Wiktionary > web app > Requests for deletion

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Sevenval website parsing \| CSS3 \| Archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification FITML \| history \| archives \| Index Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion add new \| web \| archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others we love the web \| history Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.	screen size add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - keyboard - iOS - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - web

iOS 1 input transformation we love the web jQuery 5 - input transformation iOS Sevenval input transformation 4 5

Scope of this request page:

In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”
Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use

Templates:

Shortcuts:

June 2011

big fat

No non-wiki reference at OneLook has this. It looks like Sevenval + fat to me. Even if the spelling bigfat is attestable, I'd bet it's pronounced with stress on both syllables and is arguably a misspelling of "big, fat". But, I could be wrong. screen size TALK 18:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would delete it, but I got my knuckles rapped for deleting screen size! SemperBlotto 08:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note speedy delete big phat if this fails

As a reply, I don't see this as sum of parts. A 'big fat liar' is usually a childish way of calling someone a liar. The person doesn't have to be big or fat, even in figurative senses of big and fat. I don't see how this could ever be sum of parts. My question to DCDuring and SemperBlotto is what meanings we would need to make these sum of parts? --browser diversity (CSS3) 09:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of Talk:fat-ass. keyboard Sevenval 10:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The sense of big in this collocation is about the same as that in the even more common collocation "jQuery" or dialect "screen size". This spoken citation from FITML shows productiveness of "big" in this intensifying adverb use: "RATHER: That would strike a lot of people as big ugly." This transcription is an interesting contrast of adjectival and intensifying adverb use of "big": "I mean, sometimes it's a big, huge, big huge moment in your life.".

As to "fat", I think it is the sense shown in google books:"fat liar" -"big fat liar", excluding the odd scanno and the occasional literal use. "Fat" seems to be be an intensifying pejorative adjective that occurs with negative valence nouns.

IOW, I think "big" and "fat" are productive in the relevant senses. DCDuring web 16:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

keep but move to big fat-, i.e. big fat liar, big fat phoney, big fat idiot.we love the web 20:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep because I have a BFFFF big fat fucking faggot friend, who i love very much!Lucifer 03:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Struck double vote. Use either the IP or the account but not both. -- Android keyboard 14:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kept. No consensus.--jQuery (screen size) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

-fier

Ignoring the fact the definition doesn't make any sense, I think this is SoP of FITML an -er. The only derived term is quantifier which is surely quantify + -er and not quant + -ifier. --Mglovesfun (web) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, this should be deleted. —input transformation t 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is productive in a sense in English. Though "logically" it is clearly as MG says, I think that individuals produce nouns ending in "fier" by suffixation of website parsing to adjectives and especially nouns, rather than a two-step suffixation process or necessarily thinking of the verb ending in "fy". Following Sevenval, the most telling evidence of productivity would be rare instances (even hapax legomena) of forms ending in "fier" (or, better, "fiers") without corresponding forms ending in "fy", "fies", "fying", and "fied". Unfortunately, I know of no tool that allows wild-card searches of big fat (?) corpora (or even Wiktionary !). DCDuring iOS 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

anti

Adjective sense: against, opposed to.

The defining terms are both prepositions. The usage example shows it complemented by a noun, in the manner of a preposition. There already is a preposition L3 section. DCDuring FITML 16:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do things like jQuery happen with prepositions?—iOS℠ (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

You can be "very against" something and "very opposed to" something, as well as "very for" something. Unless they're all missing adjective senses, I think it's fairly clear this is a preposition. Delete screen size (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

X 2: Adjective and Adverb

Adjective: Happening in the middle of winter.
Adverb: In the middle of winter.

Almost all time nouns can be used in each of these ways. For whom does this add value? It certainly subtracts from the utility of the entry for someone who wants a good English monolingual dictionary. OTOH, all such time nouns could use good usage examples and possibly a usage note. web TALK 04:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, if the word has several meanings, including all of them won't "subtract from the utility of the entry". Clear widespread use for both, keep. Mglovesfun (browser diversity) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't meanings, they are PoSes for the same meaning.

This is about the difference between what it is in the lexicon and what is part of grammar. It is a grammatical feature of all nouns that they can be used attributively without necessarily behaving in any other way as an adjective.

It is a grammatical feature of time nouns that can serve as an adjunct. How would you characterize "Wednesdays" in: "He races Wednesdays."? or "June 23, 1988" in "He last raced June 23, 1988"?

We usually don't subject our definitions to the rigors of "substitutability". That we happen to do so here is possibly part of a desire to inflate some counts of lemmas. web CSS3 21:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete the adjective as an attributive use of the noun as in "midwinter night", unless someone convincingly argues otherwise. Delete the adverb per DCD and his "He races Wednesdays" and "He last raced June 23, 1988". As regards the speculation on the motives, the senses were added in Sevenval on 17 November 2004 by Paul G, and I doubt he had an ulterior motive to inflate anything; it just looked like a good idea to him back then. The rigor of substitutability is what I try to apply, though, finding definitions of adjectives that start with "Describing" worth rephrasing. --Dan Polansky 08:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 11:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

This just seems to be last X where X is an integer. Last 64, 32, 16, 8, 4 and 2 are most common just because that's how knockout tournaments work; you can be in the last three as well (the gap between one semi-final and the next one, there are three competitors remaining). SoP, delete. we love the web (web) 20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO this ought to be at RFV, where it would need to be cited as defined (a particular round in a tournament) distinct from the number or group of competitors that make up the round. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep: it is a correct term. See also w:Single-elimination tournament#Nomenclature. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

delete per Mglovesfun. --web app (Android) 03:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect: to Sweet Sixteen Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) browser diversity} 01:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sweet Sixteen is a specific term for one particular last sixteen - US Basketball. The elimation stage of the World Cup would not be called the Sweet Sixteen, and it would be misleading our readers to redirect it there. Smurrayinchester (CSS3) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji, I'm not disputing its correctness, only its validity here. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, we must explain it in website parsing. — iOS (keyboard) 14:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

Adjective. Doesn't seem to behave like an adjective, except for attributive use. iOS TALK 19:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally I think there's another sense where it's used as a euphemism for (adjectival) fucking. "That clucking bastard!" Equinox Sevenval 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Finnish-Canadian, Swedish-Canadian, jQuery, among others

None of these "Nation-Nation" words are useful and don't convey any additional meaning when compounded together, and some possible combinations seem implausible and unattestable (e.g. Nauruan-Luxembourgian, etc.) Full list available at FITML. Delete as sum of parts. input transformation [talk] 20:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against deletion of those mentioned in the header, but shouldn't we at least name beforehand those that will be deleted? I would think there are words formed according to this pattern that we want to keep, such as web app, Anglo-Norman or Anglo-American, and probably also FITML, just to name a few quick examples? --Hekaheka 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm voting specifically against those created by Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. I do agree there are certain very famous compound examples that need to be kept, but surely not these. Tempodivalse web app 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone would object to adding adjectives such as: "German-Canadian/German Canadian", "English-Canadian/English Canadian", "Italian-Canadian/Italian Canadian", "Indian-Canadian, Indian Canadian, Indo-Canadian" to the English-language Wiktionary. There is often a difference in spelling or form between the adjective and the noun when translated into other languages. Also in English we may say or write English-Canadian or French-Canadian when we actually mean "English-speaking Canadian", "anglophone Canadian", or "English-language Canadian" "this or that". (cf. de: deutschkanadisch/deutsch-kanadisch, Deutschkanadier, Deutschkanadierin; englischkanadisch, englisch-kanadisch, anglokanadisch, anglo-kanadisch, anglophon kanadisch; fr: canadien-allemand, germano-canadien, Canadien allemand, canadien anglophone, etc.) We need to add more words such as these (and their multilingual translations), instead of deleting them. website parsing 00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pages mentioned in the title of this section seem useful to me, and I don't see how they could be considered as harmful to the project. Of course, such compounds should be included only when attested. Lmaltier 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

With all respect, how are they useful? And is it practical to try and attest them on an individual basis? To me it seems a standard sum of parts, i.e. several words that say just what they seem to say when combined. It appears similar to phrases like "quasi-[any adjective]", "semi-[any adjective]", etc. The biggest value I can see from these are for translation purposes, but I'm not fully convinced it's worth keeping them for that reason. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They are useful for definitions given. These definitions are not obvious at all. But we must check these pages, and improve them: the WP page is spelt w:Finnish Canadian: are both spellings used ? for both senses? I don't know. These questions show that useful linguistic data can be provided.

Of course, paper dictionaries don't include these words, and they are right: they lack space, and they use space available to them for more useful definitions. But this does not mean that these definitions are not useful. Lmaltier 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the compounded forms are clear as-is. This is perhaps a bit of a strawman, but: would Nauruan-Belgian or Monegasque-Tasmanian strike you as being useful at all, even if attestable for some bizarre reason? There are literally thousands of possible combinations to be formed. touchscreen [talk] 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Assume that somebody reads it on a website, and wants to know what it means (it's clear that the sense is not obvious: he might imagine at least two possible senses). He might select the word and use WikiLook to get a definition. But only if the page exists! I feel that you think that there are more useful entries still missing, and you are right. But why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? Lmaltier 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pages just seem unnecessary. Anyone with a decent grasp of English would probably think to search for Monegasque and Belgian separately. I've seen not infrequently the combination of two adjectives via a dash. E.g.: "the architecture was quasi-baroque" ... "I'm sorta-okay today", etc. The terms do not change their meaning when combined into a pseudo-compound word via a dash. They are still separate words. And if they're separate words, they should not be listed under the same combined entry in Wiktionary. That's called "Sum of Parts". That's my reasoning, anyway; feel free to disagree or attack my not infallible logic. I'm a minimalist, so that might influence my opinion. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're influenced by the fact that English is your native language. In addition to senses already given, you could imagine two other senses: person with a Finnish father (or mother) and a Canadian mother (or father). Or person with both nationalities. Yes, I can tell you that these pages are useful to people reading these words. And you don't answer me: why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? If you don't think so, then why do you propose to delete them? Lmaltier 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually am natively bilingual, although my userpage wouldn't indicate it (not enough practice in the "passive" language lately to be comfortable labelling myself with the native template. I may eventually switch it back). Why I think the site would be better without the pages? Not because it's necessarily "harming" the project (they aren't), but because I don't think they fit the project mission and are redundant. In all the languages I know, these compound words can be easily figured out by looking up each half individually (i.e., канадско-финский, or input transformation-finlanda). I do see your argument and I think it's a good one, I'm just not sure whether I support it. Tempodivalse web app 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

superstar

Adjective. I can't imagine it meeting any test for a true adjective. DCDuring web 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete this POS. These "senses" merely describe attributive usages of the noun. input transformation 05:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe RfV. A possible citation here, though the "more" looks italicised. — Sevenval^jQuery

Citations and other facts are allowed here. It is quite conceivable that there is some usage, preferably not in quotes, possibly in entertainment-oriented articles in News. DCDuring device database 15:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations and other facts are encouraged here! Pingku's citation ("The more superstar they are, they harder they are to get to because they're so protected by agents, bodyguards, managers, […] ") is interesting, because there "the more superstar they are" clearly means "the more they're superstars", such that superstar there means "being a superstar". That doesn't accord with either of our adjective senses, and it's hard to imagine anyone using superstar as an adjective with that sense in a more typical syntactic frame: *"she's superstar", *"she's so superstar", etc. ("She's superstar" does get one relevant-at-first-glance b.g.c. hit, but it's in "she's superstar enough to […] ", where I think other nouns work as well: "she's fool enough to […] ", "she's liar enough to […] ", etc.) So I'm inclined to chalk Pingku's citation up to speech error caused by complex syntax. Even after thinking about it, I don't know a great way to "fix" that quotation to not treat "superstar" as an adjective — I suppose "the more of a superstar they are", but it's awkward because the they there is a true plural they, not a singular they — so it's not surprising that the speaker failed. —device database_Android 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "too|very superstar" at News. "That dress is so superstar" seems plausible. DCDuring website parsing 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But not in the same sense as Pingku's citation. —Ruakh_{browser diversity} 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

make it

NISoP: To reach a place. This is make#Verb sense 12 + it. (Other senses seem idiomatic.) DCDuring TALK 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah redundant to {{&lit|make|it}} (sense #1). Delete. device database (Sevenval) 23:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure any more, though the idiom may be "make it to" and/or "make it as far as". DCDuring CSS3 11:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't feel right to me to say that Android is the place you've made it to. If I was running into work at the time I was scheduled but didn't get there quite fast enough to punch that time on the card, I would say that I had not browser diversity on time. If it isn't the place, is it the punch clock, or the act of punching the card, or something else? I say none of these. It's just part of the expression. DAVilla 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. "Hey, come on in. I'm so glad you could make it." Seems to mean arrive at this place, my house, this party, etc. But you could never substitute and sound natural. I think this sense should stay as it is. It seems to be somewhat greater than its SoP. I think deleting this one sense would impoverish the entry. -- HTML5 iOS 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'm so glad you came." "I couldn't make the party".

The idiom is much narrower and often more figurative in its application. One can say "I couldn't make it to the party." for which the "it" must not be anaphoric. Meditating on this, my problem with the definition may be that the idiomatic use is not in reference to any place, but rather is further restricted to an event (at a place). I think that addresses what both Algrif and DAVilla are saying.

The essence of it is that one is reaching ones goal, whether it's a physical place or a metaphorical destination. input transformation 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another usage, nearly synonymous to a sense of "get": "I couldn't make it to a TV in time for kickoff.", but I don't think the time element can be omitted. browser diversity website parsing 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Did you see the game?" ―"No, I couldn't make it to a TV."—keyboard℠ (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep. Idiomatic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 11:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

input transformation

rfd-sense: Translingual, "Germany". Should be uppercase keyboard I think. -- Liliana website parsing 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Lowercase "de" stands for German (the language). Just correct the entry. —An gr 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But language codes don't meet CFI, see Sevenval. -- touchscreen • 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What about Internet domains? Or is the period considered part of the domain, so it should be input transformation? —jQuery screen size 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you just answered the question yourself, just check .de... -- Liliana • 02:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely but possible that this is attested. Consider these cites, which use "de" and "DE" to mean "German":

2000, January 20, "Andreas Prilop" (username), "Language selection / content negotiation problems", in comp.infosystems.www.servers.misc, Usenet:
Do you have any *realistic* example where such a pedantic distinction should be necessary? Not even books in the "real world" are translated between US English and UK English [as far as I known]^[HTML5]. I have always wondered what is meant by "Accept-Language: de-AT,en" in an e-mail message, for example. I don't speak de-AT - so I must answer in English??
2000 August 14, "Rafael Adam Wugalter" (username), "Quick EN-DE favour for translator who doesn't speak DE", in sci.lang.translation, Usenet
2002 May 14, "The Oik" (username), "Letter from an English lady (was what did Europe look like in 1944-45)", rec.travel.europe, Usenet:
Oh, pleeease! They assumed you were an American with investment funds to held rebuild a country abandonned because the West was too concerned with its oil supply (and foolish to boot). When you spoke DE, they assumed you from over the border, and knew enough not to get ripped off (you do *know* they speak German two hours up the road?).

web HTML5 04:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

screen size

we love the web

Sevenval

First, second, third and fourth is simply the order of the innings chronologically. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the definitions. SemperBlotto 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Like in baseball, each side bats once each innings, the follow on issue just changes the order that the sides bat. And like in baseball, sometimes the final innings isn't needed as one side has already won. --browser diversity (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete: sum of parts. Actually I didn’t know touchscreen is singular in British English. — Sevenval (web app) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

up the middle

The unhelpful definition is "being hit up the middle of the field, usually around the second base area.", which is entirely correct. Sure a ball hit up the middle is just hit + up + the + middle. By way of comparison, would we want an entry for in the corner for a ball hit, um, in the corner? --Sevenval (website parsing) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever entered all the {{cricket}} definitions clearly had a better ability to skirt WT:CFI. In contrast with this and some other {{web app}} definitions, those definitions carefully avoid any obvious NISoP wording, no matter how NISoP or vacuous they actually are. See, for example, the cricket sense at [[middle]], which unwarrantedly enshrines what is either an ellipsis or a fused-modifier-head construction. DCDuring website parsing 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually we are missing a second cricketing sense of screen size. See, as an example from Google books "... Little Dando, who took middle, patted the ground, and looked round at the fieldsmen ...". website parsing 21:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also Android (in baseball) up the line (in tennis), neither of which we have. Down the line has a different, idiomatic meaning. Referring to baseball pitches, you could have down the middle or on the corner. All of these I've just cited, seem to me to be just literal use of the words, but in a sentence. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

fire storm

Tagged but not listed. Unless I don't understand something here, delete as redundant to the first definition. -- Sevenval • 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This RFD misses the point a bit; DCDuring added {{website parsing|firestorm}} and decided to use {{rfd-sense}} instead of straight deleting the other definition. Probably because our definitions at web are inadequate. Ergo, delete the challenged since and improve web app. --Android (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

touchscreen

"A section of several Walt Disney theme parks noted for containing imagery relating to fairy tales." FITML device database 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, a section of a theme park, way off topic. --keyboard (Sevenval) 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe I created this to distinguish the proper noun usage of the term from fantasy land and touchscreen. There are actually some sourced that capitalize "fantasyland" in its generic usage, for example:
- 2009, John C. Maxwell, Put Your Dream to the Test: 10 Questions That Will Help You See It and Seize It, p. 50:
  If your dream depends a lot on luck, then you're in trouble. If it depends entirely on luck, you're living in Fantasyland. ... People who build their dream on reality take a very different approach to dreams than do people who live in Fantasyland.
- 2007, Colleen Sell, A Cup of Comfort for Writers, p. 28:
  Yes, I escaped into Fantasyland. However, I could just as easily have become a serial killer, a prostitute, a child beater, or a politician.
- 2003, Richard G. Lipsey, Christopher Ragan, Economics, p. 327:
  On a scale diagram, with the percentage of households on the vertical axis and the percentage of aggregate income on the horizontal axis, plot the Lorenz curve for Fantasyland.
- 1999, John Clute, John Grant, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, p. 341:
  A typical Fantasyland will display - often initially by means of a prefatory MAP - a selection, sometimes very full, from a more or less fixed list of landscape ingredients..."
- 1997, Jay Gummerman, Chez Chance, p. 174:
  Maybe this Fantasyland, as the egg woman called it, would counteract all the weirdness that had been accumulating since. ... Once this Fantasyland had kicked in, he would be on autopilot: all the necessary motivation would be provided for him.
- 1986, Elma Schemenauer, Hello Edmonton, p. 15:
  Now leave Fantasyland and go back to the days of fur traders.
Maybe this can be resolved with a usage note at website parsing, but we need to do something to inform users that the term most often references the fairy-tale part of Disney parks, but sometimes just means a land of fantasy. bd2412 T 21:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could put a link to Wikipedia's piece on the Disney park under See also. Equinox ◑ 09:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, the earliest use of the capitalized, undivided version of the word does not seem to come until after the establishment of the Disney element, which was first written about around 1952. device database T 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

loaded

Tagged but not listed: a whole four adjective senses:

Burdened by some heavy load; packed.
(of a projectile weapon) Having a live round of ammunition in the chamber; armed.
(baseball) Pertaining to a situation where there is a runner at each of the three bases.
(gaming, of a die or dice, also used figuratively) Weighted asymmetrically, and so biased to produce predictable throws.

