, which is honestly the most accurate. If we move them to translingual then anything that could be "codeswitching" could be under it, which wouldn't really make as much sense. AG202 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Nope, if we're counting this as 'English', then it is translingual. Otherwise, you end up spamming every major Chinese city and every language with sinologists with pinyin "citations" in the running text of some speakers. — LlywelynII11:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Note that I personally did not count this as English and specifically said that it should be under the Mandarin header. AG202 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Binarystep Fair enough for GeoIni but CF's points were demonstrably wrong, as detailed by others within this thread. These mostly are sources that are going out of their way to use Mandarin pronunciation (/code switching) within English. They don't repeat that at every usage, but it is mentioned and is their rationale. There's no other possible meaning of the tones, other than marking the Mandarin pronunciation; it's like treating macroned Latin as optional English because English also has some Latin phrases. Beijing is English. The form listed here is just Chinese in English running text. Et al. is a kind of English. Et ālia isn't. — LlywelynII11:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Without commenting on whether this really is English, I would remind you that the mere fact that there's no good reason to do something in English doesn't mean that English speakers don't do it anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete This is the same as writing an English sentence that includes a italicized Latin word. Furthermore the pinyin is already under the Chinese heading below. Readers will recognize the tone marks as being from Mandarin and will know that it's a some kind of romanization of a Mandarin word which causes them to look at the corresponding Mandarin entry. Since having a separate English entry does not further improve readers' understanding, this entry should be deleted. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
A fig sense is possible. It's not only a street, there is a quay there, used by Glaswegians in the past to go by steamer "doon the watter" "frae the Broomielaw". I've seen some lines of verse, so perhaps the nominator would like to do some legwork instead of dishing out RFDs. DonnanZ (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Looking at a map of the centre of Wellington, NZ, I can see five streets called quays. Two of them, Lambton Quay and Thorndon Quay, are no longer on the waterfront, so those names must be historical. In Glasgow, I'm wondering whether Broomielaw is more idiomatic than figurative. Ironically, the hamlet in Co. Durham is little-known. DonnanZ (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
OK, put it this way. A ground attack in aviation is specifically an attack on the ground, from the air. A ground offensive is by contrast an attack over the ground, using ground forces. There is no logical reason why these two terms should not be switched around; but they aren't. They mean specific things. Ƿidsiþ15:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Yes, that's interesting, since half their examples don't support what their definition says! In any case, I still feel strongly that "ground offensive" is a set term in English, and should be included. Ƿidsiþ05:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Rfd-redundant "(Wikimedia jargon) A page, in any namespace, whose sole purpose is to attack, threaten, disparage, or defame one or more persons, usually the subject or subjects of the page." - this is a specific example of sense 1 ("A web page created for the purpose of attacking a person or group"), not a separate sense. * Pppery *it has begun...18:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
It relies on the idiomatic sense of bothcut through and red tape while strongly hinting at the literal senses for both. I'd consider that a potential source of confusion, but I guess that's just me then. You "win", I redirected it myself. No need for a vote pile on here. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Theknightwho, that is a good question, I'm not sure how that could be verified? About hard redirects: they help users when they search. Regardless of whether or not this technically is SoP, users are likely to think it's a fixed idiom when they encounter this as one needs to recognize the idiomatic senses of both parts to detect it as SoP. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I think this expression is doubly sum-of-parts, since both what precedes and what follows whale can be swapped out for other words, yet any resulting expression still depends on whale. Indeed, we already have the basic meaning of this expression listed at whale, sense 4, with citations of it was a whale of a lyric, a whale of a comedy, and having a whale of a time. The last phrase may be one of the most common formulations, but it is just as separable as the others.
Swap with whale of a time, for which "to have" is not the only applicable verb (e.g., 1969, The New Yorker, Vol. 45, Part 3, p. 31: "The children were given a whale of a time, and then put back"; 1957, Time & Tide, Vol. 38, p. 356, "Brighton—the place for a whale of a time"; 2014, Mary Edner, People, Places and Things, p. 20: "I know how to show you a whale of a time". bd2412T18:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete both have a whale of a time and whale of a time. I was initially thinking that whale of a time might be kept as a set phrase, but since whale of a can be used with other words, and we already have an appropriate sense at whale (“Something, or someone, that is excellent”), I don’t think any other entries are required. Add the phrases as collocations at whale if desired. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, is there something idiomatic in its use exclusively to describe extremes? It seems to mean "there are no words strong enough to describe", rather than "there are no words with precisely the right nuance to fully describe". On the other hand, words cannot express gets moreGoogle Ngram hits, and I imagine there are a few other similar phrasings. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)05:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep and expand. To "lose" an hour sleep due to the clocks being changed so that hour ceases to exist (or, at least, to be observed) is distinct from losing an hour of sleep in the more common sense of lose sleep, which could theoretically be compartmentalized to any period of time. bd2412T18:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, someone on night shift would lose an hour of working time when the clocks go forward, unless they are driving long-distance for example, when they would finish the journey an hour later than usual. "fall back" looks odd, an Americanism for "autumn back". DonnanZ (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Löschen. One can talk about "losing an hour" without mentioning sleep. @Donnanz: it's part of a mnemonic that just about everyone in the US has heard: [set your clocks in the] spring ahead and [set them in the] fall back. If we used "autumn" the mnemonic wouldn't work. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Donnanz: The pun wouldn't work in that case. you can 'spring forward' and 'fall back' but you can't 'fall season back' (and does anyone actually say 'fall season' in any case?). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The "spring forward, fall back" formulation is an intentional double-entendre, implying something like jump forward and slip back. @Chuck Entz: If the issue is that the hour can be lost in non-sleeping circumstances, then this should be moved to lose an hour. Whatever activity is handicapped by this, it is distinct from the concept of "losing" an hour by being stuck in traffic or waiting for a plumber. bd2412T20:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Delete as SOP per Chuck. One also gains an hour the next time the clocks change; I don't think these are idiomatic. (Certainly, as Donnanz points out, the change happens regardless of whether one is sleeping or working.) - -sche(discuss)00:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete, comically useless entry. The only occasion where one would look it up is when one has missed knowledge about daylight saving time. This leads to the false impression of idiomaticity. Fay Freak (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that sounds good. The second cite is from a podcast, so it might just be a transcription error there, but I've seen this form mentioned on reddit as well. Jberkel09:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
This articles takes some time to define both phrases, it's not that transparent (referring to someone's messages, not the person). – Jberkel15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment. If I were using this de novo, I'd mean leaving the author's works unread, e.g.: "I've looked at the UK's 'Inklings' group, loved Tolkien, had mixed feelings about Lewis, and couldn't get into Williams at all, so I left him unread." Likewise for email or social media posts. – .Raven (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. If one leaves ”someone” unread it means the ”works he has written”. The ivory tower would recommend me Hegel but I left him unread. Dating experts recommended me to watch Star Wars but I left it unwatched. Hypebeasts recommended me shitty NIKE shoes, but I have left this meme brand unworn / it is yet unworn by me. And so on. Not all combinations are equally likely, but this does not make some idiomatic in the sense that a dictionary entry is required. Fay Freak (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Surjection has obviously been monitoring the contributor, who he blocked for a day. But I see nothing wrong with this, at least it says what it is used for in the image caption, unlike Lambiam's additions, which need to be expanded. It's a tool, and a potentially dangerous one. DonnanZ (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Please. A gas-powered chainsaw[88] is also a tool, and a potentially dangerous one. How is that an argument? If you are advocating for an exception to the SOP criterion for potentially dangerous tools, you should argue the case in the Beer parlour. --Lambiam20:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