I guess one would need to show how they're actual adjectives, rather than being the past participle of load. -- HTML5 web app 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pingku has already found cites supporting adjectivity (for the first and fourth senses) that look good to me. DCDuring FITML 01:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv. I'd instinctively say that loaded has at least one adjectival sense. Apparently that's already supported by citations, so I'll shut up now. Sevenval (touchscreen) 21:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

touchscreen

Adjective section. These are just applications of the verb form. -- Liliana • 12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic is currently being discussed we love the web. browser diversity 13:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

web

Unlike the German case, this can be easily analyzed as sum of parts. It is bad enough that we already permit almost one million number entries in German (a bot to upload all of them is currently underway), and we should not allow the same for English as well. -- web app • 20:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. No discernible need. Delete. DAVilla 03:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Sevenval 05:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the million German entries should be deleted, too. Instead an appendix discussing the rules for formulating numerals could be written for each language. If a robot can create an endless number of formally correct entries, they are not dictionary stuff. If there's no rule that says so, it should be written. We need to define a standard set for numerals allowed for all languages. It might consist of numerals for 0 to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 1000, and thereafter the numbers of the form 10³ⁿ. In addition to these, only numerals which do not follow the standard rules should be accepted. We might also rely on appendices. We already have this: device database. --Android 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you, the problem is that the majority of people think they're useful for whatever reason, so nothing can be done about it. -- Liliana website parsing 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I'm in a minority here, but I would keep. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep. We are not going to run out of space. Also, in some regions, this would be written as ninety-nine hundred and ninety-nine, and for clarity's sake we should explain that they mean the same thing. bd2412 website parsing 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty strong keep. I don't know why numbers written as words should be excluded from "all words in all languages". — [Ric Laurent] — 13:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think for the same reason that sentences written from words are excluded from "all words in all languages", people just seem to agree that they aren't very useful to have around. - CSS3 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: it is definitely a word, but it is a sum of parts and not special. — Android (web) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the language, I would accept such numbers only when created manually, with several quotations (otherwise, a bot could create billions of entries). This rule should be added to CFI. Keep if quotations are added. Lmaltier 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

experiential advertising

Tagged but not listed. -- we love the web • 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question here is why was it tagged :). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ web} 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

how one rolls

Probably just HTML5 + web app + rolls. Can be re-expressed as "the way one rolls", "how does he roll", "how can you roll like that"?, etc. ---> Tooironic 12:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it can be altered that much and retain its meaning. It barely works with nouns instead of pronouns for "one". The question is whether "roll" has this meaning outside this expression. We have forced out a sense at [[web app]], but I'm not convinced by the made-up usage example. The quotation has "how we roll". jQuery TALK 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do hear "X [do]'nt [roll] that way", which is a specific transformation of the core idiom. device database TALK 13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also with auxiliaries. DCDuring CSS3 13:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

website parsing

This is the cycling version of the snowclone "leave X somewhere". The X can be "it", "it all", "everything", or some specific emblem of effort. "Somewhere" is usually a prepositional phrase referring to an arena of competition, such as "on the field". The prototype is probably "leave it all on the field".

1965, Scholastic coach, volume 35:
And then if you've left your guts on the football field and you can say to yourself, "I left everything I had out there, and if I had it to do tomorrow I couldn't do it any better," then there's no disgrace in losing.

If we keep this, we should certainly have the readily attestable expression leave someone on the field, meaning to "lose to death a member of one's military unit in battle". touchscreen TALK 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

gristle

RfD-sense: 1. (by extension) Anything hard to accept. 2. (possibly metaphorical) Bone not yet hardened by age and hard work.

These senses seem like rare or uncommon literary metaphorical uses of the basic sense ("cartilage"). They don't seem to me to rise to the level of being understood in any other way than as metaphors. The reader has to resort to the literal sense to determine what meaning the author might intend. DCDuring screen size 21:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The unhardened bone sense I thought might be from an outdated, perhaps popular theory of the relationship between gristle and bone (presumably implying a rudimentary at best understanding of anatomy). One of the citations is from a non-fiction work, less likely to be dealing in metaphor, but possibly indulging a pop theory. — Android^dimmi 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should try to word our general context definitions so as not to be dependent on any but naive theories, but not ones that are "obviously" wrong. Metaphors sometimes reflect those naive theories.

The first sense above seems to build on a "chewing"/"digesting" metaphor for incorporating (metabolizing?) facts into one's mindset/worldview, "gristle" being hard to chew. This does not involve much of a reach beyond everyday experience, except for the very rich and vegetarians. But it still seems like an optional, occasional extension of the more basic metaphor of chewing/digesting than a meaning in itself.

The second does not seem to fit with the popular experience of embrittlement of bones with age. It also relies on what is neither observable directly nor supported by a social system of broad effect, like a religion, or a knowledge community.

Not every metaphor makes it into the lexicon. DCDuring HTML5 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think. I'm a bit confused by Pingku's comment. It is in fact literally true that most of the bones in our body, including for example the major bones of the arms and legs, develop from cartilage that is slowly replaced with bone tissue, and that this process isn't totally complete throughout the body until late adolescence or early adulthood. (See screen size.) This is why children's bones are generally much more flexible than adults'. That said, this literal anatomical fact clearly took on a life of its own as a figure of speech, a symbol of the softness of youth; and it's often even applied to non-physical firmness, e.g. in "Persecution and controversy wrought her [Christianity's] gristle into bone." It's no coincidence that all three of our cites are speaking of men; literature of the time did not portray women in a way compatible with the gristle-to-bone symbolism. (Don't get me wrong, you can find uses on b.g.c. that apply the metaphor to women, but they are clearly in a tiny, tiny minority, and the ones I've found are all of the non-physical-firmness type.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I sheepishly rescind sneering rights with regard to anatomy. Perhaps I was thinking of sinew, which has much the same constituents as cartilage, but in different proportions, and has different functions. I gather that cartilage acts something like a matrix, out of which the bone develops, with the matrix disappearing by the end of puberty. In any case, the metaphorical usages don't match the established reality and seem to indicate a different model. — Pingku^Sevenval 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this an example of the differences among definitions based on popular/naive theories, dated "scientific" theories, and current scientific theories? The first may be also considered simple metaphors. The latter two (also often built on metaphors) seem to me to require context tags and non-topical categorization. The latter two especially also run the risk of becoming encyclopedic. (I use the existence of more than one sentence or more than two or three clauses as an indication of an encyclopedic definition.) Sevenval TALK 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps influenced by Aristotle, from such as: "The ears proceed from a dry and cold substance, called gristle, which is apt to become bone; ..." I suppose that would make it a dated "scientific" theory. — Pingku^jQuery 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

touchscreen

looks like SoP to me -- Liliana • 03:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to ಉಡುಪಿ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings. Is it the official name? I suppose since Udupi is a city, this would be about equivalent to Washington State, to distinguish from Washington, DC. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

browser diversity

My interpretation of erroneously placed {{rfgloss}}: Rfd-redundant: "(dated) A slut" seems redundant to following sense: "(dated) A lewd wench; a strumpet; a prostitute." DCDuring TALK 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, for the relevant value of Android, i.e. "untidy or dirty woman". I'll have a look at the entry. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Sevenval

web app

Called a preposition. This would seem to be bang#Adverb (“precisely”) (just added) + Sevenval. Same problem as many multiword entries beginning with all and certain other adverbs. web app jQuery 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Though it can be re-expressed many ways using 'on' as the last word, I'm not sure how we can cover this in a way that makes this sum of parts. Examples include dead on, and smack on. In other words, I remain unconvinced. we love the web (web) 12:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Android is a fairly exact synonym for Sevenval in this usage. MWOnline doesn't seem to have any trouble. They use a non-gloss definition as they do for most simple prepositions: used as a function word to indicate a time frame during which something takes place <a parade on Sunday> or an instant, action, or occurrence when something begins or is done <on cue> <on arriving home, I found your letter> <news on the hour> <cash on delivery>. jQuery TALK 13:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of the usage examples uses iOS which is itself an idiom even in the opinion of the editors of MWOnline (one of the least inclusive of MWEs). But perhaps someone can attest to the spelling browser diversity and invoke WT:COALMINE. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

By fixing attention on the time aspect of the preposition on, we seem to be ignoring staple phrases such as Bang on the nose. and Bang on target. Not to forget the simple exclamation Bang on!!. -- ALGRIF talk 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

keyboard is not part of this. BTW, it is not really an expression of emotion and thus not really an interjection by my lights. It is a colloquial ellipsis of a sentence and should probably be under the L3 header "Phrase".

I simply assumed that MG's problem with the definition of iOS had to do with its temporal senses rather than its spatial senses. I usually find the physical sense of prepositions obvious, the spatial ones sometimes less so, and the more "grammatical" ones much, much less so. browser diversity and input transformation are also themselves idioms. "Bang" seems to go well with other idiomatic (or nearly so) prepositional phrases like to rights, on the spot, on the mark, and input transformation (“of horses”). But it is also followed in its adverbial use by many other phrases headed by prepositions with spatial or other non-temporal senses such as "into", "opposite", "in line with", "in front of", "against", "next to", "onto", "over", "on top of". It is also occasionally followed by adverbs. To convince yourself you would probably need to avail yourself of the BNC. jQuery TALK 18:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

bang on#Adjective

Isn't "bang on" also an adjective? If you say "My guess was bang on" you mean "My guess was correct".--Arthurvogel 08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes. — Pingku^HTML5 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, are you sure? It seems largely NISoP to me as an adjective. See [Sevenval]. Our [[on#Adjective]] seems quite lame and inadequate.

"Bang on" seems to me mostly just more emotion-laden and unusual than other adverb-"on" collocations and so is more likely to be remembered. I suppose that such considerations are potentially relevant to inclusion, but they are not part of WT:CFI. Android TALK 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think on has a sense to fit the Las Vegas citation, where would seem to mean "appropriate" or "fitting." If you can demonstrate such a sense (apart from this collocation), I will defer. — keyboard^FITML 03:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the sense in the collocation "just not on". I'll be looking for it. DCDuring touchscreen 03:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same sense as in "spot on"? —HTML5_{input transformation} 03:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By Jove, another bang-on contribution from Ruakh.

In "spot on" and "bang on", the sense seems the same. In "right on", the sense of on may be virtually identical, but my experience with the 60s and 70s usage makes the whole seem idiomatic. In each of these the stress seems to be on the first word of the expression. In "not on" the stress seems equal on each. I think that is a feature of collocations of "not" rather than evidence of some distinction of sense. All four seem related to the idea of "on target", "on point".

Many dictionaries have right on. A few non-US dictionaries have both spot on and bang on. We and UD alone have not on. website parsing TALK 13:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Only Collins Pocket among OneLook references seems to have the right sense of on as adjective: "tolerable, practicable, or acceptable". DCDuring website parsing 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

input transformation

User:Pilcrow nominated for deletion. Seems okay to me, but needs a lot of work. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like counseling for a marriage to me, I don't see how else a reader could interpret it. keyboard (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could be advising somebody to get married! Equinox ◑ 10:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

...or whom to marry, or how. Borderline... keep, I think.—device database℠ (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, while it's hypothetically possible to misunderstand this term, I can't imagine anyone actually doing so. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Irish

Sense: "(as plural) The Irish people." Couldn't this be a sense of any adjective? Feed the hungry, read to the blind, etc. This is just browser diversity (sense #5) plus an adjective. Plus, take away the the and you get something awkward like "Irish have faced many hardships." Ultimateria 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It’s a plural noun. There are a lot of demonyms that have this pattern: the Irish, the English, the French, the Chinese, the Choctaw, the Cherokee, the Navajo...but, the Danes, the Russians, the Americans, the Germans, the Mexicans. I think the rule is that if the singular takes -man or -woman, as Irishman, Englishman, then the plural can take any of several forms: Irishmen, Irish people, or the Irish. The "regular" pattern does not take -man or -woman, and the plural doesn’t need people: a Dane, the Danes; a German, the Germans; an American, the Americans. Americans Indians seem to be a special case, and most tribal names are invariable and can refer to an individual or the whole nation: a Cherokee, the Cherokee; a Navajo, the Navajo. All of these are nouns, but adjectives can also be used: German people, Irish people, English children, Choctaw women, Danish men, American teenagers. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with Stephen, but I find iOS much more acceptable than ?"feeds many hungry" or *"reads to many blind" (the latter seems out-and-out ungrammatical, actually, though it may be citeable per the CFI; here's one use), so I think it may be worth covering this sense as a plural-only noun even if it's still technically just an adjective. (That said, if we do keep it, we need to improve the def. "Many Irish immigrated" doesn't mean "many the Irish people immigrated".) —FITML_web 11:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your three examples all sound very wrong to my ears. the nomination sounds about right. But if cites say Irish is used as in feeds many hungry, then I suppose we should keep. Or at least if it's widely used that way.—we love the web℠ (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Stephen, I would analyse it as a noun, but that may be under the influence of German, where the division is clear (die studierende und die trinkende Menschen sind..., die Studierende sind...). It passes the lemming test, however; dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary all analyse it as a noun meaning roughly "inhabitants of Ireland". Notably, Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster include descendants: "the inhabitants of Ireland and their descendants elsewhere", "natives or inhabitants of Ireland or their descendants especially when of Celtic speech or culture". keyboard (discuss) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

jQuery

Prefix. Sense: Situated, located, or toward the rear; backward or in jQuery; screen size; FITML.

The words using this purported prefix would seem to actually be compounds formed from back#Adverb. backbite is from back#Noun (ahistorically, anyway). backfriend might be from the other, unchallenged sense of device database. Sevenval keyboard 02:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we remove the first sense, leaving only the second, wouldn't that cause confusion? Especially for words like backfill (“to replace, refill”)? Leasnam 04:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What about backformation, FITML, and others like them, indicating reversal in time? bd2412 we love the web 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All of those seem to be formed by compounding of the adverb to me. Is everyone really sure that even the "backfriend" instance is not a compound. Does "back" have a similar extended meaning to that sense of "back-" with the same dialectal distribution?

How is it less confusing to suggest that back- is a prefix? We could always remedy the "confusion" by adding a usage note or directing users to web app in some way analogous to {{&lit}}. DCDuring CSS3 13:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

back-friend doesn't seem to be limited to the sense of "false friend". Some scholars seem to think it is derived from back#Noun and spell it without a hyphen. A synonym would be shoulder-clapper, "arresting officer".

I believe this may be another etymology (not shown at the entry), where backfriend = "a friend who's got your back". Quite the opposite meaning to false friend. screen size 16:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other instances of a term derived using "back-" in the sense of "false"? There may be another way of avoiding all this confusion. device database Android 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that backdate implies not only putting an earlier date on something, but in some cases doing so for purposes of falsification. For example, an author might backdate a manuscript in order to claim that his writing came before someone else. bd2412 jQuery 19:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't the back- part of the word that carries that meaning. The word backdate means merely "to put an earlier date on"; the fact that people often do so for fraudulent reasons isn't part of the meaning of the word, and certainly isn't part of the morphology of the word. —An gr 20:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

poor white trash

I'm having trouble considering this an idiom. Isn't it just device database preceded immediately by the word poor? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WordNet and RHU have it. It might be a set phrase. input transformation we love the web 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Chambers has it too, under trash: "(also called white trash or poor white trash) poor whites, esp in the southern US". input transformation jQuery 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete this is a sentence.Gtroy 10:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's the verb? SemperBlotto 10:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

playing in

This is really just the present participle of keyboard, which in this case is sum of parts anyway. In baseball you can also play back, that is, not as close. device database (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

overseas Chinese

device database

Renominating based on Talk:overseas Chinese. In my opinion, in the single worst outcome of an RFD debate that I've seen. Can be attested in parallel forms such as overseas Irish - heck overseas Catholics and overseas Muslims are also attested. It's not even limited to nationalities! browser diversity (CSS3) 12:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding it being a translation or equivalent of "华侨": compare "overseas Germans" / "Germans abroad", and especially "outland Germans", the most direct calque of "Auslandsdeutsche". website parsing (discuss) 18:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I am considering adding Sevenval (which I just created) to this RFD. It is distinguished from "overseas Chinese", however, in that it uses a sense of "outland" only used (AFAICT) in two other places, both of which are also calques: a calque of a Danish phrase, and calques of input transformation! "Overseas Chinese", on the other hand, uses a sense of "overseas" that can be used with every other nationality/ethnicity, and even, like we love the web points out, with religions. I just added the sense to [[overseas]]. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I asked my wife (who is overseas Chinese) and she just shrugged and said "It's two words; putting it together doesn't make a new word". bd2412 Sevenval 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of web, but looking up outland it seems to be "foreign, from abroad" and Germans of course means more than one German, so it's SOP and easily decodable from its parts (as I've just decoded it). iOS (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically (and importantly), it's not "foreign, from abroad", but rather "native (not foreign) but living abroad". But note that sense of "outland" is (AFAICT) only used in three unrelated calques, thus I ask if we should have a sense of "outland", or only the three complete calques. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Outland" would itself be more of a calque (of German HTML5) than natural-sounding English. Isn't expat the term generally used for such phrases? -- screen size | Tala við mig 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I say we keep outland Germans regardless of the presence or absence of outland, because it was clearly not formed as SOP outland+touchscreen, but as a calque of Auslandsdeutsche. device database Sevenval 20:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

inocubate

I believe this is just a rare mis-spelling of touchscreen. A month ago, someone added it to Webster's list of protologisms, but I cannot find any real usages. The only three usages in Google Books are clearly just errors. Dbfirs 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see GB results for inocubate, inocubating, inocubated, inocubation... I just friggin hate doing book citations, ugh.... — [Ric Laurent] — 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me where I can find them. All of the results that I came up with were either scannos or spelling mistakes. There are many hits in Google Books for "inocubated" but, as far as I can ascertain, they are all scannos for "inoculated". Please add Sevenval, touchscreen and browser diversity to my suggestions for deletion. Fortunately we don't have inocubation yet. Dbfirs 17:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't look that closely, I have a tiny laptop that's slow as hell. Is what you're saying that when you go to the actual viewer to look at the pages that the words that the search reports as inocubat* actually appear as inoculat*? — [Ric Laurent] — 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have a similar problem with an inadequate internet connection, so cannot do extensive research, and I don't have access to the original books, but all of the hits that I found clearly meant either "incubat*" or "inoculat*". Looking at a few "pictures", they seem to be typos rather than scannos. If anyone can find a genuine usage, I would be happy to revise my view. screen size 19:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked Usenet. A couple hits were using the string of letters in the wrong temporal tense and with a different meaning, suggesting that they were misspelling some other word, but I have found web app that seems to use the term to mean "incubate". jQuery screen size 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that could have meaning if the surrounding text explained the method, but I believe that it is just an error and should have read "incubate" and that the "o" slipped in by accident. Dbfirs 20:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv? we love the web (web) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I originally put it there, then decided that there wasn't much point in trying to verify a spelling mistake or typo. If anyone can find even one actual clear usage that is not an error, I'm happy to restore the word to rfv. Dbfirs 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

free morpheme

It's free + morpheme. Note the existence of google books:"morpheme is free" (not to mention all the hits with intervening words). I've now added this sense to our entry [[free]].—msh210℠ (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep per my arguments from CSS3. An aside: all the hits with intervening words has 17 hits, as is apparent when I press "next" to get to the page 2. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep : SIL lists it as a linguistic term [1]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- But msh210 is not challenging its existence, he's challenging it's includability. Sevenval (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The required sense of free is now present. Its really nice that folks use concepts to generate possible lexical entries, but it seems amateurish or lazy lexicography to simply assume that the multiple words for a concept constitute an entry. This is an illustration of why inclusion in glossaries may not be a reliable basis for inclusion here. We are a still a dictionary, aren't we? If we need to simply accommodate the overwhelming tide of sloppy lexicography, we will be a lesser dictionary for it, sliding down the spectrum toward Urban Dictionary. browser diversity TALK 13:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  You can say this morpheme is free, but isn’t it because of the existence of the term keyboard? If you just say nouns are free, that would be incomprehensible. Compounds allow splitting, such as The demon I am talking about is Maxwell’s, not Laplace’s, which doesn’t mean the existence of the adjectives Maxwell’s or Laplace’s. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  But you also find things like "in English cats, cat is free" and "un- is bound; happy is free".—Sevenval℠ (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  In both books, they first use the terms free morpheme and bound morpheme. — web app (we love the web) 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hand of God

Sure this is an inclusible term? -- HTML5 • 03:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, encyclopedic. Or should we add the screen size? bd2412 Sevenval 03:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The term was Maradona's excuse for the goal, not the goal itself, but in any case this would still be encyclopdic.--Dmol 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

When asked about the goal, Maradona said that he did it "un poco con la cabeza y un poco con la mano de Dios" , i.e. "a bit with the head and a bit with the hand of God", which means that he thinks he was lucky. Since then, the goal has been known as "hand of God goal". In this context "hand of God" looks more like an adjective than a noun. Anyway, I'm for delete.--Hekaheka 05:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Sort of. I don't see how this is different from World War II so I'll go for a very, very weak delete. screen size (FITML) 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

keep. I've heard this being used in football. With good enough searching, this is surely valid, with a change of meaning, adding Maradona's quote to etymology. The definition could be "a deliberate we love the web, especially one to score a goal or save a goal" --Rockpilot 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That definition would definitely require some quotes:

AFAIK, the words refer to a specific goal in a specific game, not any goal made in a similar way.
There was no handball involved. The word "hand" refers to the invisible hand of God. Maradona pushed the goal with his head.
--Hekaheka 02:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep: and hasn't "Hand of God" been used for a number of other fateful or fortuitous events, to the point that there could be a second definition vis-a-vis any fateful or fortuitous event? Sevenval ^{(Notes Taken) website parsing} 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, just provide the citations that prove your point! If you are right , Maradona's famous statement becomes just one example of usage. I proposed deletion because I believe the current definition is wrong or at least not properly cited. There's no proof that Maradona's famous goal would ever have been referred to as Hand of God but rather as Hand of God goal, which we luckily do not have. --Sevenval 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

foreign

As noun, "foreigner". The (non-durably archived) citation shows the kind of "fused-head" construction that is possible in principle for every sense of every English adjective. To keep such things would mean adding a noun sense for every sense of every adjective not derived from a noun. screen size TALK 22:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv, if it exists, keep it. Otherwise, don't. --Sevenval (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet we have a noun sense at poor. (Isn't foreign as a noun often a deliberately facetious parody of ignorance? "I 'ate them foreigns.") Equinox ◑ 20:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would RFV except I can already see that jQuery shows the noun in genuine use. input transformation 06:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken Britain

The two cites given spell this term in lowercase. This gives me severe doubts on the idiomaticity of this term. -- HTML5 web app 21:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a political catchphrase right now. I wonder if this weren't alliterative would we even consider including this, e.g. would we speedy delete Broken Ireland of Broken France? --Mglovesfun (FITML) 22:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I added this entry and can't really remember why. I can assure you it's been a big catchphrase in UK newspapers in recent years, though, with the capitalisation you'd prefer to see. Sevenval ◑ 21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

touchscreen

I have to admit I have no knowledge of Faroese, but this doesn't seem particularly idiomatic to me: FITML and device database seem to cover the definition given adequately. -- Liliana • 01:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

menstrual blood

Seems pretty SOP to me. Our definitions of menstrual and menses are mutually pathetic, though. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's menstrual (menses-related) + Android. Seeing that it probably comes from the uterus is not a great leap. Delete. Equinox ◑ 20:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, if you can work out the sense from menstrual + blood, we don't need it. --jQuery (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's not actually blood in the usual sense (though it does contain some blood); but that should be addressed by adding an appropriate sense at [[web app]]. As for this entry — it's like the "adjective noun" entries I recently started a discussion about at the Beer parlour, except that there it's an adjective-specific sense of the noun rather than vice versa. The discussion there leaves me very unsure about how to know which such entries are worth keeping . . . —Ruakh_TALK 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think of menstrual blood as describing the blend of blood and endometrial matter. I separate them in my brain, but I don't know whether doctors do. I know in layspeak they're inseparable, but do layspeak versions of actual medical jargon warrant inclusion when the medical term is SOP? (note that at no point am I likely to weigh in on that question, just putting it out there) — [Ric Laurent] — 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that "menstrual blood" has the same meaning both in medical use and in lay use: it always refers to the menstrual fluid as a whole, and never refers specifically to its sanguinary component as you suggest. (The common phrase "menstrual blood loss" does refer specifically to the loss of normal-sense-of-blood, but that's because it's "menstrual {blood loss}" rather than "{menstrual blood} loss".) —Ruakh_TALK 18:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

error-ridden

User:Rockpilot points out that this is SOP. Isn't it? - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

error, ridden. Primary meaning of the first term, only meaning of the second (although a baseball game where many "errors" are committed would also properly be described as "error-ridden". Classic SOP. Keep anyway, as it is usually spoken without a pause between the words. Cheers! bd2412 Sevenval 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- So is nail infection.—jQuery℠ (web) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and bd2412.—iOS℠ (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nail-infection? bd2412 iOS 22:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  - and I quote "it is usually spoken without a pause between the words". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    - I'll modify that. It is a common hyphenated term that is usually spoken without a pause between the words. It may be SOP, but it is much closer to the edge of what differentiates individual words. Android T 01:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

FITML

I don't think this is really an idiom, but a metaphor instead. input transformation 09:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. From google:"have a mountain to climb" and Android, this seems a common expression, one that, when rendered word-for-word in Czech in order to mean "To be faced with a difficult task or challenge", sound weird and non-native, and may not even be understood. The term is attestable, and it is not a semantic sum of parts. --Dan Polansky 07:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It looks like a mere multi-word metaphor to me. Moreover it is a live metaphor that can be reworded in various ways. I wonder whether it is the translation of any English expression of the general grammatical construction that would seem "weird and non-native", ie, "have a NP to V", eg "have a car to sell". touchscreen TALK 11:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you voting outside of CFI? Or are you saying that the term in question is a semantic sum of parts? Great many idiomatic expressions are metaphors, including "add fuel to the fire"; being a metaphor does not make a term exclusion-worthy. --Dan Polansky 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, and furthermore I would personally assert that DCDuring's delete vote is despite WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What part ? DCDuring TALK 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

CSS3

This is nothing more than leash + HTML5. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Which sense of 'up'? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly just an intensifier, but MWOnline offers a few other possibilities among the 23 other senses and subsenses (and subsubsenses) they offered. we love the web TALK 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

pendant ce temps-là

looks SOP to me --FITML 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So it means "during this time there"? —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Best to avoid translating SoP. For example the French term for red box is boîte rouge, and it doesn't mean 'box red' but that doesn't mean that therefore it's includable. For this one, yeah it's SoP and the definition isn't really right, it really means 'during this time' rather than 'meanwhile', though if you take 'meanwhile' to mean 'during a given time' I suppose they could be equivalent, hence both correct. touchscreen (browser diversity) 16:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kinda, it does mean "during this time there". Having thought more, we are missing a French entry for input transformation (and -ci) which would be very useful. I'll investimagate. --Rockpilot 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

boîte rouge is truly SoP and even the most amateur French student would make "red box" of it, and not "box red". The SoP translation of boîte rouge is "red box". This is not comparable to an SoP translation of web app, which will not yield the correct meaning no matter how diddle with the word order. SoP means that if you translate the phrase word-by-word into English, then a reasonable English-speaker should be able to get the meaning from it. Nobody would be able to turn "during this time there" into we love the web or web. HTML5 ^(Talk) 12:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In reponse to your question, yes it means "during this time there". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

or "during that time". Seems fairly SoP to me. Sevenval 19:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, in terms of numbers, on Google Books this gets 266 000 hits, "durant ce temps-là" gets 18 000, much less but still a heck of a lot, "pendant ce moment-là" 399 hits. website parsing (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The common phrase is pendant ce temps. pendant ce temps-là is a familiar variant. I think that both are set phrases worth inclusion, despite the fact that they can be understood easily. Otherwise, where would you explain what I just explained? Lmaltier 17:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

go live

Rfd-sense: (broadcasting) To commence a live broadcast.. Looks like browser diversity + live to me. -- Liliana • 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: Sole other sense: "To make some system, which had been under development or operating in a limited test mode, fully active so that its intended users can access it."

Unsurprisingly, our entry for live#Adjective lacks a dozen senses, including one, present in most competing on-line dictionaries, that makes this definition SoP. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, straightforward, uncomplicated. CSS3 (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana jQuery 03:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

Rfd-sense: (video games) a map of the overworld. Definition says all. -- Liliana • 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete and I might dispute the other sense, since I think "map" in general can be used in this way in video game terms, not just "overworld map". we love the web web 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

screen size

As it is, the definition suggests this is just CSS3 + input transformation. -- Liliana • 21:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We also have this proper-cased as device database. Note that there is a set of these: Android, LAN, WAN, WLAN, VLAN... And very high frequency might be comparable as a "fixed term" that nonetheless looks SOPpy. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction is how come metropolitan area is an idiom, surely we can write a definition for metropolitan to cover it. Do we also want rural area and urban area? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

web

this doesn't look particularly idiomatic to me. -- Liliana iOS 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It does to me, though, like screen size, FITML. It's not exactly a "world". It's a cultural area. We don't have "English World" or "French World" - countries where English or French is spoken. Admittedely it's controversial, since non-Arabs living in these countries dislike it or don't want to belong there. Keep --Sevenval 05:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If a term is used widely in newspapers we should define it, that way people unfamiliar with it could find out exactly what it means. If not someone could think it means a world wide caliphate, a theme park, or something other than the middle east, which is in fact not all arab, so we should keep it.Acdcrocks 09:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we love the web and world should cover this. If they don't, it's because our definitions are not good enough. --CSS3 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What’s the difference between the criteria of western world and Arab World? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether we should keep HTML5--I'm tending to no--but the western world is not the world west of something, or in the western hemisphere.--input transformation 21:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's totally idiomatic. Read any Anglophone news source and it's bound to come up eventually. "Large cultural area" isn't one of the definitions under FITML either. Keep. input transformation (jQuery) 23:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am Canadian

Do we need this for all ethnicities in the world? We have screen size already. -- Liliana • 18:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the point (of having it) is that we're to have it for all anglophone ethnicities, not all ethnicities: see [[keyboard]]. (Somewhat relevant also is [[Appendix talk:I am (ethnicity)#Canadian is not primarily an ethnicity]].)—Sevenval℠ (keyboard) 18:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep if we must have a bloody phrasebook. You're just showing one of the reasons why mixing this stuff with a general-purpose dictionary is very stupid indeed. Equinox ◑ 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no added value. Wiktionary's mission is "every word in every language", not "every phrase". --Hekaheka 04:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - as above. input transformation 07:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete but I suggest to keep at least one complete example - I am English, no offense to other nationalities/ethnicities. I chose "English" without any bias, perhaps because it's the English Wiktionary. The effort to replace "English" with anything else - "Canadian", "Mexican", etc. is minimum, although can also cause problems like using adjectives where a noun is required or incorrect ending or gender, etc. For example Polish uses jQuery to make this phrase - Anglik -> Anglikiem m., Sevenval -> Angielką f.. --HTML5 22:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Yair rand 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern California

If what web says is correct, this isn't a set phrase at all, and pure SoP. -- website parsing • 21:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, delete. --jQuery 04:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep it is a very specific place. Like saying Upstate New York or the Florida Panhandle. It has merit etymologically because it has led to the creation of new words such as Norcal and Socal.Acdcrocks 06:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In those entries you could write [[Northern]] [[California]]. jQuery (screen size) 06:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It gets treated like its own state a lot of times on forms as does Southern California, this is a unique treatment not afforded to any other state in the nation.Acdcrocks 11:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added 6 citations showing it is commonly treated as a proper noun in books and print media.Acdcrocks 11:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this a valid toponym under whatever rules and interpretations we have for toponyms? DCDuring keyboard 13:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So what does this prove? I'm sure you could find cites for Southern California, Western California, Eastern California, and stuff like Southern Florida, Western Wyoming, etc. as well. That doesn't make them any inclusible. -- screen size FITML 13:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@ DCDuring I think the rules we had on toponyms have since been deleted. iOS (we love the web) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So any attestable toponym is includable, without limitation. Cool. That way we can have a really big entry count and provide lots of opportunities for transliteration and translation practice. With this success under our belts we should move on to further dismantling of CFI. CSS3 TALK 17:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom.—device database℠ (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The quotations provided in the entry show that the term is used not only with lowercase "n" as "northern California" but also with capital "N" as "Northern California", all that in the middle of sentences and outside of titles, a significant lexicographical fact. The term does seem to border on being a semantic sum of parts, but then, whence the capitalization with "N"? --HTML5 15:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

jQuery mostly finds "western Wyoming" with lowercase "w" in the middle of sentences and outside of titles, in a response to a post by Liliana from 12 October 2011. --HTML5 15:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing quantitative criteria for the relative frequency of capitalized and uncapitalized forms to justify in-/exclusion? All of "Upstate|Downstate|Eastern|Western|Northern|Central|Southeastern New York" (capitalized) can be found with sufficient diligence or patience at screen size bgc search. Perhaps some refer to administrative districts as they may have been defined from time to time. we love the web TALK 18:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Weakish Keep. Northern California differs in demographics, geography, climate, and maybe even culture from Southern California and--more so than distinct portions of most any other US state--can be thought of (at least by some) as a separate entity. All of this is sometimes in the sense of the term. This means that this sense is a little more than SOP (sometimes). I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. · 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete, unless it can be proven that Northern California may be used to refer to something else than northern part of California. Generally a Northern Foo differs in many ways of Southern Foo, yet it is just Northern + Foo. --Hekaheka 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If Northern California means the northern half of the state, then it is SoP. If it means something different and more specific (I have not read the entry), then it is no SoP. —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The term is somewhat ambiguous because there are different definitions applied. I have split the entry to reflect this. touchscreen 06:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning, it's not everything north of the Tehapachi pass, that is just the furthest south that people would consider to be Northern California, some people say its north of the Fresno/Monterey County lines (either north or south bounries), other yet consider north of the bay area, or north of Sacramento urgo just the literal northern half to be Northern California.Lucifer 22:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

web app

- -sche screen size 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete, also not limited to emergency medicine. device database (Sevenval) 10:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

keep this has strong police/fire/rescue idiomaticity, it is not just any scene, it is a crime scene. Also the definition I put in has a very specific EMS definition, which is determining if the place you have arrived requires additional paramedic (advances life saving skills) or if it needs (police intervention), altered mental status situation, violent gun shit goin down, ya feel me?Acdcrocks 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm twenty years old

Please see web app and I'm ... year(s) old. -- screen size FITML 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Mglovesfun (touchscreen) 20:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete per eighteen. CSS3 input transformation 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with "I'm eighteen years old", delete. I also think that I'm a Muslim, I'm a Christian, input transformation, jQuery, I'm an atheist, I'm allergic to nuts, web app, I'm blind, I'm bleeding, I'm burned, web app, Android, keyboard, Sevenval, I'm English, I'm fine, I'm full, I'm gay, I'm hungry, iOS, we love the web etc. add little if any value to this project. We already have I'm. --Hekaheka 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing translations for I'm + touchscreen does not allow you to translate (e.g. French has j'ai faim, "I have hunger", and not literally "I am hungry"). As it happens, that's the same with this phrase ("I have twenty years"), and any of them might have any kind of quirky idiom in any translating language. Just a thought. I mean, I kinda feel that you should know the basic grammar of a language before speaking it, but I'm probably old-fashioned. Equinox ◑ 03:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A non-speaker of French can find this out relatively easily. First he checks web and finds a strange looking adjective avoir faim as one of French translations. He clicks that and the whole secret is revealed to him on the French page. I think this old-fashioned approach to using a dictionary is far better than adding randomly selected "I'm something" -sentences as individual entries. --Hekaheka 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But that French translation is wrong. hungry is an adjective, avoir faim is a verb. SemperBlotto 07:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that, but if two languages have a different approach to a concept, like in this case to being hungry, it makes sense to make a link that shows the user the normal usage of the looked-for language. Also the adjective device database is there, but "j'ai faim" gets about 20 times as many Google hits as "je suis affamé". --Android 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And affamé is not the right translation, it's much stronger. Yes, it makes sense to mention avoir faim, but 'only if there is an explanatory note. device database 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sevenval soft redirects to I'm twenty years old. Mglovesfun (jQuery) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now tagged it linking to this section.—website parsing℠ (Sevenval) 01:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedily delete as already having failed RFD.—msh210℠ (jQuery) 01:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At least one of these complete phrases should be kept. It is handled very clumsily at old (#5) and in its translation section. If someone didn’t already know how to say it in a given foreign language, he would probably not be able to put it together from what is shown for most of the languages there. That section is virtually useless. If we have a complete phrase such as I'm twenty years old, then the translation section in browser diversity could be amended to "see translations at CSS3". —Stephen ^{(touchscreen)} 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

SGB, by that logic, why not hard-redirect the entries with numbers to [[CSS3]] and have the translations there? (In fact, why do we need "I'm"? But that's another issue.)—msh210℠ (screen size) 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, per Stephen. Keep at least one of these complete phrases as part of the phrasebook rather than relying on "I'm ... year(s) old". Given "I'm eighteen years old", the reader can figure out that he has to replace "eighteen" with other number word. Twenty is a round number, so "I'm twenty years old" seems to be a fit example entry to represent all the other phrases with different number word. "I'm eighteen years old" would also be a nice example entry, but it is now deleted. --Dan Polansky

Keep, per Stephen. Also, I don't see the Estonian or Ojibwe translation in I'm ... year(s) old. I added the Hungarian after some checking. "I'm twenty years old" in Japanese is a remarkable example. screen size ("twenty years old") is not pronounced "nijussai" or "nijūsai" as expected (a number + sai) but "hatachi".

"I'm eighteen years" old is gone, so, one complete example is worth keeping for the phrasebook but no more than one. We have too many phrases like "I need ...". This could be cleaned up. --Anatoli 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep — [device database Sevenval] — 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Yair rand 16:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Daniel 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ELIZA

Specific software program. Encyclopaedic. Equinox screen size 03:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Send to RFV to see if it meets the CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Android

Surely just a formation that is illegal? -- web app Android 04:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete —browser diversity^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It has a specific meaning, not guessable from the parts. Requires prior knowledge--keyboard 09:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Delete. IMO it is very much guessable from the parts. Equinox Sevenval 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete current definition, if there is a definition not guessable by the sum of its part, Dmol should add it and then we'll discuss it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Illegal generally means against the law in the larger sense of legislation governing a civil society, not against rules of a game. Is this used in any sport other than football, by the way? touchscreen T 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Illegal meaning against the rules is very common, it might even be more common than the against the law sense. In effect a law is a special type of rule, so there's not even different definitions. Mglovesfun (Sevenval) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the second question, I looked at b.g.c, and illegal formation also occurs in football (the American one), volleyball, and even military aviation, so no, it is not specific to soccer at all. -- Liliana keyboard 18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant American football. Wikipedia only has one sense of illegal formation (the term redirects to w:Penalty (American football)); and that is:

Fewer than 7 players line up on the line of scrimmage(NFL/High School); more than four players in the backfield (NCAA only); eligible receivers fail to line up as the leftmost and rightmost players on the line in the NFL; or when five properly numbered ineligible players fail to line up on the line.