?acetylene torch and oxyacetylene torch seem to be listed in some other online dictionaries (see my edits there- the 'Further reading' sections). I urge caution in following SoP ideals when other dictionaries have terms like this. Ultimately, I'm not in favor of or against the existence of these entries, but if others have it, it may be wise for the long-term health and overall legitimacy of Wiktionary to consider keeping it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
The Free Dictionary uses WordNet as its source for that word (and perhaps its entire database), which we have excluded from the WT:LEMMING principle in a well-trafficked vote. We could still argue for inclusion based on the Webster and Collins entries. —Soap—14:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Don't delete Given the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion, it is logical that names of specific spacecraft belong, at least if reasonably famous. For comparison, Wiktionary has the article Mayflower, and some other specific ships. Aircraft or spacecraft should not be held to a fundamentally different standard. If Wiktionary can hav articles on some very obscure places or rare surnames or given names, why not an important spacecraft?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
"The time period marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, starting in early 2020 and lasting two or three years. Many diabetics have been dying, especially during COVID-19." Not a separate sense of the word. Could use e.g. "the Black Death" the same way. Equinox◑20:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you could use "the Black Death" the same way. That suggests that we should add a sense at the black death for the time period. If it's possible to say that something occurred "during the Black Death" which solely refers to that thing happening in that stretch of the mid-1300s, rather than occurring in connection with the disease, then it is a separate meaning. bd2412T20:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then we would need "time period" senses for things like "fascism" ("during fascism, Germany or Spain acted such-and-such a way"), and absurd numbers of other political periods etc. Not realistic. Also not helpful to users, clutter, because these "during X" cases always mean "during the time of X". They add nothing. Equinox◑20:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@Equinox: If you can find CFI-worthy sources generally using nouns to refer to time periods, then those are attested meanings of those nouns. For something like "during fascism", which could apply to different times in different places, we would need a demonstration of a fairly widespread adoption of the phrase for a single time period, but "during the Black Death" would fairly universally mean "from 1346 to 1353", and "during COVID-19" would probably be fairly universally understood to mean "from 2020 to 2022". bd2412T20:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm undecided, leaning towards delete for the reasons earlier expressed in the Tea Room : you can also say something happened during the outbreak, during a surge, during a pandemic, during the pandemic, during the election, etc, etc, or as Equinox points out during fascism, during communism, etc. I also feel like we're still too much "in COVID" to be able to say that it only refers to some period of time in the past (as opposed to being ongoing). - -sche(discuss)01:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@-sche But COVID-19 isn't defined as "the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020–". Wouldn't such a sense be necessary for your argument? I tend to think the sense should be reworded into this form, without the unnecessary "time period" bit. This, that and the other (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Not seeing much point in such fine distinctions. Would a source stating that some “worked from home during COVID-19” mean that she did so during the pandemic or during the time period that the pandemic occurred over? The two are coterminous and it would be impossible to determine which source is supposed to be applying which sense of the term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I vote keep but remove the phrase "The time period marked by" (and the comma) from the definition - or perhaps simply rephrase as "The COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020". It's trivial to find uses like "during COVID-19", "when COVID-19 began in early 2020", "at the start of COVID-19" [89][90] which very clearly and specifically refer to the pandemic, not to the disease (sense 1) or pathogen (sense 2). This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Seems redundant to turn on. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see any purpose to having them both. Propose a redirect to turn on (It's been around since 2008 so there could be links to it, that's why redirecting seems better than deleting). 2601:154:180:97C0:B4EE:7D6A:714F:12E3
Redirect as proposed. This can cover other senses, not just the sexual sense. I think this page was created early on and has been mostly unnoticed all this time. —Soap—12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but when they don’t then one is less likely to use toilets on the boats but more likely to use a better toilet in a land building. Just a natural likelihood distribution, hence the name. Does not reach the threshold of idiomaticity. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete: it's not comparable or anything interesting. You also wouldn't say "these leaves are autumn". Usual adjective tests apply. Equinox◑02:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep, because autumnal may be grammatically correct, but it is stilted and hyper-formal. The adjective entry serves to stop language learners from thinking autumnal is everyday English, and while it could be reduced to a usage note, a lot of people don't notice anything that far down the page. —Soap—14:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. If kids go to school in the evening somewhere, perhaps in a place where child labor is still common, we would still call it an evening class. The fact that 99% or perhaps 100% of night schools are adult education isn't part of the definition, it's just a natural result of adults working mostly during the daytime. In theory we could argue for deletion of night school on the same basis, but since night schools aren't typically taught literally in the middle of the night, I would say it's a different situation and should be kept. —Soap—09:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Some houses in my street have shared pathways (for access to two neighbouring houses), but I have no idea who owns them. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. pipestem is rarely used outside of the phrases pipestem lot and pipestem driveway and it appears to be a largely (entirely?) American term. I've never come across it before and it's far rarer than shared driveway. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox: Any redirects I have done (not many) have not been reverted, so I was unaware of any redirect policy. You will find zillions of them in Wikipedia (and I did have one reverted here). Please provide the evidence. DonnanZ (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't care what you've done. We have a policy, formed by consensus, and you either obey it or get fixed later and/or kicked out. Do you also go to the law courts of England and Wales and say "loads of people commit mugging so I did it too, Your Honour". You fucking clown. Stay off RFV and RFD pages please. Equinox◑18:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I agree with @Equinox here: we have a completely different policy on redirects to Wikipedia. I (and others) are sick are DonnanZ completely ignoring any and all policies because he feels like it. Theknightwho (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
To be fair to Donnanz, they seem to have been genuinely unaware of our rules about redirects (in which case, see WT:Redirections). I don't think they've been deliberately ignoring them. PUC - 18:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
@PUC It's a bit hopeless if a user with over 240k edits still doesn't know we don't do hard redirects in situations like this.
Thanks to @PUC:. Unless I missed it, WT:Redirections doesn't say "Do not use for synonyms", which this is. There was no need for Equinox's abusive tirade, even if he's having a bad day. I will agree with User:Theknightwho for once for the last comment, this is a synonym, so keep for that reason. DonnanZ (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
2), though this is the first time I've ever encountered pipestem/pipestem driveway in this sense. You may notice that the Washington Post cite says what's called a "pipestem" driveway, as if the author doesn't expect anyone to have heard the term before. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I’d say ‘shared driveway’ is pretty SOP and could be deleted, though ‘shared drive’ would be more typical in Britain. There’s probably no point creating ‘pipestem driveway’ as we already have pipestem with this meaning but it would be a more justifiable entry as it’s rarer and less transparent than ‘shared drive(way)’. —-Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
It can also be referred to as a "common driveway" or a "community driveway". There are also "shared accessway","shared walk"/"shared walkway", "shared alley"/"shared alleyway","shared service road", "shared access road", "shared private road", as well as things like "shared entrance", "shared stairway", "shared entryway","shared porch", "shared veranda", "shared elevator"/"shared lift"- not to mention "shared garage" mentioned above. Both parts of the phrase can be substituted with other words, and the concept can be expressed in other ways. It doesn't look that much like a set phrase to me. Chuck Entz (talk) Chuck Entz (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
This is very true. From experience, "shared accessway" and "shared access road" would probably be confined to legal contexts, but the others are all very plausible. It's difficult, though, because I have never, ever heard pipestem used, even though I commonly come across them in a property law context while dealing with developments. If even the people who build them don't use the term, that suggests it's simply not a British English term at all. Theknightwho (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have what I call a driveway, which is short, in front of the house and intended for off-street parking. The impression I get of a shared driveway is that it's intended for access to properties behind the properties fronting the street, and not for parking; each house accessed by it probably has its own off-street parking. DonnanZ (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