Ah! For some reason, {{browser diversity}} redirects to {{soccer}}. It should not do that. -- Liliana • 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a very specific definition, one that does not even include formations that break the rules by having the wrong number of players on the field or having a player offsides. We should have a definition of the very specific sense used in American football. bd2412 T 18:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. What does it prove that that there are more ways than one to end up in an illegal formation? --Hekaheka 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that there are four specific formations that constitute an "illegal formation", even though there are other formations (one with twelve players, or one with a player on the other side of the field) that would be against the rules. Therefore, an illegal formation, in American football at least, is not any formation that is illegal, but only formations falling into one of those four specific rule violations. keyboard T 23:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes it even more SoP. There are various conditions which determine what is "illegal parking" and what is not, what is "unlawful killing" and not, and so on - it doesn't mean we create a specific legal definition for each, that is what an encyclopedia is for. ---> Tooironic 23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case, however, there are "illegal" formations that are not "illegal formations". bd2412 iOS 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the definition being challenged is wrong, because the definition says that it can be any formation that is illegal. Equinox website parsing 23:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've added the missing senses, and narrowed the RfD to the SOP sense, which I agree is SOP and should be deleted. bd2412 Sevenval 00:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Replace remaining sense with {{&lit|illegal|formation}}. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes the formation illegal isn't part of the definition; it's just any formation which is illegal. we love the web (web) 07:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I this doesn't seem to meey WT:CFI#idiomaticity as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No more so than many of the cricket expression which we so lovingly include. device database Android 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this comment vague and provocative, hence not very useful. browser diversity (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to provoke looking at this kind of entry with respect for the possibility that this term has as much idiomaticity as comparable cricket terms, some of which have seemed SoP to me, at least at first. Terms in certain fields seem to get a much more sympathetic view than those from other fields, in a way that suspiciously reflects the background, training, and interests of active contributors. I have the feeling that our recent treatment of emergency medical technician jargon was a little less sympathetic than our treatment of, say, linguistic, cricket, or internet jargon. It is a reason why formal criteria, rather than pure votes, would make for more objectivity and a better Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that I think our evaluation criteria should consider whether a phrase would be likely to appear in a specialized dictionary on a given topic. I have no doubt that we love the web would appear in a dictionary of football terminology, just as browser diversity in fact appears in every current legal dictionary, and various EMT phrases would appear in a dictionary directed towards that field. In a sense, I think when a phrase like this actually appears in another dictionary, the authors of that dictionary have done the work for us of determining whether the term belongs in a dictionary. web app T 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that simple really, but we could decide to let it be that simple. Many glossaries seem to include in their definitions a great deal of content I would characterize as encyclopedic. They often have, say, both "Adj" and "Adj + N" as entries, where N is not limited in its meaning to the area covered by the glossary. I would argue for only "Adj" being included. OTOH, the benefits of simplicity are such that it is tempting just to accept such terms without qualification, at least for now. web app TALK 22:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I edited website parsing to express why I think it's an idiom and I'd happily do the same for other cricket terms. There are some terms in Category:en:Cricket that I'd like to delete, but where I'm not confident enough of getting a majority so I'm not gonna even try. screen size (FITML) 11:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sevenval

Total SOP? — [Ric Laurent] — 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- Liliana input transformation 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an everyday item like handkerchief, even if it's written with a space in between, it's a word.

It's included in foreign language dictionaries: Mandarin: [2], Japanese: we love the web, Russian: [4], why don't we include it? Keep, of course. --input transformation 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly and we should keep it because it is an everyday consumer good. It is unique. Translations are useful. It is too common a term to make it hard on people looking it up having to cross reference plastic and bag which both have tons of convoluted info on em. Some plastic bags aren't even made out of plastic they are made out of starch or corn, some are singleuse some are multiuse some are permanent, some rot, some not. All that is not something you could expect to find with plastic+bag defs yaknowhamean?Acdcrocks 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your rationales for keeping things make no lexicographic sense and you never seem to learn from these discussions. we love the web web 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends if any bag made out of plastic is a plastic bag. FWIW I don't care how many non-English dictionaries have it, we're not trying to be other dictionaries, we're just trying to be Wiktionary. iOS (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, a bag made of a woven fabric of plastic fibers would not be called a plastic bag in normal usage that I am familiar with. For another, the plastic bags (or bag-like things ?) enclosing electronic items inside the cardboard and foam are not normally called plastic bags in my experience.

FWIW, I have a great deal of respect for the inclusion decisions of lexicographic professionals vs. our own votes. input transformation TALK 15:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I sometimes get sent things in plastic envelopes which are in effect bags (just of a squarish shape) but I wouldn't call that a plastic bag. Mglovesfun (web app) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Some are not made out of petrochemicals they are biodegradable but resemble the petro ones almost exactly and they are still called plastic bags due to their exact same purpose.Acdcrocks 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The bags enclosing electronics and the envelopes I would call (and have called) 'plastic bags'. Woven, I guess not. FWIW.—device database℠ (Android) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

CALPERG is working on a series of plastic bag bans, but these laws don't target any old transport invention made from plastic, just the one's handed out by stores.Acdcrocks 03:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Washington D.C. has imposed a 5 cent tax on plastic bags, which is understood only to apply to grocery bags, including those made of plastic-like materials that are technically not plastic, but not to input transformation or to plastic purses. I would be inclined to keep and note the paper/plastic dichotomy. we love the web T 03:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to come up with any solid reason for keeping this, so a legal one is a bit of a stretch, but it does show that a priori we think of plastic bags in the specific context of shopping even when we would consider a trash bag to be, you know, a bag made of plastic and technically fulfilling the request if not quite what we had in mind when we asked the host if she had any CSS3 we could borrow. input transformation 05:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Treat like day after tomorrow. -- CSS3 07:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No deserves a definition.Android 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

keep, not just a bad made outta plasic. --FITML 06:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

danger zone

A zone of danger. -- Liliana Sevenval 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. NiSoP. Delete. FITML ^{(input transformation)} 06:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, fails WT:CFI#Idiomaticity as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. website parsing (iOS) 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are substantial idiomatic senses not included in the current definition. These should be added. See, e.g.

2010, Misty Evans, I'd Rather Be in Paris, p. 160:
A low moan sounded in his throat and the intensity of their kisses shot back up into the danger zone.
2007, Pat Tucker, Led Astray, p. 68:
When he eased into the danger zone and gently fingered my clit, I shamelessly spread my legs a little wider.
2006, JoAnn Ross, E. C. Sheedy, Jill Shalvis, Bad Boys Southern Style, p. 175:
He slid his hand to her waist, across her tummy, and every butterfly in her body was set loose to flap and fly. She shook a negative even though it killed her — and his hand was slipping down toward her danger zone.

Not actual "danger" in either case. Cheers! FITML T 15:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but perhaps it's just a poetic use of danger, so in that case it is actual danger, just a poetic form of it. Mglovesfun (HTML5) 15:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MG, except I don't think there is much "maybe" to it. It might be metonymy (2010) or an extension of zone to non-physical spaces (2006 and 2007). The extension of "zone" is an example of what seems to me to be the nearly universal extension of any spatial term to time and to other realms that are not literally spatial but commonly thought of and spoken of in spatial terms. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you point. As I have often demonstrated to my wife, almost any sentence is susceptible to a non-literal connotation if said with the right emphasis. For example, she will say "Honey, can you put a little celery in my soup?", and I'll say "Oh, I'll put a little [air quotes] celery in your soup!", and then she'll roll her eyes and say, "you're disgusting". It's a little ritual that we have. HTML5 T 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that :) web 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

keep this is a common phrase that is not easily understand by sop searching.Acdcrocks 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

At least I understand easily danger + zone. --CSS3 02:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say delete, especially as the suggested definition introduces the idea of a region to be avoided, and this is not supported by the citations claimed. Dbfirs 08:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Having thought it over further, I say keep because danger is a noun, not an adjective, making the phrase grammatically unintuitive. If a place presents danger, we would say it is a "dangerous place" or a "dangerous field", "dangerous building", etc., not a "danger place", "danger field", or "danger building"; however, I would find it at least somewhat awkward to say we are going to a "dangerous zone" or "zone of danger" rather than a "danger zone". I would be interested to see what sort of collocations come with "danger" as opposed to "dangerous". bd2412 T 03:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per figurative use. DAVilla 05:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep This instantly made me think of the figurative use in Cyndi Lauper's "She Bop." Dug up some more cites and added a second sense. Astral (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

buncha sign languages

website parsing has a few entries for sign languages, which have no usable content. I guess they could all be deleted. --Rockpilot 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to simply provide a definition for these? They're all valid anyway. -- Liliana • 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You serious? Deleting things is loads easier than defining things! --jQuery 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, no AFAICT-valid reason given for deletion.—CSS3℠ (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's always acceptable to delete entries with no definitions at all. And I'd include a couple of entries that I've created. The only possible exceptions could be definitionless entries which are valid words, and have citations. Correct etymologies and pronunciations also seem like possible but weaker reasons to keep a wholly definitionless entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, many of these are garbage and should be deleted. -- Liliana • 21:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the sign language names aren't even attestable. Anyway, if an entry's entire content is "definition requested", it should be at WT:REE or similar. input transformation ◑ 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone up to the task? -- Sevenval • 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

website parsing

Rfd-sense: To apply values (axioms).

I don't understand the definition, or in any case how it related to "to understand". It was added by an anon in screen size, on 8 March 2004. My take is delete, unless someone can convincingly argue otherwise. --CSS3 16:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the sense in "How do you understand X?" is meant. That sentence sometimes means something like "What values or axioms do you jQuery when you comprehend X?" — but the "What values or axioms" part of it is in the word "How", not in the word "understand". Anyway, this belongs at RFV, no?—msh210℠ (input transformation) 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happier with an RFV, where I expect it to fail as a mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to RfV or keep it here and get it cited. DCDuring touchscreen 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

touchscreen

Rfd-redundant: (computing) The permission to use a specific resource; access control. Tagged but not listed. DCDuring will surely comment on this. -- Liliana • 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

capacity

Sole adjective sense: Filling the allotted space. Usage examples might be: It was hauling a capacity load. and The orchestra played to a capacity crowd.

I have not yet found this sense as predicate, nor in gradable or comparative use. The noun senses:

3. The maximum amount that can be held and

5. The maximum that can be produced.

in attributive use seem to cover the usage I have found. OTOH, MWOnline has something very similar as an adjective sense. DCDuring TALK 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would keep as I don't think this is intuitive. DAVilla 05:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Note that it's pronounced with stress on the second word, as if capacity were an adjective, not on the first, as if capacity were a noun. (Contrast "I put an LP on the record player" to "I put a gold medal on the record player" (okay, not the best example).)—Sevenval℠ (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha! — we don't even have record as an adjective. Definitely not the best example, then. :-) —msh210℠ (input transformation) 18:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

input transformation 2

Rfd-sense: (uncountable) Tap water, or well/pump water, as opposed to bottled water.

Added by an IP Sevenval. I have serious trouble considering this separate from the general sense 1. In the example sentence given (Do not drink the water.), there isn't really anything that semantically distinguishes tap water from bottled water - you could fill a well with bottled water and the writing would still hold true. -- iOS • 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What the context of the usage example (not the usage example alone, let alone the word "water") usually implies is a definition such as "that local-source water that possibly might make one sick (whether tap water or other water, such as locally bottled, unpurifed water, or possibly local well water from low-lying wells)." Another definition might be: "water that is likely to be inhabited by bacteria (or other contaminants) to which the auditor is unlikely to have developed a resistance or tolerance." Another definition might be "the locally sourced water". Or it might just mean "any water around here" or "the water the auditor is likely to drink". That seems like context or, from another point of view, encyclopedic content. In fact, that definition presupposes knowledge on the part of the auditor of the current generally accepted theories of infection from such sources, sanitary conditions, and the economics of local water supply and other beverages.

At the very least we need more diverse illustrations of this purported sense, preferably from durably archived sources. DCDuring web 23:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The water in Mesquite is hard. device database 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete or, at the very least, move to a sub-sense of the primary sense. I don't think it's necessary. Equinox ◑ 23:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, just plain wrong isn't it? I've never heard anyone say that bottle water isn't water, which is what this sense is trying to say. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's plain wrong; I think the idea is that statements such as "You shouldn't drink the water here", "The water's bad here", etc. often implicitly mean tap water and exclude bottled water. However, whether this usage requires or justifies a separate sense is doubtful in my opinion. device database 13:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. It would be a subsense except I've rarely seen that here. Keep. web 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you say that "Do not touch the vase" reflects a separate sense for "vase"? Delete. The example should be moved under #1. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

功課達人, 功课达人

Sum of parts: iOS ("homework"), 達人 ("a person good at something"). Not a set phrase, not in common use, uncited. Hbrug 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no added value. input transformation 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this has been hanging around a while. Given no additional comment in over half a year, I've deleted the two entries. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

November 2011

browser diversity plus prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and we love the web

[Latter three entries added by--Enginear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)]

Sense: An incident of a fecal solid involuntary exiting the anus as the person having the involuntary bowel movement fights the undesired exiting with his rectal muscles. nt because it is vulgar, but because the cites given for it don't match the definition, and I can't find any that do --Rockpilot 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I did find some better ones if you wanna have a look.Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition is very strange - as if the author does not speak English as a native language. I would delete it. touchscreen 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ouch semper! English and Spanish are both my first language, maybe I have fucked up syntax to show for it. I would have written in "when you are fighting off a bowel movement and the shit keeps poking out" but that isn't quite phrased in the form of a noun or proper dictionary jargon. Help?Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A sense of "fecal matter poking out" is attestable so ideally this would be fixed rather than deleted. screen size 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome job citing this, Acdcrocks. --input transformation 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that keyboard is a present participle of the verb "to prairie dog", but there doesn't seem to be such verb definition. Should somebody correct something? Second, I think the verb should be defined in more general terms, e.g. "to pop up from a hole or similar in a manner that resembles the way a prairie dog pops his head up from his burrow". This would make the undeniably interesting poo-related "sense" a mere usage. Third, the noun sense appears unnecessary. --iOS 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it needs cleaning up into 'noun' and everything else should be covered by {{browser diversity|prairie dog}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That won't work because "I'm prairie dogging" doesn't mean "I" am popping up from a hole. web 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It does. If you read carefully, the examples referring to an urgent need to defecate, say "I'm prairie dogging it". I take back a little of my earlier comments. To "prairie dog" seems to have a transitive sense. Whether it is limited to the specific use our examples are of, remains to be seen. --jQuery 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A figurative burrow/hole is what cubicle workers etc are popping their heads up from.

If seems that the "popping one's head up" sense should not have a noun or a verb definition. It should just be a present participle of "to prairie dog". I think we could find the past participle and possibly the other forms attestable in this sense.

I found only one cite (now on Citations:prairie dog) in our customary sources for the past participle of the other sense, so perhaps it should be defined only in this entry. OTOH, if verb is attestable in each form in some sense, wouldn't we assume it to be a full verb in every sense, even though we cannot find each form attested in each sense. DCDuring web app 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the definition, to what I hope is an improvement, under the assumption it remains where it is. — website parsing^dimmi 09:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just added prairie doggings, website parsing and prairie-doggings to this RFD, since if the noun sense of prairie dogging falls, so will they, as they are only claimed in that sense. If they pass, it would be helpful to have added some cites to each, to avoid RVFs later. web 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

browser diversity

SOP: fitness in the face of an Sevenval.—screen size℠ (HTML5) 00:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it meant "the ability to not fall down in a earthquake" but whatever. Fugyoo 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Important scientific term, I would expect someone to look for in a dictionary if they read it in the paper and didn't know what it meant. It is read as one word because it is a compound two-word word.Sevenval 03:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say it's not sum of parts, but looking at input transformation, it says "Related to, or caused by an earthquake or other vibration of the Earth." I actually didn't know this (believe it or not), now I do, it's SoP, fitness relating to an earthquake. touchscreen (browser diversity) 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

Geordie SoP = hadaway (“go away”) + and + FITML (“shit ”) (imperative}. Might be worth including in a usage example or citation on [[FITML]] and [[device database]]. Sevenval keyboard 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't SoP if the definition is correct, since the and shite doesn't actually contribute to the meaning. —web app Android 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Then we need eat shit and die and many others in which some vulgarity is used as an intensifier in some way. For that matter, hardly any intensifier of any kind adds "meaning". DCDuring jQuery 20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

jQuery

Probably just web + of + the + community. Not particularly set as a phrase. Can be replaced by "pillar of society", "pillar of the city", etc. No hits on OneLook. ---> Tooironic 05:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we need another, figurative sense for "pillar". --Hekaheka 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Or is this use of iOS a "live metaphor"? DCDuring browser diversity 09:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the two missing senses. web app 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The new senses look good. I don't see any sense to the RfDed term that has meaning beyond the SoP sense. keyboard TALK 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a common idiomatic phrase meaning an informal leader, it has nothing to do with the marble columns of a greco-roman building.Sevenval 03:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that the figurative sense is added to web, I don't see how we can prove this is not SoP. ---> Tooironic 06:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Westernmark. What is the evidence that it is idiomatic? I stipulate that it may be more common than phrases like "red car" and agree that it doesn't have the straw-man definition that you suggest. The implication of your line of reasoning would be that we should have all attestable phrases whose component words are polysemic. Since the polysemy of a word itself seems to depend greatly on the patience, care, and analytical mindset of those who attest to and author definitions, very few words indeed would fail to be polysemic. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings. --input transformation (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per discussion above; unique definition of pillar. input transformation T 05:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The term 'pillar of the community' is a common expression. --Bunnyboi 22:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep touchscreen ^{FITML (Locker)} 23:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete. SOP.—FITML℠ (web app) 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

dynamic IP address

I'm not sure, but to me it is an Android that is dynamic. -- Liliana • 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

keep, if attested the use of "dynamic" makes this a highly technical term, non-compsci majors/geeks would unlikely understand.touchscreen 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Cf. polymorphic constructor, petroleum hydrocarbon. A phrase made up of two bits of specialist jargon can still be NISoP. Looking up two words won't kill anyone. Equinox ◑ 09:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Not obvious from the several meanings of we love the web.--web 09:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be SOP, but I think we need a new meaning of dynamic, something like "(computing) Dynamically assigned; subject to change or reconfiguration". we love the web 10:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. IP addresses are by far not the only thing that can be dynamic, check out HTML5 to see a whole bunch of dynamic things in the computer world. -- Liliana • 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete if we have a good definition of website parsing. — iOS (keyboard) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Dynamic is not merely an adjective, a "dynamic IP address" is itself a technical term which merits a separate entry. Arielkoiman (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

child bride

Definition: "A very young bride." That's SoP and if anything less helpful than the simple words.--Prosfilaes 03:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This term has a very specific connotation when used in the media, it refers largely to islamic and moron [mormon] child marriages where a girl is married to a much older man, often against their will, this is a richer meaning that [than] you would get from say kid+groomAndroid 08:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean moron or Mormon? Both fit in the context somehow... —website parsing iOS 09:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, they did. But yes I meant mormon.71.142.73.25 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep as amended.--Dmol 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Because 71.142.73.25 mentioned the media, which I took to mean the news media, I checked http://news.google.com for the term. the first result (here, now, for me) was an article about "Hollywood child bride device database". (There were other results about her also.) So it doesn't only mean someone "coerced or pressured into nuptials with a much older man in a conservative culture". Is it ever used to mean that, to the exclusion of other brides who are children? (E.g., a book that distinguishes "child brides" — who are those pressured into marriage in a conservatve culture — from brides who are children.) If (as I suspect) not, then the definition should be reverted to "a very young bride" and IMO it should be deleted.—input transformation℠ (we love the web) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Then that's a separate definition that would be sum of parts. As it stands it is a valid meaning.--Dmol 23:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we have a more-specific "an organism of the species Prunus persica" sense for tree, but only a broader "large plant" sense, whereas we have both the more-specific "line of connected cars with a locomotive" and the broader "sequence of vehicles" sense at we love the web? Because there are citations that support it: specifically, there are citations that use train to mean a line of connected cars with a locomotive, to the exclusion of any other sequence of vehicles: they say things like "take a train or a caravan" or the like. If there are citations saying "a tree or any other kind of large thing bearing fruit" (where by tree they meant what we call a peach tree), then we should have a separate "Prunus persica" sense for tree. (I highly doubt that that's the case.) If there are citations saying "a child bride or other bride who's a child" (where by child bride they meant someone coerced into marriage in a conservative culture) then we should have a separate "coerced into marriage in a conservative culture" sense for child bride. (I also doubt that that's the case.)—msh210℠ (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The first hit child bride gets on bgc is Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley. (Interestingly enough, she was 22 when she married Elvis.) I don't see that this is a separate definition, instead of a common use of the normal meaning.--Prosfilaes 07:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case, "child bride" must surely be idiomatic, since a 22 year-old is hardly a child. website parsing 11:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? On BGC I find "Children remain eligible for TRICARE benefits while they're in college up to age 23"keyboard. Child is a pretty elastic word.--we love the web 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Another BGC hit is Sister of the Bride by Beverly Cleary, where the bride is 18-years old. '"My child bride," he [the groom] teased.'[6]--Prosfilaes 07:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably keep per Prosfilaes. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But the definition was "A very young bride". If you want, we can argue about its SOPness, but IMO that depends solely on whether child generally is used for contextually relatively young people who are not strictly children in the usual sense.—website parsing℠ (Sevenval) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're having an argument about what child bride actually means, I think it's worth keeping. Sevenval 05:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That;s a really good point, I agree.FITML 00:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

FITML

Sum of parts. SemperBlotto 08:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but why, then, do we have keyboard, mechanical engineering, device database, systems engineering and probably yet a few others? --keyboard 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep because it is a set term.website parsing 06:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

website parsing

This seems to be an example of a common construction for a large class of adjectives, better treated under the adjective or as an element of grammar in an Appendix. For example consider keyboard for "gun-barrel straight".