There's also something called a "flag lot", which is surrounded on all sides by other lots and has a long driveway between other lots as its only access to the street (think of the driveway as the "flagpole" that the flag lot is attached to). It's not shared, and it's not short, but it's still a driveway. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Shared driveways and the like seem to be different from private roads, or at least some of them which provide access to properties but are privately owned and not dedicated to the public, although the public can use them. I can think of two around here with gravel surfaces, one provides access to the local railway station and is full of potholes. As they are not dedicated to the public, the local borough council is not obliged to maintain them. DonnanZ (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I lived on a shared driveway for much of my childhood and I've never heard it called a pipestem, but to be fair, we were on good terms with the other residents and so we pretty much just thought of it as "the driveway". I do remember calling it a right of way, which is technically correct per definition 4 that we list, but not specific to driveways and probably not in wide use as an alternate term for a shared driveway. I'd say this phrase is sum-of-parts, as there is no other possible meaning of the phrase (e.g. shared with hiking trails) that someone would come up with even if they were unfamiliar with roads and property laws. I vote to delete this, though perhaps we should mention on the pipestem page that it's uncommon so that learners don't get the undue impression that it's the primary term. —Soap—09:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Any muffin eaten for breakfast. The page history will show you that the entry has changed over time: apparently the original creator thought it was one specific type of muffin, but it ain't. Therefore it's SoP. Equinox◑02:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
We'll unfortunately have to delete. I always think of 'breakfast muffin' as referring to English muffins rather than American muffins as the large bakery chains Warburtons and Kingsmill sell English muffins as 'breakfast muffins' in pretty much every supermarket and cornershop in Britain (just look at the Tesco/Morrisons/Sainsburys/Asda websites for proof) but Morrisons own-brand 'breakfast muffins' are bizarrely American muffins not English ones. In fact I could only find reference to American muffins being 'breakfast muffins' on Google Books after checking a fair few pages of hits (though this is in American books). Slightly unusually Tesco choose to officially call their own-brand English muffins 'English muffins' rather than simply 'muffins' or 'breakfast muffins' FWIW. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Lots of breakfast and other occasion-things created by food marketing. Idiomaticity needs strong evidence in such cases, lest we fall victim to hot air. There are many idiomatic terms in this area yet to be added, like between-seasons jackets are a thing, but one has to be careful. Textual evidence alone is opaque, in product marketing and the media influenced by it. Fay Freak (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete per WT:COMPANY. If there were no Wikipedia, these would be good entries, but there's no need for us to try to squeeze an entire Wikipedia article into a blurb, and I assume that's why WT:COMPANY is so strict. Some of the pages, like BeReal already listed above, might have a chance of surviving RFD based on idiomatic usage, but nobody is going to say Contract for the Web intending any other meaning than the literal one. —Soap—19:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Leaning keep on the basis that I suspect it excludes breakfast. That is, someone who works 4am to noon might wake up around midnight and have something to eat right away. I have worked schedules like that and I always thought of that as my breakfast, not a midnight snack or even a midnight meal. But it's the sort of thing that would be near impossible to cite academically. —Soap—09:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Keep, I think this is idiomatic. A midnight snack needn't be at or around midnight, but at any time in the night when waking up to spend a penny. It's more idiomatic than "snack in the early hours" or "snack in the middle of the night". My preferred "midnight snack" is a biscuit or two. DonnanZ (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm ambivalent. I know people who work from midnight to 8am and take their lunch break and eat lunch during those hours, rather than at midday. But I also know people who only wake up at noon and therefore refer to the period from noon to e.g. 3pm as morning. I wouldn't want separate senses for every possible shift in the meaning of every meal- and time- term (e.g., for breakfast, "a meal eaten in the morning upon waking up", "a meal eaten around noon by people who wake up then", "a meal eaten around 8pm by people who wake up then [to work graveyard shifts]", "a meal eaten at midnight by people who wake up then [to go to work at 4am]"). OTOH, we cover this decently well by qualifying breakfast and lunch as merely usually eaten in the morning and around midday. I'm unsure whether that translates into middnight snack being idiomatic, though; in Soap's scenario, I'd think the exclusion of breakfast would be because breakfast is typically counted as a meal and not a snack. And as for snacking at an hour other than exactly 12 o'clock, it's still a mid-night snack like a midday snack doesn't have to be eaten at exactly 12 o'clock, either. Meh. - -sche(discuss)20:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep and fix the definition. The phrase does not literally refer to a snack at midnight, but any snack late at night. If someone goes to bed at 8:00 PM, and wakes up for a snack at 10:30 PM, that can still be called a "midnight snack". bd2412T05:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Löschen, the more I think about it the more I support delete. Did the 'Midnight train to Georgia' leave at exactly 00:00 or was it closer to 23:30 or 00:30? I also agree with most, if not all, of what @-sche said above, though as far as breakfast being a meal not a snack, that begs the question: "What is the difference between a substantial snack and a light meal?". --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
In this kind of situation, isn't the only necessary difference "people call / regard one as a meal and the other a snack"? I.e. people not calling a mightnight breakfast a midnight snack needn't be expected to have any basis like "objectively, it has to include X, Y, and Z to be a meal", just "we don't call breakfast a snack"? - -sche(discuss)22:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
What I mean by breakfast is the first meal of the day, even if it's very small, like a single granola bar and some coffee. I think this should be kept on the basis that it can't be the first meal of the day, which we usually refer to as breakfast. Someone who stays up late at night and eats before bed can have a midnight snack, and someone who wakes up hungry in the middle of the night can have a midnight snack, but someone who wakes up very early and eats right away can only have breakfast. However I admit that there are very few people with such an early sleep schedule and some of them might prefer to call their wake-up meal a midnight snack, defying my thinking, if they eat a larger meal later that they prefer to call breakfast. Oh well. I think my logic is sound but I still hold back from typing out a proper boldfaced keep vote since what Im saying applies to a rare exceptional situation. Thanks, —Soap—10:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
These are both prepositional phrases that act like adjectives when used attributively, not adjectives. The main problem, though, is that the hyphenated spelling is just what happens to any phrase when used as a modifier, and we already have an entry for to scale. I suppose one could make a case for keeping to-scale as an alternative form, but by any analysis not-to-scale is SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
"I have only once written a book, not to order, exactly, but to please a particular audience; a girl of seven who was, as she put it. ‘a little bit blind.’ "[91] --Lambiam14:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Keep. This is somewhat similar to -phobia, -genesis or -lysis, most of which are treated as suffixes despite the existence of a corresponding common noun with the same meaning. The noun poiesis is rarely used independently, and according to OED2, its first attestation is from 1934, compared to 1900 for hemopoiesis and 1918 for lymphopoiesis, which suggests that a derivation from poiesis in these terms is unlikely. Also, Collins, M-W, Dictionary.com and OED2 all contain -poiesis as a combining form. Einstein2 (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Tagged for deletion, but should probably be RFD. Note as "Wiktionary doesn't include these - except perhaps T. rex, H. sapiens and E. coli, which maye be special cases". Technically Translingual, but RFD/English gets all of the eyeballs. - TheDaveRoss14:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Löschen. The "A." could be any generic name with neuter gender that starts with "A", and "maculatus/maculata/maculatum" is a fairly common specific epithet that means "spotted". Also, this isn't limited to current or valid taxonomic names. Taxonomists are always proposing that species should be moved to different genera, or giving things names that aren't accepted because of various taxonomic rules. A page like this would end up being a list of everything that has been referred to by a name that fits the criteria I just mentioned. We don't have entries for abbreviations like "John S.", and we shouldn't have an entry for this. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Delete per Chuck Entz. The Catalogue of Life lists twenty accepted A... maculatum species names, from Acamptopoeum maculatum (Smith, 1853) to Austrophyllum maculatum Hartman & Fauchald, 1971.[92] --Lambiam11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
When used like that, the present participle is pretty obvious (though "pretty mounting" raises my eyebrows), but used before a noun it modifies it. I would keep this all the same. Present and past participles are frequently used as adjectives, but I avoid creating entries for them, preferring to add a quote to the relevant participle. DonnanZ (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I almost agree with that but we should rewrite the definition of smacker along the lines of the one already in Collins dictionary, namely 'a pound or a dollar' (or 'a dollar or a pound' if you like) as it can certainly refer to pounds. I remember a parody song on the radio about the divorce between Liam Gallagher and Patsy Kensit where the lyrics parodied the Oasis song 'Don't Look Back in Anger' - it went:- "Oh Patsy can wait, she wants it all on a plate and there's just no way (can't remember the next line). She wants 5 million smackers, I heard her say". Of course she did then go on to win 5 mil in the divorce settlement, I can't find that online but I'm sure I could dig up some cites with this meaning. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