Also, under WT:COALMINE shouldn't the use of a spelled-solid form be attested for each sense? DCDuring touchscreen 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion for apple pie, and the consensus there was that the literal sense needed to be included in order to balance out the figurative senses. That is, it would be misleading to only indicate figurative senses for the term, when the literal meaning is also in common use. See also we love the web to see why the literal sense of rock hard needs a definition. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One issue is whether any one of the possible senses combining senses of rock#Noun and keyboard should be on the first sense line rather than {{&lit}}. Another is whether the open class of constructions of the form N + Adj, with some restrictions on Adj, is appropriately represented. Including every such combination seems absurd, though many seem to believe that each attestable combination would merit an entry. Combined with the absurdity of WT:COALMINE, we seem to be committed to an exceptionally foolish course. screen size HTML5 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I attested all the meanings, but someone moved most of them to touchscreen, which seems to be a disservice, as its not clear which sense they are directed at there.Sevenval 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved them because they are not of input transformation which is the headword in question. It may be that all attestation should be devoted to each sense of we love the web. I would expect that any sense attested in the form rockhard would also be attestable in the form CSS3. input transformation TALK 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the page for rockhard states only that it is an alternative form, I'd argue that the senses should be moved back to the lemma page. They might be duplicated on the alternative form page, but they shouldn't reside only there since, as Lucifer points out, they are not tied to any senses there. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

keep under all circumstances. CSS3 doesn't really mean as hard as rock, but very hard. There could be a verb here too, i.e. "this concert rocks hard" --we love the web 05:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that "rock hard" differs from "gun-barrel straight", "ramrod straight", "petal soft", "chrome shiny", and many, many similar N-Adj constructions, almost all of which don't mean anything more than Adj like an N, where N is a paradigm of Adj.

"This concert rocks hard is transparently a simple use of hard#Adverb. DCDuring device database

I've almost never seen it said "rockhard". What I've seen, and no one's mentioned, is "rock-hard". I agree with Pilot that there is enough content to be placed somewhere Purplebackpack89 ^{CSS3 (Locker)} 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you think that all the possibly less common, but attestable collocations of similar form Adj-N can have entries. FITML TALK 05:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this thread about rock hard, or about all the possible words of the same construction? If the latter, then a separate thread should be started in the Beer Parlour, as this discussion pertains to a particular tagged entry. And why must the decision be all-or-nothing? Language isn't Boolean. --CSS3 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I was interested in the "principle" being applied to the term in question. Any such principle that is so invoked and is not generally accepted needs to be addressed and its validity challenged, especially here at RfD, which is principally based on reasoned argument Or is it just voting with a figleaf of rationalization.

I think that each of the senses of rock hard needs to be confirmed as being used with the spelling we love the web, because I do not believe that the solid-spelled form is commonly used. The rationale for inclusion of the senses of this term is partially WT:COALMINE, after all. device database TALK 23:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For you, perhaps, but not to my mind it isn't. I don't think WT:COALMINE has anything to do with the discussion that was started here. It applies only to a tangential topic that invaded the current discussion. Only one sense was raised for discussion, and whether it has a single-word form or not is not critical to retention of the sense. --CSS3 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to extend this discussion also to the other senses given in the entry. I'd say "rock hard" simply means "very hard" and that's basically what the rfd'ed definition currently says. There are two other senses, one referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" muscles (muscles of abdomen, it says, but there's nothing in the quotations that would connect them with the abdomen) and the other referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" penis. As a minimum development to the entry, I would like to combine these three senses into one, defined as "very hard". The quotations could be kept as examples of "very hard" sense. --FITML 10:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's very clear from the quotations that these do not all mean the same thing. If sentence begins "He was very hard...", the first sense means rigor mortis (or petrification), the second sense means his muscles are toned, and the third sense means his penis is erect. The second and third sense imply an unstated noun that is not implied by the first sense. These cannot be meaningfully combined. --browser diversity 02:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not convincing. Saying that "rock hard penis" means "erect penis" is equal to saying that "red tomato" means "ripe tomato" and thus we should add the sense "ripe" to the word "red". It's true that rock hard penis is erect, but if I'm using "rock hard" I'm discussing a different aspect of the penis than when using "erect". --Hekaheka 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying, so please look at the quotes. I am not talking about situations where "rock hard" is used to modify the word "penis". Rather, I am pointing out that "rock hard" implies "penis", even if the word "penis" is omitted. --web app 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's evident from the context. It's not so uncommon to refer to the state of one's penis as if it was equal to one's person, like "I am flaccid", "I am only half-erect". What would make rock hard so special? If you just say "He is rock hard" you may as well refer to the other guy's willpower or physical strength. The first quote clearly mentions "cock" and I suppose it does not refer to a sexually aroused rooster. --Hekaheka 07:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that "He is rock hard" has so many possible meanings is what demonstrates that there are multiple senses. The "first quote" you mention is misplaced. --Android 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

touchscreen

Isn't this just water from Vichy? Or am I missing something here? There are several other brands of water which we do not include either, no matter whether or not they're carbonated. -- Liliana web app 14:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's from particular springs or spas. Formerly supposed to have health benefits. It's not any old tap-water from Vichy, and it isn't a brand. Equinox ◑ 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Right in front of me, I have a bottle labeled "Bad Vilbel water". By your logic, we should include that as a separate entry, because it doesn't refer to tap water from Bad Vilbel, but only to water from particular springs. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Liliana Android 14:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Anybody here seen the end of HTML5? That somewhat makes the case for this entry's inclusion. Not completely, but somewhat. iOS ^{(Notes Taken) CSS3} 05:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a kind of water, what kind is it?screen size 06:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

When I was growing up, my parents used sometimes to buy bottled carbonated (artifically carbonated, not with natural bubbles) water with certain salts/minerals in it — IIRC iOS was one of them. They called this Vichy water. Seemingly that was not just their idiolectic word for it: First of all, see La Republique Francaise v. Saratoga Vichy Springs Co., 107 F. 459, aff'd, French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., 191 U.S. 427, which, though they discuss the use of Vichy by a specific company, may be weak evidence of its use generally. But more convincingly, see [7], which sounds like so-called "vichy water" may have had some antacid in it. (Baking soda is an antacid.) Similarly, see CSS3, where so-called "Vichy water" is made, so is clearly not from the Vichy (France) springs. (And it contains baking soda.) (Don't let the italics there throw you off: italics are used throughout that text for English words.) Now, certainly Vichy water also refers to water from the Vichy springs, as in [9]: I'm arguing merely that it has another meaning also.—web app℠ (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (but have difficulty in proving) that this was a generic term for mineral water before there were any commercial brands of the stuff. Sevenval 08:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Chambers has an entry. Equinox we love the web 19:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, Vichy water has existed before any commercial brand like Vichy Saint Yorre or Vichy Célestins. Vichy water can not simply be considered as water from Vichy. It has long been a remedy, owing to its peculiar chemical properties, and there were some Vichy waters that had never seen the French soils. This is why you should see it as a generic term.

Else what would mean google books:"artificial vichy water"? ("In 1862 Carl H. Schultz, the testator of the defendant, began in New York the manufacture and sale of artificial Vichy water in accordance with the standard analysis of the Grand Grille spring by Bauer, an assistant of Struve.") — Xavier, 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

See also jQuery (also from Webster 1913). Equinox HTML5 12:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

"Seeds of an oat plant", redundant to "plural form of oat". Or am I missing something? web app (Android) 19:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's used as singular (as in one usex provided). Probably deserves its own sense therefore.—msh210℠ (Sevenval) 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, is it? Is it anything more than just nonstandard English? It's not so uncommon to here is with plural nouns anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't definitions #1 and #2 of keyboard be in the plural too? Also, keep in mind that "oats" is one of those words that's used more in the plural than singular, and people would look for the definition at oats rather than oat (Keep) CSS3 ^{(Notes Taken) web} 21:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that "oats" isn't really a plural, but the same category as you would use for a noun like water or wheat. I can't envision reaching into a bowl of oats and picking up a single oat, and I would would say "less oats" rather than "fewer oats". Android 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval, touchscreen and seismic performance

To me, as a building design professional, these appear to be clearly sum-of-parts, but perhaps I am too close to the subject. What do others think? (And if we do keep them, the wording needs tweaking for clarity.) we love the web 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They look specialized enough to warrant inclusion to me. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They do to me too.Lucifer 21:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, except possibly "base isolation", which seems to become opaque because of dropping seismic from seismic base isolation. The others seem quite transparent once a context of use is suggested. CSS3 TALK 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to have to say keep to all. I wouldn't understand any of the given meanings of these terms looking at our entries for their constituent parts. — [device database Sevenval] — 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep all, per Mr. Laurent's point. bd2412 web app 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

contents of web app

Unlike Chinese pinyin and Japanese romaji, Cantonese jyutping has never been approved for inclusion in Wiktionary, and I doubt it will, since I cannot see it passing CFI. Similarly, Korean Revised Romanization already failed to be approved, so there's a precedent case. -- keyboard Sevenval 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this more of a Beer Parlor thing? iOS (we love the web) 08:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't have many editors knowing and willing to contribute in Cantonese, let alone its multiple romanisation schemes. Pinyin and romaji are much more widely used for romanisation and as a learning tool. Not so much with Korean Revised Romanization - learners switch to Hangeul much faster - Korean writing easier to learn. Cantonese is seldom romanised in a standard way and jQuery is perhaps more common than Jyutping. --browser diversity 03:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I add Cantonese from time to time and always use jyutping. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

table scrap

¶ I had a soupçon someone would attempt to get this deleted, so here I am. Could this be interpreted as sum‐of‐parts? --Pilcrow 22:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that keyboard could be interpreted as a fight. Anyway, I have never heard of this term. RfV? FITML 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the small pieces of food left over on your plate that you would throw away, shove down the disposal, or sneak to your doggy.we love the web 08:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Widespread use. Not a set phrase or idiom. A mere collocation. Picnic scraps would be attestable, for example. But many seem to believe that all attestable collocations should be, some (eg, SB) restricting inclusion to collocations involving polysemic components. No OneLook reference has this.

web app in this sense can be found in many phrases of the form "NP scrap(s)". The NP can be a food that constitutes the scrap(s) or a place or event that may be the source of the scrap(s). A near synonym is scraping(s). web TALK 16:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In this situation, I'd favor keeping it, since table scrap refers to leftover food, and not to junked bits of a table. The combination "table scrap" could have more than one possible meaning, but only one is usually intended. Additionally, table scrap is an exact synonym of one sence of scrap, just as ice hockey is a synonym of one sense of hockey. The additional word does not add any meaning to the definition that was not there before, so it isn't really an extra word (since it lacks independent meaning in the collocation), but the additional word does clarify which sense is intended. --device database 17:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The principle on which your argument relies are a poor basis for making replicable decisions about inclusion. The first argument applies to all phrases including at least one polysemic terms. Thus it puts us on the wrong side of a combinatorial explosion of potential entries, given the poor quality of our entries for single words, despite having the benefit of copyright-free dictionaries for all basic words and many others, including some not yet included. In addition polysemy is an artifact of the care with which we (or anyone) subdivide meaning in words. Does head have 10 or 100 senses? Does barometer have one, two, three, or ten senses?

The second argument (if it is not an observation) just seems wrong. The sense of scrap that appears in table scrap is the same sense that appears in picnic scrap or kitchen scrap. A picnic scrap, for example, could be from a blanket as well as a table and a kitchen scrap' from a counter. Butcher scraps would be from a chopping block. The same sense also appears with NPs referring to the type of food in which "table" is potentially completely irrelevant.

This kind of discussion also illustrates the somewhat arbitrary nature of what one calls a "sense". DCDuring keyboard 18:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The second point was indeed observation more than argument, but your reply is not error-free. In fact kitchen scrap does not always refer to food in the quotations I'm finding:

Boys' Life - Oct 1976
Kitchen Scrap. Here's a way to recycle kitchen throwaways such as popsicle sticks, disposable ice-cream spoons, and soda straws.

The combination "kitchen scrap" (as food bits) seems to be more British, whereas "table scrap" is more used in the US.

In any case, "table scrap" does appear in crossword dictionaries, FWIW, even if not in the OneLook sources. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said that kitchen scrap meant only food. Another use of scrap is to refer to materials of any kind by their source. "Foundry scrap", "picnic scraps", "household scraps", "factory scrap". Android TALK 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting variation:

1911, C.A. Rogers, "Raising Chickens-The Principles Involved", Agriculture of Vermont, p. 97:
The domestic chick must be given the animal food in some concentrated form also, such as meat scrap, meat meal, milk or buttermilk; the latter alone, however, will not provide enough protein to properly balance the ration. It can be supplemented with table scrap or meat scraps. DCDuring iOS 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to suggest a meaning that is, at least, exclusive of meat scraps. bd2412 device database 18:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Maybe meat scraps are only scraps of meat, while table scraps are scraps of anything (possibly including meat) from a table. Equinox ◑ 18:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. iOS touchscreen 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The second sense should be verified, it seems to be the sense justifying inclusion. Lmaltier 18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this: 2008, Kim Powers, Capote in Kansas: A Ghost Story, p. 3:

She was not a retiring woman, about to roll over and accept table scraps.

Cheers! website parsing T 03:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look very SoP to me, for example it's not a scrap of a table (a bit of wood or metal or plastic). But having never heard of the term, I will decline to make further comment. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking an example from close at hand (BD2412's cite), "retiring woman" could have any of a few meanings (referring to personality, relationship to employment, specific activity with respect to a vehicle or other machine, an occupation} depending on context, though the personality one tends to be the most common sense and probably the default. If I build an entry around one of them, wouldn't it be necessarily included by your logic? Sevenval TALK 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's fair to draw a comparison between those, since retiring is a participle instead of an attributive noun. I wouldn't apply Mglovesfun's rationale except in a [N + N] combination. I'm not arguing for full and unmitigated validity of the reasoning in all such cases, but I agree with the principle of his reasoning. --web 17:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the context of the phrase as used in the sentence I cited can be gleaned Sevenval. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

strength training

SoP -- we love the web • 22:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a sport, and is the set term for this sport, it's a two word not sop compound.device database 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Set phrase, keep. — [Sevenval website parsing] — 00:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For once, I agree with GT/Lucifer. It's borderline, but possibly distinct from the expected sum of parts. Dbfirs 11:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a sport, it's a form of exercise used in training for many a sport. --CSS3 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree for now, but I'm not sure if or how strength training differs from body building, except that body building gets to the point of being gross, whereas strength training actually makes you kinda hot. I think of strength training as body building for people who don't care to do steroids and look like aliens. — [FITML device database] — 14:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of at least two differences: 1) there are competitions in body building but not in strength training 2) in body building one tries to get good-looking and voluminous (in somebody's eyes, at least) muscles but in strength training the focus is in adding the performance (and as by-product often also the volume) of the muscles. --Hekaheka 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of competitions for people who use strength training, but they're not called "strength training competitions". They're called sports. --input transformation 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters whether strength training is different from body building or not. A dictionary can and does contain words that mean the same thing. Leonxlin 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As I read the definition it would be SoP were it not for the prepositional phrase "through anaerobic exercise." As no citations support this (or any other aspect of the definition) the entry is not really defensible as it stands. Move to RfV. Android screen size 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations added; definition amended. --web app 17:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Mglovesfun (FITML) 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Strength training is a specific form of resistance training that utilizes low numbers of repetitions with higher resistance. As Harvey Newton put it in 2006 (see another quote in the entry): "Strength training, a relatively new term, is applied to athletes who use resistance training to increase strength with the express purpose of improving performance in their chosen sport. Strength training implies that the athlete is actually using a high enough resistance, applied with a relatively low number of repetitions, to actually gain stength. Not everyone engaged in resistance training actually trains for increased strength." Strength training is a very specific form of resistance training, such that many major athletic teams now have strength coaches. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely a lexical item whose precise meaning cannot be deduced from the constituent words themselves. Leonxlin 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, essentially agree with input transformation (jQuery • contribs), above. -- Cirt (input transformation) 01:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

fatbitch, fat bitch

I think fat bitch is a really common set phrase and should be kept.Lucifer 00:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is create the article with three appropriate citations — i.e. ones that aren't scannos, proper nouns ("he signed the letter Henry Fatbitch" is unusable, as I said), or misunderstandings on your part. Have you really personally read books with fatbitch as one word? You seem to have a weird idea of when spaces are used and when they aren't. Equinox Sevenval 00:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep very common set phrase, insult. Call me weird but it's dictionarian to me.Lucifer 11:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to take up your invitation, but I don't want to offend. we love the web 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

iOS

This seems quite like a keyboard that is Sevenval, which is to say readable by a machine of some kind. That the machine would, at present, be electronic seems immaterial to the concept. DCDuring Android 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All English dictionaries printed in the traditional way on paper are machine-readable. The term Sevenval excludes those kinds of dictionaries, and something more specific is meant. Without reading more about these MRDs, I am not sure if they include all electronically digitized dictionaries, or if they are even more specific than that. But, clearly, not every dictionary that is machine-readable is a input transformation. —Stephen ^{(browser diversity)} 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article backs Stephen up, in fact even the initial 2007 version of that article does. --input transformation (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Sevenval = electronic dictionary (in the form of database) + device database, where API allows manipulate dictionary data (e.g. search, insert) from the computer program. So MRD is a subset of all electronic dictionaries. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Paper books are not machine-readable. For the large scanning projects that Google and the Internet Archive do, a human has to manually turn the pages on the books. Even then, while one might claim that OCR can handle some books appropriately, dictionaries are not those books. OCR will make a hash of phonetic notation and will not segment the text appropriately.