A motto or aphorism, rather than a proverb. That the definition is almost entirely a rephrasing save for the last part is for certain a hint. Consider also Wiktionary:Proverbs, this lemma certainly fails attributes 1 and 2, perhaps in addition to other ones. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Asides, I can elaborate on the etymology. English quote sites generally stop at English sources in the mid-nineteenth century, but it is attested earlier in French, as one would expect of an authentic dictum by Napoleon. The oldest attestion that I have found is by Jomini: […] quand l'ennemi fait un faux mouvement, il faux se garder de l'interrompre. A rather literal rendering of this would be "when the enemy is making a false move, one ought to withhold from interrupting him." Jomini was an officer under Napoleon, so the saying may well be authentic (I do not know how trustworthy Jomini is as a source for Napoleon). Jomini used to be widely read at West Point as well. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, though I have an inkling that "multicast" was introduced in this sense with C#/.NET (around 2001), where it always applies to delegates. Equinox◑17:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
It seems like a pseudo-anglicism, as opposed to an actual English proverb, and thus doesn't belong under an English language header. Megathonic (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is actually an adjective sense (even though we have it under "Noun"), right? We have a similar adjective sense for marble. If we put it under the proper heading I don't see any problem with the sense. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)06:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Interesting point. That is surely just an attributive use of the noun marble; searching Google Books for "very marble" mostly finds phrases like "this very marble". I'd RFD that sense too (not that phrasing with "very" is the only test of adjectivity, but it's a start).
By contrast, a search for google:"very limestone" turns up mostly people talking about limestone soils, so perhaps that is the adjective sense we should be adding at limestone. Not the attributive sense in the entry though; it's a plain, simple attributive use that does not need a separate sense. This, that and the other (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
A typical DonnanZ vote. There. I just used you attributively- does that mean we have to have an attributive-noun entry? Attributive use is just part of being a noun, so we could do this for half a million English nouns. Why? There are a few cases where plural-only nouns have singular forms that are only used attributively- there we have no choice. Otherwise, let's not. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
★ So how would you get round the problem of deleting the sense when there are translations for it? You can't remove those too, surely? They can differ from the main form, and that is the point that everybody is ignoring, User:PUC included. DonnanZ (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You possibly could, but my logic is to use an "attributive" qualifier only where it is unlikely to be an adjective, in English at least. I think the quote says "limestone affair". DonnanZ (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Your sentence contains the nouns logic, qualifier, adjective, and quote. All can be used attributively, and all are “unlikely” (to say the least) to be adjectives, which they have in common with the vast majority of English nouns, which number close to half a million. Therefore “your logic” wants us to duplicate almost all noun senses, like this:
No, I think you misunderstand. I am discussing this case only, not zillions of other nouns. I am concerned about the relevant translations for a start. DonnanZ (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep as a translation hub, unless someone has a better solution. We're going to be a pretty crappy translation dictionary if we can't host adjectival translations of attributive nouns somewhere. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Sure, we should find a way to host these translations somewhere. But not having found one yet (probably out of laziness more than anything else) doesn't mean we should keep incorrect POS sections, or separate senses that aren't actually separate senses. Wrong information is worse than missing information. PUC - 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
What's wrong about it? The sense is listed under the noun section and labelled "attributive," so it's clear that the English definition is for a noun sense that is used adjectivally. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I certainly support a translation hub, and wonder why I didn't think of it. It seems to be a simple solution, which are usually better than complex and messy solutions hinted at by PUC. DonnanZ (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
I'd support keeping the translation box for sure, but I'm not convinced the sense needs to be kept under the POS header. The translation box would be headed "translations of attributive uses of the noun, for example, limestone statue" or similar. This, that and the other (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