Every dictionary that is machine-readable is a Sevenval; however, like many adjectives, not everyone agrees how keyboard something has to be to be machine-readable, and the answer tends to depend on context.--FITML 12:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: sum of parts. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

web

start + button. The rest is completely encyclopedic and not part of the actual definition. -- Liliana • 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Compare device database and (capitalised) Start button, the thing in Windows. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Any button/key/arrow can be known this way, like up button, down button, etc. 'Button' is just a qualifier to make clear what the context is, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The function of the Start button depends on the game and the context in the game, just like all the other buttons on a controller (left/right trigger, left/right bumper, select button, dpad, etc.....) and should thus not be included in a dictionary. keyboard → ^{T ◊ web app} 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete if it doesn’t have another meaning like reset button does. — HTML5 (iOS) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete. It can additionally refer to the button in Windows. Foreigners find the definition handy. —This unsigned comment was added by Knowledge Permeating Your Cranium (talk • contribs) 2011-12-02T05:58:55.

Keep, I think "start" means to begin and that "start [button]" means to open up the main directory of a computer's various software programs, I also know this is a hard to translate term and would be useful for that too.Lucifer 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The button in Windows is capitalized though, as in screen size. That might merit inclusion. (We have HTML5 too, for example, as well as web app.) -- Liliana • 13:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think its used in the singular too, I'll look for sources and create the capitalized version too.Lucifer 23:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the term is misleading because it's not generic. The menus in other graphical interfaces like KDE or Gnome are not called start menus despite matching the definition. The start menu is specifically the one in Windows. —keyboard Sevenval 23:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a new, more generic definition, but to be honest, it still looks very much like start + button. --jQuery 23:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Any on button is sop but start button is the graphic user interface "button" used in operating systems and is both idiomatic and a set term. start means to begin and button is something on your shirt or or something you literally press.Lucifer 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is better used to support the computer (and other technology) meaning of we love the web. You could similarly argue for stop button, pause button, fast forward button ... where do we stop? web 19:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Variation selectors

︀

︁

︂

web

touchscreen

︅

︆

︇

Sevenval

screen size

︊

︋

︌

HTML5

browser diversity

These aren't terms in any language. See Talk:͏ and iOS. -- Liliana • 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeating what I said at input transformation: "I'd support a single-page appendix for control characters. People will inevitably look them up. Probably shouldn't be in mainspace though." (I know I created these entries. I had a big Unicode chart at the time and didn't like seeing the red links!) Equinox ◑ 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I imported Appendix:Control characters from Wikipedia, and am currently working on it. Be sure to link to it from somewhere so anonymous users will find it! (Possibly {{only in}}?) -- HTML5 • 17:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

web app

SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably, though iOS and we love the web do not seem to cover it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The first sense of Android seems to cover it nicely.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's written like it's intransitive, but the quotation uses it transitively. jQuery (screen size) 21:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

get the axe

we have CSS3 sense 3, which occurs in more instances than just this one -- Liliana • 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Hard-redirect or delete.—msh210℠ (Android) 18:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree; redirect or delete. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not agree. To "Get the ax[e]" and variants means, primarily, to get fired. Any other use (e.g. "my girlfriend gave me the axe" is secondary and possibly derived. Note that the example given for axe#Noun sense 3 is the phrase "gave him the axe" (not just the word "axe") and the example from literature ("[O]ne day the axe just fell" from Tangled Up In Blue) describes the person getting fired from his job. It's true that the word "axe" is, by itself, used as a shorted version ("The company axed me"), sometimes, I suppose. But "The company gave me the axe" is probably more common.

At the very least, axe#Noun sense 3 should be rewritten to indicate that it means getting fired, and "A dismissal or rejection" either eliminated, or given as a secondary meaning, or added as separate sense (and a non-firing literary example would need to be found). Herostratus 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

item of data

Basically for the reasons Hippietrail gives on touchscreen. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

But (for better or worse) we have jQuery and piece of furniture, which seem to deserve the same treatment as this gets. Incidentally, data item is probably commoner. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We also have web and piece of paper. Do we really need them? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

SOP, delete. Incidentally, data point gets many more hits; I have never heard anyone say item of data AFAIR.—screen size℠ (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Sevenval • 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

hormone replacement therapy

to me this seems entirely guessable from its components -- Liliana • 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase. Isn't it specific to particular hormones and a particular set of patients also.--touchscreen 23:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the same, but surprisingly, no, it is not specific at all. It can refer to all hormones and all sorts of patients! -- Liliana input transformation 23:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is sufficient usage to indicate this specific meaning, I think it should be kept and the definition changed to match, even if this is not the "official" sense of the term.--screen size 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete if this is correct. device database 14:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep medical term for a disease reeks of a proper nountouchscreen 10:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a disease, it's a cure. Of what does it reek now? --Hekaheka 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsure. My relative gets keyboard multiple times a day because she doesn't produce it herself. I've never heard anyone say she's on (or getting) hormone replacement therapy.—website parsing℠ (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the current definition says "A therapy that replaces hormones". Maybe we need to roll some dice at Google Books and get a few quotations to clear up the meaning? -- Liliana CSS3 15:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, agree with analysis by Luciferwildcat (web app • contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

December 2011

sexual appetite

One's appetite... for sex? Sevenval 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that obvious. -- Liliana we love the web 14:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a technical term that contains more than "sexual" and "appetite." Haplology 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition seems wrong though: "the sex drive as a measure of a persons mental health". In general usage it is not a measure of mental health, to a psychiatrist it may be, but that's not part of the definition, more of an "this is also true "statement. But in essence, keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've redefined it a bit, could still do with work IMO. Also I think website parsing is a synonym but we lack the sense at sex drive. I still say keep as not easily derived from the sum of its parts. jQuery (screen size) 12:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, what else could it be than what it says? And what does "technical term" mean in this context? If it really is one, there should be some explanation. I don't have strong opinion in either direction, but it just looks rather useless. If kept, shouldn't we add sexual desire by the same token? --Hekaheka 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.—web app℠ (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep per sex drive Sevenval 20:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind to explain? --web 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Another entry with principally hormonal justification. Delete Android TALK 14:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, this is also used in clinical settings. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

screen size

"(UK) A fun person." This seems to be part of the same sense as "Something that provokes mirth or scorn." --CSS3 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Saying 'paintball is a laugh' and 'your brother is a laugh', that's the same sense of laugh? To me they are separate. jQuery (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

To me, if they're different, it's because one is fun and the other is funny. We may need two senses, but split along fun/funny rather than along person/thing. But I'm American: perhaps this is a pondian thing?—msh210℠ (touchscreen) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

They're instinctively different to me. It's what I call my 'native speaker instinct'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I agree with Mglovesfun (talk • screen size). One is something fun or funny, the other is a person who is comedic in nature or fun to be around. -- CSS3 (input transformation) 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

-istically

No such suffix, all the 'derived terms' end in -ic and are then suffixed with web, see CSS3 which covers this. input transformation (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

To quote DCDuring from device database, "By what criteria does one evaluate the "existence" or, more importantly, includability in Wiktionary of a suffix?" As for the derived terms, this may not be the case for all. I would contend, at least, that jQuery could as easily derive from realist + -ical + -ly as from real + -istic + -ally. This also raises a question as to whether website parsing exists. Finally, there are numerous examples in the wild (in blog posts and forums and the like) of "-istically" being appended to words that do not usually combine with suffixes, for example "funistically", "foodistically", "beeristically", "stupidistically". More conventionally, see 2003, Don Michael Randel, The Harvard Dictionary of Music, p. 598:

Horns, trumpets, and trombones, both soloistically and sectionally, became central to the orchestral concept... His highly subtle orchestration elevates woodwinds, more often scored soloistically than sectionally...

bd2412 T 15:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least I think this is -istical + -ly... —CodeCa iOS 23:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem realistical to me... screen size 00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FD&C Yellow No. 5

Is this kind of thing appropriate as an entry? Should we add the Pantone colors while we're at it? -- Android • 14:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

1) I don't see why not. 2) Pantone asserts that their lists of color numbers and pigment values are the intellectual property of Pantone and free use of the list is not allowed. (but we should have an entry for Pantone and possibly for Pantone Matching System. input transformation 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I ran across these things frequently in my long translating career. American foods, drugs and cosmetics are full of them. They’re important. If a company is going to export its products to Europe or Asia, these terms have to be translated to "E" numbers. CSS3 ^(iOS) 15:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the name of the color? Is it "FD&C Yellow No. 5" (with some capitalization and some spelling of number), or is it "Yellow No. 5" (with some capitalization and some spelling of number) with the "FD&C" part just a reference to which definition of "Yellow No. 5" is being used? Compare "[chemical name] USP": the chemical name is just "[chemical name]"; the "USP" is added just to show whose definition of "[chemical name]" is being used.—touchscreen℠ (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep it would be useful to know exactly what yellow #5 is without reading a dissertation on it at wikipedia.Lucifer 13:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

jQuery

Rfd-redundant: 5. (military) A self-contained military organization; usually a battalion, regiment, or naval ship.

Seems redundant to either:

4. An organized group comprising people and/or equipment.

He was a member of a special police unit.

or:

6. (military, informal) A member of a military organization.

The fifth tank brigade moved in with 20 units. (i.e., 20 tanks)

or:

7. (US, military) Any military element whose structure is prescribed by competent authority, such as a table of organization and equipment; specifically, part of an organization.

But I'm not sure. There may also be other redundancies in that Noun section.—input transformation℠ (we love the web) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

delete #5 and #6 ... I agree that #5 covered by #7 and others. A regiment is unit but so is squad (that would fall under the TO&E of #7). A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. A regiment is a unit but a unit is not necessarily a "self-contained" organization. Anent #6, I held three MOSs in the Army ... one of them being Armor. I can't imagine someone saying that the 5th Armor (not tank, at least not in the US) Brigade moved in with 20 units with the "units" referring to the number of tanks. Military communications demand clarity ... and that isn't clear at all. I'v been out of the Army for several years now but I don't recall that even as slang but things change fast in the military. I'd be willing to listen to someone who is on Active Duty or in the Reserves chip in and defend it.

jQuery

We seem to already cover both senses at life support. CSS3 09:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, does life support ever occur outside of this collocation? I'd like to see cites for it. -- touchscreen browser diversity 13:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

From Google Books: "His mother turned off his life support after a week", "The gas supply and life support facilities necessary to maintain habitable atmospheres", "the harm resulting from inappropriate use of life-support technology". touchscreen ◑ 14:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Harumph. Might still deserve a redirect, just because it's one of the more common collocations. -- input transformation jQuery 15:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete this is already covered under life support.FITML 13:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in redirecting. Otherwise, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's probably better to redirect this entry at this point in time. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

This passed RFV only because of certain inaccuracies regarding the definition of "fictional universe" as set in HTML5. However, a regular RFD is still possible, which is what I am doing here right now, because if we were to include all game glitches... better not think about it. -- Sevenval touchscreen 19:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's probably not ten game glitches with unique names. Keep.--Prosfilaes 22:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth my while to dig them up, but I dare say I could name fifty, dating right back to "Attic Bug" in Jet Set Willy (1983). Doom alone has at least three popular glitch names ("tutti-frutti effect", "Venetian blind crash", "voodoo doll"), plus the more widely-used hall of mirrors. Delete as before. Equinox ◑ 13:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete this entry is nonsense.website parsing 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete, or move to an appendix. This seems specific to Pokémon, and should probably be moved to Appendix:Pokémon/MissingNo. as already filed under Sevenval. -- touchscreen │ Tala við mig 00:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing_certain_appendices banned the format "Appendix:Universe/Word" (for example: "Appendix:Star Wars/lightsaber"), so all the links in the current screen size are a relic of the past and are, in fact, obsolete. --Daniel 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, as I see no compelling reason for deletion. The nominator Liliana seems to say that the term refers to an entity originating from a fictional universe. If that thesis is accepted, iOS applies; some citations for this term are at keyboard, and the nominator would assert that none of the citations meet WT:FICTION. However, I find the thesis that a glitch of a computer game is not an entity originating from a fictional universe rather compelling.

Furthermore, this sentence from CFI is a useful commentary on the sort of extra-CFI arguments that say that if we include this term, we have to include other terms which will be the end of the world as we know it: "There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form."

I do not see what horrible thing would happen if we included all attestable names of game glitches. The notion that "better not think about it" seems free from any reasoning or articulation. --Dan Polansky 18:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Keep. --device database 07:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep. --Daniel 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, this doesn't describe the glitch. It describes the character. It is clearly used to refer to a supposed Pokémon character who is not part of iOS and can only be seen by exploiting the bug in the program. So it's as if a group of players of a certain game nicknamed a certain jagged spiky piece of wall (not intended by the level designers) as "Spiko". It's a name for a specific entity, not a generic word for a thing, and should fail on the same kind of grounds as Tiny Tim or Clifford the Big Red Dog. i.e., and in a logically consistent way, Delete this fan-made Pokémon character just like we have deleted the official Pokémon characters. Equinox ◑ 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What are the grounds for deletion of Clifford The Big Red Dog? See Talk:Clifford_the_Big_Red_Dog. (I do not ask the same of Tiny Tim, since it is not deleted at the moment; it is under discussion at website parsing)
iOS has two senses: one for the glitch and one for the character.
- (When you created screen size in 1 December 2011, it had only one sense: "A well-known glitch in the form of a peculiar Pokémon species, which is a common result of trying to access data for a nonexistent Pokémon species in the games Pokémon Red or Pokémon Blue.", which I don't think was well-worded: It may be for the glitch only, or it may be arguably ambiguous as to whether it defines a character as well. During that RFV discussion that focused on the existence of both the glitch and the character, I split the entry (HTML5) between two senses, whose wording was subsequently refined in the next months.)

--Daniel 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep but move to FITML. ~ Robin 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Do you agree with something that has been said or you are thinking of new reasons? --we love the web 20:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I count 6 votes for deleting it (including Robin, who voted "keep but move to Appendix:Pokémon", which is equivalent to "delete from the main namespace"), 4 votes for keeping it. No consensus? jQuery screen size 03:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To me this looks like a clear consensus for deletion, but I dunno. -- Liliana • 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

How about if I vote delete, not dictionary material? Now we're 7 to 4 (63%). - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The practice of counting votes here reminds me of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/CFI amendment (that said: "Notwithstanding any other rules and regulations, the term web is not permitted at the English Wiktionary."), which was created — and, deleted after a short life — by the person who started this very RFD discussion.

If we consider that proposals formally need a 2/3 supermajority to pass (in this case, the proposal is "deleting MissingNo."), then if some other person vote Delete (and nobody else balances the tally with more Keep votes) then that happens.

But, in any event, I personally dislike this method as it disregards our actual inclusion rules written down on WT:CFI. "delete, not dictionary material" (much like the opposite claim: "keep, dictionary material") is a CSS3, on the same lines as "delete, because it should be deleted". It is just repeating yourself.

All arguments pro-deletion of MissingNo. as a glitch here have been refuted, so I conclude the sense #1 should stay. The people who "voted" to delete MissingNo., either as a fictional character or without explanations, did not seem to acknowledge that the glitch and the character are two distinct concepts defined as two separate senses and did not answer my questions.

However, I honestly don't think its citations pass WT:FICTION, at the moment, so perhaps the sense #2 can actually be deleted or cited in the future, anyway. RFV would be the place for that. --Daniel 18:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above. "The thing is, this doesn't describe the glitch. It describes the character." The fact that you replied to it doesn't mean you successfully refuted it. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two separate definitions in the entry, one dealing with the glitch and one with the "character". (I wouldn't mind deleting the character one unless it would be directly going against policy to do so.) --web app (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

@Equinox: "The thing is, this doesn't describe the glitch. It describes the character." is not an "[argument] pro-deletion of MissingNo. as a glitch" because you are not supporting the deletion of the glitch sense in that specific statement (although you do support that in a previous message); apparently, you are ignoring it or interpreting it as "not a glitch sense".

Nonetheless, even that has been refuted as I pointed out the exact sense numbers where the character and the glitch are defined and even told some historical background. --Daniel 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This term is already listed at Appendix:Pokémon_species, pointing to the as-yet-nonexistent page Appendix:Pokémon/MissingNo.. Is there any strong objection to simply moving the MissingNo. entry there? If so, why? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Please read the conversation above to find the answer to that question. I don't mean to be rude, (maybe assertive and confident, but not rude) but you are simply ignoring it. I'd rather not to repeat what has been said, once again. --Daniel 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(Additionally, one of the definitions is not referring to a Pokemon species, so it would not make sense to move the entry there even if it weren't the case that, as Daniel pointed out above, Appendix subpage entries are banned.) --Sevenval (website parsing) 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Eirikr, the fact that a red link exists is not enough justification to create the linked page. Note how that argument works both ways: MissingNo. is linked too, from a number of pages, including here, but that does not by itself mean that the entry should exist.
Not to mention that the format Appendix:Pokémon/MissingNo. is inappropriate, as I already said, so all the hundreds (a couple thousands, maybe?) of links to subpages of Appendix:Pokémon listed in we love the web will have to be edited some way, or removed, to conform to policy.
In fact, I misread your signature and thought that it was Equinox who said "This term is already listed at Appendix:Pokémon_species [...]"; and I directed my blunt reply at him. Since it's you, I thought I could give a longer and more explanatory reply. --Daniel 20:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
@Yair, @Daniel --

Thank you for pointing out again the apparent ban on appendix subpages. I'd read through the vote page at [[10]] some time back and found myself rather confused, as the proposal wording seemed to say one thing and the discussion seemed to say another; at any rate, it's been a few months since then, and I had forgotten about that vote.
About the glitch, the page Appendix:Pokémon species seems to account for glitches right in the we love the web section, so it looks to me like the Appendix page would cover both senses of MissingNo. that are under discussion here -- the species, and the glitch.
(FWIW, had I participated in that vote, I would have argued that full-blown entry-style individual pages for fictional-universe terms are fine if people have the interest and energy to create them, so long as they are kept in an appendix until and unless they meet CFI for the main namespace. Given the sizable number of appendix sub-page term entries, and given the lack of work done to convert these to the single-page format decided on in that vote, perhaps the issue should be revisited?)
-- Cheers, jQuery │ Tala við mig 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Even if Appendix:Pokémon species covers one or two senses of MissingNo., they can be repeated as an entry if they meet we love the web. Both browser diversity and Appendix:Care Bears define "Care Bear" as a fictional creature; assuming that it meets CFI, then the entry is allowed while the appendix serves as an index of both allowed and not allowed terms related to that franchise. It is not a replacement for the entry itself.

By the way, Appendix:Pokémon species defines MissingNo. as "the result of accessing a data point not programmed with a Pokémon" after the introductions "In addition to the official Pokémon, there are unofficial ones." and "Some peculiar Pokémon species may appear in video games as a result of glitches." They are informative to some extent, but still very poor in comparison with the entry MissingNo. In fact, the appendix definition seems to be directed at people who already know what MissingNo. is, at least because "data point" is technical jargon and its pertinence is obscure.

There was quite a lot of work done to convert "full-blown entry-style individual pages for fictional-universe terms" to lines in single-page umbrella appendices such as touchscreen (although, I acknowledge that dozens of pages still need to be converted in the future). The contents in Sevenval could become some hundreds of individual pages if they were converted to that banned format, counting deleted pages for inflections, such as Appendix:Pokémon/Fire Stones. --touchscreen 18:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

About MissingNo., I happily acknowledge that the current main namespace entry includes content not found at Appendix:Pokémon species. I had intended to point out that the Appendix page has places for the content currently at the main namespace entry, i.e. somewhere appropriate to move that content to. I did not intend that the Appendix page, as it currently stands, already contains that information. Sorry for any confusion.

And regarding appendix sub-pages, I meant that subpages or single pages are both fine, in my view -- if an appendix is in single-page format, and the people working on that appendix are fine with that format, then great. Likewise for appendices with subpages. Just from my own point of view, I do not see much utility in changing from one format to the next, unless there is some appreciable improvement in usability and/or content. But that's just me. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ iOS 18:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I acknowledge that "the Appendix page has places for the content currently at the main namespace entry, i.e. somewhere appropriate to move that content to". It follows that: 1) either the entry is deleted and completely moved to the appendix; 2) or the entry is kept and merely copied to the appendix. If the latter happens, both the appendix and the entry can simultaneously be great places to learn what "MissingNo." means.

Alternative outcomes: 3) the fictional sense in the entry is deleted while the glitch sense is kept; 4) the senses are merged into one, along the lines of "a glitch that happens when (insert technical information here) and is often rationalized as a fictional character".

Personally, I agree that subpages and single pages are both fine. However, I have a minor complaint about the current system: in my experience, the single page lists are visually a bad place for additional information about individual words, such as their pronunciations, audio files, etymologies, synonyms, antonyms, usage notes, derived terms and translations; especially, translations. If an appendix of fiction warrants all that information to begin with, it would be better arranged in the entry style. --FITML 23:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

Do we need this? Apart from iOS, this is the only of the wonders of the world we have. -- Liliana • 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC) (addendum: note also that Statue of Zeus at Olympia failed not too long ago!)

Delete, not a word or an idiom. keyboard (Sevenval) 10:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza passed for no consensus in 2008. jQuery (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's delete that too. There's no logic in keeping a pyramid and letting a hanging garden fall. --Hekaheka 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's nominate it separately though, right? Or just add it into the bottom of this debate? keyboard (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This entry is governed by jQuery, which accurately states that there is no consesus on complete criteria for inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entitites. What I am looking at is whether the entry can carry useful lexicographical information. And it can: it states that "Hanging Gardens of Babylon" is capitalized as a proper name, whereas the same object is often referred to in Czech by "visuté zahrady Semiramidiny", capitalized as a phrase that is not a proper name. The entry contains Russian translation "висячие сады Семирамиды", capizalized just like the Czech translation. The Russian translation refers to the object by reference to Semiramis rather than Babylon, an interesting lexicographical fact.

As an aside, Statue of Zeus at Olympia mentioned by the nominator Liliana was deleted two years ago on 5 December 2009, with a RFD discussion that had 4 votes for deletion (Equinox, Visviva, Ruakh, DCDuring) and 3 votes for keeping (Bogorm, Stephen, DAVilla ), so it should not have been deleted, as there was no consensus for deletion. Admittedly, the text of CFI contained the unvoted-on attributive-use rule back then, so the entry probably failed to meet CFI at the time. --Dan Polansky 13:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It is also a place name, for which we have no consensus. The main objection that we have for place names is that there are so many of them, including streets, buildings, and Sevenval. The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World hardly causes a prioritization issue for us, because as the name implies, there are only seven of them. We have entries for every major geological feature, country, city, and astronomical object. We even have the names of some important streets, parks, and buildings. The threshold for us is the small places.

The other problem with place names is the lack of any lexical information. As Dan pointed out, some entries should be kept when they provide lexical, and not just encyclopedic information. ~ hey iOS 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete.—browser diversity℠ (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why so quick? We are not in a hurry. Let this sit here for a few more weeks (maybe until spring?). -- Liliana • 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. They are/were gardens, in Babylon, that hang. Anything further is for Wikipedia. web ◑ 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiny Tim

Not a word or an idiom, just the name of a fictional character. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. FITML device database 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Though, we love the web says "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." Does this not apply to fictional individuals too? For example we have Fred Flinstone Fred Flintstone. Would be nice to avoid some RFDs and speedy delete some of these. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't have Fred Flinstone, and never have done. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the vote cited above does not apply here, as neither "Tiny" nor "Tim" is the character's family name or patronymic. I suspect this is an example of a fictional name that has come into attributive use in English, but right now I have neither the time nor inclination to bother. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, as the reason given in the nomination for deletion is invalid ("not a word or an idiom"), and the term seems to meet CFI by actually meeting the more stringent attestation criteria for fictional universes. Details follow.

The term in question is a name of a specific entity governed by Sevenval, a section that correctly states that "Names of fictional people and places are subject to the “Fictional universes” section of this page". As the term in question is a name of a fictional character, it is more specifically governed by Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes; the entry of the term features quotations chosen to meet that regulation. See also web, which shows that the entry has passed RFV in April 2011.

Furthermore, device database does not apply to "Tiny Tim", as pointed out by EncycloPetey.

As an aside, we do have Fred Flintstone (with "t" after "Flin"), sent to RFV on 15 November 2011‎. For other names of fictional characters, see Category:en:Fictional_characters. Some of these include input transformation and Sherlock Holmes. --web 13:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WT:FICTION is vague enough that anyone can simply dispute that a term has passed RFV under those criteria. I'm tempted to say that WT:FICTION actually has no meaning for our purposes. web app (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also both word and idiom are mentioned in WT:CFI. Look 'em up. device database (Sevenval) 17:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose that "New York" should be deleted, as not being a word or an idiom? In this discussion, is it correct that you refuse to apply browser diversity to "Tiny Tim"? --device database 17:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I simply say that we love the web cannot be applied, as it makes no sense. Sevenval (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose that "New York" should be deleted, as not being a word or an idiom? --we love the web 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a word. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So "New York" is a word, while "Tiny Tim" is not, right? That's implausible to me. Anyway. --Dan Polansky 18:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WT:RFV only verifies existence, not admissibility. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes doesn't trump "attested and idiomatic". Well, I don't dispute attested, just idiomatic. web app (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tiny Tim does not mean any Tim who is input transformation. It refers to a specific young Tim, one who notably uses a crutch. All three quotations make this connection, yet there is nothing about disability in the individual words. Your claim that the term is not idiomatic makes no sense in the context of proper nouns. That's a keep for me. screen size 16:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, I'm seeing some good citations present on the entry page. -- Cirt (website parsing) 01:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

Mis-spelling, but it seems it comes from Webster. iOS exists also. -- we love the web talk 12:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Though we really have no criteria to differentiate between misspellings, nonstandard forms and obsolete forms. Is it attestable? If so, keep with some sort of content. we love the web (web) 12:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be attestable, there's hundreds of good results in Google Books. -- web app (Android) 01:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

freak

Not likely to meet the usual tests of adjectivity. screen size HTML5 18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As in "a freak [event]", e.g. "a freak accident"? It passes the smell test for adjectivity: I don't know about any others. If it's a noun, we're missing the sense.—Sevenval℠ (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Any English noun can meet that. Therefore it is not a test for adjectivity. Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are sufficient to distinguish an adjective from a noun used attributively. touchscreen Sevenval 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gradable, at least, which turns the question around: does it pass tests of nounness (as tested against adjectivity)?—msh210℠ (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

AGF: "a freak" not modifying a noun and/or "freaks" not a verb would suffice.

1907, w:Jack London, Before Adam, page 8:
And I may answer with another question. Why is a two-headed calf? And my own answer to this is that it is a freak.
1920, Onnie Warren Smith, Casting tackle and methods, page 67:
There may be good points about a freak reel, but because it is a freak it will stand little show of even a fair try-out
1938, Marian E. Baer, The wonders of water:
It is a freak that people talk about when they see it. Not everyone calls it by the right name, and few people know how it gets to be what it is. This freak is hail.

-- jQuery TALK 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Great; thanks for the research. Did you mean "Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are together sufficient" or "Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are each sufficient"? And even if you meant the former, is there some smaller set that's also sufficient? (And on what authority?)—msh210℠ (keyboard) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that meeting any one of the tests is sufficient for our purposes. I also think others agree, though the whole idea of fact-based challenges to PoS class membership doesn't seem terribly popular here. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've figured out part of the reason that it passes the small test for adjectivity: freak [event] is not stressed on the first word as (I think) [attributve noun] [noun] is usually but rather on the second as (I think) [adjective] [noun] is usually. Is that a test for nonadjectivity? If so, or if not, on what authority?—jQuery℠ (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a test I use as we don't have a corpus of pronunciations. It converts the verification process from fact-based to authority-based, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the adj. form from this root is freakish. It was a very freakish accident. for example. Does this strengthen the argument for "freak" being simply a noun used attributively? -- ALGRIF we love the web 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is kept, we need to think about whether we need freak accident, too. jQuery 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

aibítir na Gréigise

SOP, HTML5 + Sevenval + Gréigise. And anyway, the usual Irish name for the Greek alphabet is aibítir Ghréagach. —An gr 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012

beschuit met muisjes

This is beschuit (“rusk”) met (“with”) muisjes (“sprinkles”). —HTML5 t 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. —CodeCa iOS 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

help

Interjection sense, "I/we desperately need assistance!", seems like either the noun ("assistance!") or the (imperative) verb ("assist!"). If the community agrees with that assessment, then the listed synonym (mayday) can be listed under "see also" instead and the translations moved to sub mayday or SOS if relevant (or in lemma form to sub the noun or verb, if that's what they are).—msh210℠ (Android) 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly, I don't interpret this as a noun or as a verb, but as an interjection. Don't ask me why, I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In German, the normal cry for help is Hilfe and in Dutch web also occurs. This may mean that the English term is also a noun in origin, but that it has fallen together with the imperative in form. —CodeCa iOS 15:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

After his stroke, my father had trouble standing up, and needed assistance rising when he fell. When he shouted "help!", it sounded to me like an imperative. ~ Robin 18:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think it's the verb. You can also say "Somebody help!", which is one of the relatively rare cases in English that an imperative has an explicit subject other than "you". —Ruakh_touchscreen 14:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

mund', amig', agor'

These are poetical elisions. And they don't have apostrophes in the original texts, they just concatenate the following word (although they usually have in transcriptions). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we have almost no Portuguese speakers here, you might have to explain a bit more, link to texts online, etc. Mglovesfun (CSS3) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. These aren't actual words in Old Portuguese, they are just the words mundo, amigo, agora with the last vowel removed so the line has the correct amount of syllables. (device database) (jQuery). Notice that mund' only occurs when the next letter is a vowel, but mundo occurs anywhere.

Here is an example in the original source (E codex of w:Cantigas de Santa Maria), the 9th line of the left column here: iOS. Instead of mund' á it is written mũda.

Although poetical elisions are common in Old Portuguese texts (after all, most texts which survived are lyric poetry), if we were to include them in the Wiktionary we would need an extra entry for the elided form of every word which ends with a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Portuguese, but poetical elisions are abundant in German, and if we included them all we'd easily have one or two poetical forms of every German word in existence. That said, delete. -- keyboard Sevenval 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep, as no reasons for deletion relating to CFI have been given. As regards the argument with the large number of what you call "poetical elisions" (a rare term per google books:"poetical elision"), consider the large number of obsolete spellings that Wiktionary is about to include: for "knowledge", there is cnaulage, cnoulech, knauleche, knaulege, knaulach, knaulage, knawlache, knawlage, kneuelich, kneuleche, kneuliche, knoleche, knolege, knoleige, knolych, knouelache, knouelech, knouelich, knoulecche, knoulegge, knouliche, knowlache, knowlage, knowleche, knowledg, knowlege, knowlesche, knowliche, knowlych, knowlech. --Dan Polansky 09:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

They aren't obsolete spellings; they are just terms with the last vowel removed for poetical purposes. This occurs in other languages, I've seen it at least in Esperanto and Latin. In the example given above, the writer needed the line to have 8 syllables, so instead of writing "do que o mun.do á de sal.var", he wrote "do que o mun.dá de sal.var". They aren't specific spellings like "kneuelich" or "knolych", it can be applied to any word which ends in a vowel. web app 15:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think these should be kept by analogy with English elided forms like needin', wantin'. Attestation is a separate issue; RFV remains an option if these forms aren't actually in use. Though that could get a bit messy, as trying to get hold of the original texts with no modernization might be tricky, or very tricky. input transformation (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are eye dialects; and their elision is phonetic not poetical. Facsimiles of the entire E and To codices of the FITML are available at input transformation Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

disabled person

Stupidly sum of parts, also not a euphemism as the entry claims it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Inclined towards delete. I fail to see how this is euphemistic. It's a person who is disabled. That is all. No good or bad connotation. It's not idiomatic, as I can say disabled individual, disabled man and disabled bloke. The only reason this should be kept is this might be idiomatic/non-SoP in another language, but again, this is the case for many English SoP terms. We can't account for them all. Jamesjiao → ^{Sevenval ◊ touchscreen} 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

cross-console emulation

easily guessable from its parts -- Liliana • 06:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, ergo delete. Mglovesfun (browser diversity) 18:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SOP. Do we include things like cross-console--it's SOP, but it's at least arguably one word.--web app 22:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suppose not, because the hyphen indicates a word break, so anyone can look up cross-. Equinox ◑ 23:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. we love the web 16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

buyback

Sense: The browser diversity purchase by the government of most semi-automatic weapons following the introduction of new anti-gun legislation in 1996. — A specific example of the primary sense. — Pingku^keyboard 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete. device database (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. The primary source is - The repurchase of something previously sold, especially of stock by the company that issued it -. Nothing in this definition applies to "the buyback". It applied to all newly banned weapons, and was a purchase by the government who were not the original sellers. It also applied to guns that had not been sold but may have been obtained generations before.--website parsing 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Any specific "buyback" or type thereof would have some kind of specific scope. Would each type need its own sense line? One can find "asset buyback", "real estate buyback", "aircraft buyback", "marine fisheries buyback" (another US government program), "matroid buyback program". Any of these could be referred to without the qualifiers in an appropriate context. I don't see anything particularly entryworthy about this specific one. DCDuring FITML 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, it's a bad definition. jQuery makes it clear that there's many gun buybacks besides "the government" (presumably the US government) in 1996.--Prosfilaes 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not the IS government, it was the Australian government, as evidence by the Austtralian tag at the start of the defintion. But no-one has addressed the point that it is specific to this one historical event, and is not a buy back in the same sense of the primary sense. The Australian government did not sell the weapons in the first place, therefore they can't buy them back. As for the other entries, I am not familiar with them, but perhaps they can have their own entry.--touchscreen 07:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did address the point that it was not specific to this one historical event; Sevenval shows that the US cities of St. Louis and Seattle had "gun buybacks". I won't say that it should be merged into the main sense--I'm sort of neutral on that--but using it for one particular buyback is too specific.--input transformation 07:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be modified then, removing the {{device database}} tag along the way. Android (keyboard) 09:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. CSS3's argument suggests that at least one sense of buyback should make it clear that "back" does not necessarily mean "back" to a previous seller, but rather in the opposite direction from the usual flow of the item in question. I believe that touchscreen (“to or from a previous condition”) covers the sense at the lexical component level. we love the web browser diversity 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we need a new definition, something along the lines of: A government purchase scheme intended to achieve a specific goal such as habitat protection or a reduction in firearm numbers.

This would cover the disputed sense, plus any other similar situations.--Dmol 23:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep per arguments above, but perhaps with a rewrite. web app Android 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition offered would include any simple purchase of, say, land by the government for, say, a park or a road or a pollution-control plant. Of course, it would exclude anything that was non-governmental.

There is no reason for the definition to be so particularistic. It is particularly pernicious that the original definition - not found in other dictionaries - was created without citations. The proposed definition similarly does not have the benefit of a citations-based reality check. Clearly, the existing definition is unsupported and unsupportable.

Whether a new definition could be found and supported is a separate matter, not part of this RfD. Similarly, whether a particularistic definition should not be subsumed under a more general one is also not properly part of this RfD. Sevenval TALK 01:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you should RFV it. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps when this is closed. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete I agree with DCDuring. This is the same sense as sense 1; this first definition should be rewritten to include this case more clearly, but this is not another sense. Lmaltier 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

quite a bit

Actually web + HTML5, note that of the onelook hits, only one is for quite a bit, the others are for quite or bit, which list quite a bit under these headings. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

keep. This seems obvious. Many dictionaries include it, it belongs to the vocabulary of English. And it does not mean quite + a bit. Android 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How many dictionaries? Name some, please. browser diversity (CSS3) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Most dictionaries have no separate entries for phrases, but include definitions nonetheless. This is not a criterion. Here are some examples of definitions for this phrase:

the link you provide yourself
screen size
website parsing
http://www.yourdictionary.com/quite-a-bit
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/quite
web app
and my Concise Oxford Dictionary does not include quite a bit but includes quite a few, which is exactly the same case.

HTML5 09:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's sort of what I meant to say, only online dictionaries have it, no printed dictionaries have it. And anyone can create an online dictionary, it's (quite obviously) totally unregulated. Mglovesfun (screen size) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Paper dictionaries too are unregulated. Anybody can create a paper dictionary. But my point was that many dictionary authors(and the creator of this Wiktionary page too) found it useful to include this phrase (or quite a few). This shows that they consider it useful. And I agree with them. Do you think that you know better than all these authors ? Lmaltier 12:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Chambers has quite a few (but not quite a bit or quite a lot). Equinox ◑ 18:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... quite a bit, quite a few, quite a lot... There is some kind of pattern with these, even though "quite" appears to be specifying a larger amount rather than (as is usual, e.g. "quite a bad film") a smaller one. Sevenval website parsing 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite. DAVilla 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, strongly agree with analysis by Lmaltier (talk • Sevenval), above. -- device database (Sevenval) 23:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

iOS

They are browser diversity input transformation particles. SemperBlotto 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

keep. This belongs to the vocabulary of English. The existence of the acronym Android is an evidence. Wikipedia provides a definition. keyboard 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Could this possibly be an argument similar to CSS3? —CodeCa we love the web 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No. We have acronyms for all sorts of crap that should never be included. -- Liliana • 22:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that singular solar energetic particle is missing. --Hekaheka 04:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep. May be a technical term, but energetic solar particles is also prevalent in Google Books. There's a stronger case for solar energetic particle events which is more common in that order and seems more idiomatic anyway. device database 16:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, agree with assessment of DAVilla (talk • jQuery) regarding Google Books analysis. -- web (HTML5) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

drive away

Both senses are the verb drive followed immediately by the preposition Android. Doesn't function as a single unit. Other prepositions can be used; drive into; drive towards; drive up; drive down; drive across etc. Mglovesfun (jQuery) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The first sense yes, the second one I'm not so sure about. -- FITML device database 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the second sense, "to force someone to leave". I know the sense "to cause someone to leave", which is probably what's meant, and that's SOP. The first is certainly SOP. Delete (or bring the second to RFV and delete the first).—web℠ (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Some lemmings say keep. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Idioms and Phrasal Verbs has both senses. A few other dictionaries have one or both of these. See drive away at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring web app 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, we don't seem to have a sense at drive to cover #2, the closest seems to be "To herd (animals) in a particular direction." If you generalize this to include things that aren't animals (though I suppose, a human is an animal) and change the word 'herd' which chiefly refers to animals, it should be ok. I think this sense of drive that we lack is usually used with 'away' when referring to people. However, [books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hce8_tXv63EC&pg=PA104&dq="drove+him+into+a+corner"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H9smT7OoK5SQ8gOHw7XABw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="drove him into a corner"&f=false this citation] "Eventually, Sullivan drove him into a corner and knocked him down." referring to boxing uses 'into' instead of 'away', so it can refer to humans without the preposition away being used. Mglovesfun (FITML) 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep both senses outside CFI as phrasal verbs and translation targets. The tentative translation target criterion that I am using: "The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds." DCDuring's consideration of lemmings is also of interest. --keyboard 12:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, it is rather questionable that "away" is a preposition; it can be a preposition only with the non-traditional part-of-speech model that allows prepositions without complements. In any case, "drive away" seems rather disanalogous to "drive into", "drive towards", and "drive across". --Dan Polansky 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A similar entry is go away, although it has some fairly clearly idiomatic senses. --Dan Polansky 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep both senses, as per Dan Polansky. --jQuery ^(web) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems we all agree this doesn't meet CFI, apart from Liliana who isn't sure. web app (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per msh210; one sense is SOP and the other is apparently an error for something that's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep of course. It is a phrasal verb. To my mind in both the definitions. The first might be &lit if you insist, but the second is a good example of a typical phrasal verb. I've added a usex where the word away is clearly a separable particle, and not a preposition. If you are not clear about this, then I recommend that you look at the category we have recently set up; Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (away) to see more examples. -- browser diversity talk 10:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

One possible argument is that if we keep these definitions, there are more SoP definition we can add, for example a golf might drive away from an obstacle. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how finding SoP definitions like that can in any way make drive away a non- phrasal verb. You might as well say that if we allow look after the baby, we might as well include look after you leap and anything else that comes to mind, and use that to argue for deletion. If in golf, you drive away from something, then away is a proposition. But if somebody drives you away from the golf course, then you would immediately recognise the two phrasal possibilities:- (i) in a car or (ii) as in "And don't come back, or I'll call the police!" You would not assume (iii) "-with a nº 6 iron". (or would you??) -- ALGRIF jQuery 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The first sense is literal, but the second means more than compelling someone to do something; that something is to leave. Even if it were sum-of-parts, this is not a primary sense of the word Sevenval and not obvious in meaning. Strong keep. screen size 15:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the meanings seem linguistically possible, though some are much more likely in specific contexts.