In light of the other suggestions made, I am changing my vote to Delete, provided we keep the translations (preferably as a separate translation table). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I came across a similar case with graystone, where the two quotes (I added one) are clearly attributive. I modified the def slightly, but are buildings really called graystones? Apparently with brownstone this happens, but I'm not familiar with the practice. DonnanZ (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
A few years ago, DCDuring and another editor and I tried to brainstorm how to handle cases where other languages have adjectives for what English just uses the noun attributively for, and two of the ideas were: merge the translations into the existing translations-table with qualifiers (like is demoed at cork), or leave the separate table (demoed at brass) but have the senses be limited to what exists in English...because this issue comes up with any word for a material, and it doesn't make sense to be restructuring English definitions based on what other languages have separate translations for—some languages have separate translations for elbow depending on whether it's mine or yours, but we shouldn't be splitting elbow into two senses "1. A person's own joint between their upper arm and forearm. 2. Another person's joint between..."! Delete the RFD'd sense (without prejudice to any true adjective that can be attested, very limestone, limestoner than some other soil), and either merge the translations into the existing translations-table with qualifiers, or leave the separate table. - -sche(discuss)03:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I believe it can now be cited in Google books. The term is quite common among Arabic experts, even the actual spelling of the term may not be exact. This is just the most common attestable English spelling or transliteration. iʿrāb is a spelling when hamza is not spelled and transliterated. E.g. compare Arabic إِعْرَاب(ʔiʕrāb) (with a hamza) vs اِعْرَاب(iʕrāb) (without a hamza) Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)04:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
If it can be cited, it can be restored, but since the issue before was that it couldn't be cited and failed RFV, this is an RFV matter, no? - -sche(discuss)03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion
Was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason "Added to appendix instead.", but it seems to be verifiable in English, so I'm bringing it here. I'm not sure if it is exactly a SOP, but it is on the more transparent side as far as these things go. This, that and the other (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Christoffre: You shouldn't invent terms to host translation hubs. It's better to ask in the Tea Room what you should call an entry. The whole point of translation hubs is to make it possible for people to find translations of a collocation that is SOP in English. If the term doesn't even exist in English, then it becomes very difficult to find. If this term is actually used, then it shouldn't be called a "translation hub", because it isn't SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Ah... I always thought the translation hubs where just a hub to link foregin words of the same meaning (so it wouldn't really matter what the English title was).
This might also be the reason why I've had a hard time to differentiate between "Translation hubs" and "Appendix:Terms with no English equivalent"
I'll go over to the Tea Room then and check with them – and wheter this will be an upcoming Delete or Move.
Keep. I'm not sure why this was to have been speedied. Was it because someone judged the intent of the entry contributor to be wrong? Intent is irrelevant to inclusion decisions. There's more than enough usage at Google Books fitting the definition given, thereby mooting the translation target vs. appendix argument. It seems like the term might be a calque from a Nordic language, probably Norwegian as many early cites are in the context of shipboard fire safety. DCDuring (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Keep. I'm not sure that I can articulate why, but this doesn't "feel" to me like it's simply "pocket" + "swole". I also tend to be more lenient when it comes to combining multiple figurative senses together. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Antwort
Both "pocket" and "swole" are being used in a figurative sense. "Swole/swollen" refers to physical enlargement, and only by extension (i.e., figuratively) to the enlargement of financial resources, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Deluge on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . I gather that the term is normally used where any ingredient other than water in the deluge (either literal or fire-fighting sense) is incidental. It does seem to be a noun used attributively, though calling an adjective might be supportable. DCDuring (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep. ‑‑Kai Burghardt (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Erledigt Leasnam (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
.svg)
support a translation hub, and wonder why I didn't think of it. It seems to be a simple solution, which are usually better than complex and messy solutions hinted at by PUC. DonnanZ (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
ʾiʿrāb on Wikipedia.Wikipedia }}