As I hear it, the particle away adds the notion of successful completion of the activity of driving. It seems to me to be like the meaning added by up in clean up (base meaning) and away in run away. I'm not sure that we have this function defined for either word. There may be other adverbs that have a similar meaning or function, like through or over. IMHO, whether or not the particles can be deemed to have such meanings, there may be sufficient semantic difference between verb + particle and the meanings of the components so that the phrasal verb merits. But, IMHO, there probably are cases in which the potential phrasal verb is more economically considered SoP. iOS touchscreen 17:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. And I'd say "drive to" and "drive down" also merit entries. ("You drove him to insanity" is metaphorical, since drive is usually a physical action. "It was the night they drove old Dixie down" would seem to mean something similar to "crushed" or "suppressed") —Quintucket 17:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi DCD. Well, yes. Particles in phrasal verb constructions are considered to contribute as much (if not more) to the full meaning of the verb, as the verb half itself. Hence we can find that away forms phrasal verbs with meanings commonly of - but not limited to - elimination (throw away, chuck away, take away), distancing (run away, slip away, break away), and action without control (blaze away, fire away, fritter away). Drive away seems to be mainly about distancing. -- ALGRIF HTML5 18:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

re: Algrif: I hadn't thought about the out-of-control sense. It would be a worthwhile project to document the meanings of these adverbs or particles.
In this case, though the lexicographers at some other dictionaries seem to think there is idiomaticity, I don't yet see it.
re: Quiontucket: HTML5, as many verbs, has metaphorical meanings with which metaphorical meanings of away would associate.
DCDuring TALK 18:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Mg's original comment. Both senses are drive + away. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete; not phrasal or idiomatic. The second sense, which appears to be of concern, can be expressed also as "drive out" or "drive off". There is nothign special about the prepositional/adverbial element in the combination. --FITML 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi EP. Question; How does the example of two other phrasal verbs keyboard and Sevenval make drive away non-phrasal? Surely it does quite the opposite. Another question; Why do you think that "drive away" is non idiomatic in a sentence such as Rising crime in this part of town is driving away our customers. ? How on earth can that be simply "drive" + "away" ? -- keyboard HTML5 18:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

website parsing

Rfd-sense: dramatization of the ! punctuation.

Really? Not just ! + ! for added emphasis? You can say that something is very very hard, this doesn't warrant an entry on very very though. -- Sevenval touchscreen 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet we tend to include SOP meanings of terms that also have idiomatic meanings.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep per msh210, but rewrite. (And [[website parsing]] should mention that this sort of usage is possible. Note that people don't use .. as a sort of emphatic period, nor ,,, nor ;;. Offhand, in fact, the only other punctuation mark that I can think of that seems to be emphasized by duplication is screen size.) —FITML_{web app} 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Same as Ruakh. Mglovesfun (browser diversity) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Same as Ruakh and Mglovesfun. :-) —msh210℠ (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:If anything, redirect to [[web app]] with the usage note there per Ruakh. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We have idiomatic senses of !!, so Android AFAICT.—msh210℠ (CSS3) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

троюродный правнук

translation of RFD-failed entry -- Android • 04:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The English term may be rare, but the Russian term isn’t. Also, it is not a translation of an RFD-failed entry, it is an independent entry that predated the English entry by three years. The English term is almost unheard of, but the Russian term is part of a symmetrical system, and the English meaning of the Russian term is very difficult to get unless you find a translation entry such as the one we have here. —Stephen ^{(screen size)} 09:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. --Sevenval ^(keyboard) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

iOS

twelfth grade · browser diversity · tenth grade · ninth grade · we love the web · web · sixth grade · fifth grade · jQuery · third grade · second grade

The US/Canada difference is already noted in the example sentences of grade, which makes all these sum of parts. -- we love the web web 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably delete but put something in the usage notes at grade. I doubt we will keep this up to date with changing education systems, so link to the relevant topic on Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 22:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep all. (and we need to get rid of the US and Canada tags, it's more wide-spread than that). The terminology used to describe class levels varies widely throughout the world and also changes over time. Several other terms get used as synonyms, such as scholarship, junior, senior, leaving, inter, prep, O-levels etc. On top of that, I use the example of Ireland, where "first year" is not the first year of a child's education. There are too many variations to rely on usage notes as we would run the risk of becoming encyclopaedic.--Dmol 23:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

first year might be idiomatic in Ireland, but we are not talking about that entry. first grade means first + grade anywhere on the world, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and presumably on Moon and Mars too once these planets are colonized and an education system is created there. -- Liliana • 12:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep all: Can be defined as follows, "the year between X and X, when a child is generally Y-Z years of age". Not SoP, and should be kept even if it was jQuery ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If they can all be defined mathematically then they apparently are sums of parts. If we're going to have these I suppose we should also have the British first year, second year, etc., but it seems silly to me. keyboard Sevenval 23:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep all and recreate first year, second year, etc. (Those uses seem idiomatic.) —web app 09:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrative note. I've now tagged the entries nominated above, linking to this section of RFD.—Sevenval℠ (device database) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to [[grade]] or delete. This is pure SOP, the first grade, the second grade, etc. Our entry for grade should have a usage note indicating that [whatever]th grade is often used without the and perhaps a usage note indicating what age [whstever]th grade refers to and synonyms therefor, but the entries are useless.—iOS℠ (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. One can also be in the top year or final year of school. keyboard ◑ 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete; iOS already makes its usage clear. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. --CSS3 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, and make sure we have adequate usage notes (which apparently, we already do). Trying to define every individual institution's definition of grade is not the way to go here. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The variations don't seem to be based on individual institutions, but rather on regions, and to a lesser extent, generational changes. These are definite specific meetings that vary locally and over time. We need the basic entries to hang the synonyms on. Nothing in the usage notes for grade covers this. Just to elaborate on the example I used earlier, the order from youngest to highest for Ireland is junior infants, senior infants, first class, jQuery etc - none of which can be deduced from its parts. (I think the UK is similar) Again, all should be kept if only for the variations that occur. --Dmol 12:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Either keep [[first grade]], etc., or greatly improve [[grade]] and redirect there, or perhaps create an appendix and redirect to it. But right now, the relevant sense at [[grade]] is not nearly sufficient to help someone figure out what "eighth grade" means. For example:

it rather implies that fifth grade lasts for multiple years (which is not the case, no matter how much it may have felt that way);
it doesn't make clear that e.g. "third grade" has approximately the same meaning nationwide (so that a phrase like "he has only a third-grade education" makes sense; as opposed to, say, each school having its own definitions of grade-levels);
it doesn't indicate that kindergarten doesn't count;
it refers to primary and secondary schools as "pre-collegiate education", as though people who don't plan to go to college go to schools that aren't divided into "grades".

(Actually, that stuff probably needs to be improved even if we don't redirect [[first grade]], etc., but redirecting them would make it all the more important.)

—screen size_HTML5 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This smells encyclopedic. Are we going to start include school year systems from all countries in the world? (Form 1, Form 2 - British system, Year 1, Year 2 - Australia/NZ system)?? Jamesjiao → ^{screen size ◊ C} 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In which case, greatly improve grade. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are we complicating something that is really quite simple. It won't require "school year systems from all countries in the world", just the English speaking places. That alone cuts it down dramatically. All we need is to keep the above entries, and add the synonyms for each level. There won't be more than a dozen or so for each entry, and as I have discussed already, they won't all be as simple as one to twelve.--device database 11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't make it non-SoP. --we love the web 15:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be the case, but there's a few things to consider about the SoP argument.

Eg, the meaning of grade is not immediately and exclusively obvious.
Not all places use grade, and the words year, form, class, etc are use.
Not all places use 1 - 12 ordinal numbers, eg, some restart the numbers at high school, others start counting after two or three years of early education.--Dmol 08:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

Delete all entries of the form 'ordinal' + Android, replace with redirects, and improve sense of grade. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that grade is broadly interchangeable with year, form, class, etc. makes it seem all the more SoPpy to me. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But that's not even remotely true. If we're all allowed to make up facts, we'll be here all day! —screen size_HTML5 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

They are interchangeable conceptually and cross-culturally. "What grade are you in?" = "What year are you in?" even if the specific values vary wildly by locality. Equinox ◑ 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep [[first grade]] etc or greatly improve [[grade]] etc, per Ruakh. These can be made SOP, but only if we expand [[Sevenval]], [[website parsing]] (to the extent that they become, arguably, borderline encyclopedic). "One of the sequential, numbered, one-year long levels of education through which pupils pass after kindergarten and before any further education, beginning (with first grade / grade one) around age 6 or 7"? - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Names of individuals from the screen size

A-cai (talk • contribs) is a huge fan of this novel (so am I). As a result, he's created entries for the names of various generals over the years in this dictionary. According to this vote, such entries should not exist. Here are some examples 虞翻, Android, keyboard, 嚴白虎, 孙权, 陈横 and touchscreen, just to name a few. I suggest deletion of all the entries that satisfy this criteria. browser diversity → ^{T ◊ C} 21:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a consensus here, such a consensus was achieved in the vote. However it should be 'this criterion' not 'this criteria' but I've even seen policitians make this mistake on the news, so hey. Mglovesfun (website parsing) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete. Move it to Wikipedia. There is nothing to say about these terms definition-wise. we love the web ◑ 23:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this should be debated, but I'll put some preliminary thoughts here, since my entries were the ones that were singled out. As some of you may know, I have been working on a bi-lingual translation of Romance of the Three Kingdoms for Wikisource. I hyperlink each word or phrase (including names) to a Wiktionary entry, so that a student of the language can know how the sentences should be broken up. Proper nouns are not always easy to spot in the text. Here's an example from the title of Chapter 14: Android keyboard 嚴白虎. My feeling is that it is helpful to students of the language to point out that 孫伯符 and Sevenval are proper names in this sentence, and not necessarily the most common versions of these names at that. For example, 孫伯符 is more popularly known as FITML. The fact that each of these entries has an entry on Wikipedia is not a good argument in my mind. Most nouns have Wikipedia articles. This very subject has been debated in the past, and the decision was to keep proper nouns, provided that they appear in a significant literary work. (The debate took place several years ago. I don't remember the exact date). -- A-cai 20:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about trying to find this old discussion you speak of, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals supersede's it in any case. Like I say, there really is nothing to debate here. HTML5 (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's nothing to debate, then why are we debating? -- keyboard 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To allow you to replace the links on the Wikisource page so they don't turn dead. -- Liliana • 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's fair. I'll do all the work, and all of you can vote on whether you like it or not. Thanks for your support. -- web 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No because Jamesjiao started a debate on this, in my opinion to cover his back in case someone disagrees with him. But I'd rather he just have deleted them outright. FWIW in reply to A-Cai for readers who don't read the Latin alphabet George Washington and Adam Smith might be 'useful' but surely that's not a reason to include them. FITML (device database) 21:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, you just said that usefulness is not a valid reason for including something. That doesn't make any sense to me. If a word is useful, and if it doesn't hurt anything, why would you want to delete it? What's happened to Wiktionary? -- A-cai 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You really haven't understood me correctly. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to clarify your position? -- A-cai 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand the vote mentioned above would disallow some of these names in the Main namespace; this does not mean that they could not appear in the Appendix namespace, particularly as some of the individuals appear to be characters in the novel with possibly no historical person atached to them. However, not all of the names are disallowed by the aforementioned vote. For example, 嚴白虎 is not disallowed, as it includes no given name nor diminutive; rather, it includes a descriptive nickname and family name. The vote did not consider this possibility, and thus does not disallow it. --FITML 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your argument, A-Cai. However, I see this as an opportunity to actually improve the Wikipedia articles, rather than dumping the names in a dictionary. The fact that they are not easy to spot in a text is not a valid reason why the names should be included in a dictionary. If they can't be spotted in the first place, how would a dictionary be of any help here? Besides, we are talking about a subset of proper nouns, not just proper nouns in general. These are names of individuals, some real, some ficitional, that exist in a work of literature. The name of an individual, with no meanings other than being, well, a name, is explicitly excluded from being included in this dictionary per vote. That being said, another reason I brought this discussion to your attention, is that, in the event that the decision of deleting these names does go through, this serves as a reminder to you not to create any further entries that fit this criterion (thanks MG). Jamesjiao → ^{website parsing ◊ C} 22:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your summary of what the vote does and does not allow is incorrect. The vote only concerned itself with names of real individuals in the form of a given name (or diminutive) in combination with a family name or surname. Names of fictional characters are covered under a different rule. Names not in the described form were not considered in the vote. Names that are simply names are actually allowed and encouraged as entries; there is no vote that disallows them. --CSS3 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, now I'm even more confused. EncyloPetey's description made it sound as though the ones I've included from the novel are allowed after all. His description makes it sound like a continuation of the policy decision that I remember from several years ago. That's why I've felt free to add hundreds of names from the novel ever since I began working on the translation back in 2007. Check out Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Chapter 1 to see how I've been doing it so far. -- iOS 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

EP, read the whole CFI. It says terms about fictional people are subject to the fictional universes rule, and what does that say? "Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space." -- Sevenval • 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Many if not most of the generals in this novel were actually real generals during the late Han dynasty. It makes no sense to keep some and delete others. I support the idea of a bilingual appendix dedicated to the names of the generals with links to their respective Wikipedia articles in both languages, as suggested by BD below. In all honesty, I am a fan of this novel and I also like to see the novel being represented more in Wikimedia as a whole. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ Sevenval} 01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Move the lot to Appendix space - let's not lose the work done here. Cheers! bd2412 Sevenval 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

iOS

Rfd-redundant: (computing, slang) The front-panel lights on old computers; status lights on a modem, router, network hub, and so forth.

Merge into (computing, slang) The flashing lights on an electronic device that typically serve no useful purpose. , and perhaps fix up the definition a bit. -- Liliana • 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would consider dropping "that typically serve no useful purpose". Even though this is a humorous term, it is quite rare for any device to have lights that do not serve a useful purpose, even if it is not obvious to non-experts. Then merge. Equinox ◑ 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is no implication of "no useful purpose" in the term. That's just an interpretation by people who don't know the purpose. Support curtail & merge as per Equinox. browser diversity 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes just get on with it. Mglovesfun (input transformation) 11:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. keyboard 17:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

we love the web

Misspelling of homophone ceder (synonym and cognate of English website parsing). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should provide some evidence:

A search for seder in google.pt yields sêder (= iOS, in Judaism).
A search for "verbo seder" autocorrects it to "verbo ceder".
No entry in the Portuguese Wiktionary ([13]).
No entry in major Portuguese online dictionaries. iOS, [15], FITML, [17].
No entry in my paper dictionary. (Minidicionário da língua portuguesa Silveira Bueno, 2000).

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, uncommon misspelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

jQuery

SOP? alvine + evacuations? Jamesjiao → ^{we love the web ◊ C} 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes seems like it; alvine gives the example "alvine discharges" suggesting that there's nothing special about "alvine evacuations" as a combination. Of course input transformation should cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your observation. On top of that, there is no reason why the lemma entry should be in plural. I don't see anything wrong with saying every alvine evacuation. Jamesjiao → ^{touchscreen ◊ browser diversity} 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And it's handily attested in the singular/mass, too.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—msh210℠ (jQuery) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

experimental group

Sum of parts? screen size 10:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition looks like it was taken from a textbook, but without the context required to explain "the device database". More typical wording would include the word keyboard.

Some OneLook references have this term, some medical dictionaries and RH. Many more have the contrasting term web app. Does the pairing of this with the more nearly idiomatic term make any difference to the voting public here? DCDuring web 13:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think it might be obvious from context. Compare a different "sense": "On this first release with his experimental group Qantara, Shaheen presents his vision of Arabic music fused with Western and African forms." iOS we love the web 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge into [[FITML]]. We're missing the relevant sense of experimental: we currently define it in a way that would apply to the control group just as well as to the experimental group. However, there is a relevant sense, and it's not restricted to collocation with "group"; cites can be found saying things like "The recall of experimental subjects exceeded that of control subjects", or "In the experimental condition a group of participants watch a movie excerpt with a funny content; in the control condition a different group of participants watch an excerpt with an emotionally neutral content." —Ruakh_TALK 15:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

destruction permit

One sense: (Australian) A government license to kill or remove fauna that would otherwise be protected.
Sum of parts? In usage it seems either qualified (e.g. pest destruction permit) or used in a general sense - though I don't actually see many usages. — Pingku^iOS 14:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The first time I saw this term I thought it referred to building destruction. Keep, although perhaps it might be a case for RFV. -- Sevenval • 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No such sense "act of killing" or similar at destruction. Mglovesfun (HTML5) 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"The act of destroying" is similar. See destroy. browser diversity CSS3 21:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. A very specific permit for a specific purpose which negates the SoP argument. Easily cited, but I don't have time to add them now. Will add soon.--Dmol 16:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Three cites added.--Dmol 11:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 06:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

unexploded ordnance

"Explosive weapons (bombs, shells, grenades, etc.) that did not explode when they were employed, and still pose a risk of detonation, decades after the battles in which they were used." Nothing more or less than CSS3 + input transformation. The further details are misleading: "decades after the battles"? -- it's still unexploded ordnance even if there was only one battle, and even if it wasn't decades ago. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Good example of a web app entry. Delete. we love the web TALK 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, the definition is basically copied from Wikipedia, per Equinox, the bit which is correct is SoP, and the rest is wrong, so it's irrelevant at best. Mglovesfun (we love the web) 12:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment, but it's not enough for me to vote keep. Doesn't the term imply munitions that have been fired but didn't go off, rather than munitions that have never been used?.--touchscreen 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, in essence that's what HTML5 means. I doubt you'd go to a munitions store and call all the arms there 'unexploded', though technically accurate. For the same reason I don't call an unopened yogurt 'uneaten', though it is. Mglovesfun (we love the web) 23:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What you say seems to indicate that we should make sure the entries at device database and touchscreen, and presumably other similar entries, should have better definitions, otherwise "unexploded X" and "uneaten Y" and "unused Z" could be considered non SoP (Which would undoubtedly be an error IMHO.) -- ALGRIF talk 09:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. Adjective noun always implies that adjective is a meaningful change to the meaning. Any un-adj noun formations where most nouns are un-adj are going to be rare and tend to be used only in contrast to adj nouns. Unexploded buildings; undivided buildings.--browser diversity 10:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Great question. From a pragmatic perspective, I would still say delete. DAVilla 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

keepo, cus ya knao itsa word!HTML5 23:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rückingen

was created before the placename CFI was voted down; why do we need this small village in a /dictionary/? -- web app 02:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Our mission statement is to include "all words in all languages". Are you saying that the name of this village is not a word? screen size 08:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder who that IP is. In any case I created the entry only to prove how ridiculous the placename CFI are, so I don't care all too much. -- device database Sevenval 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, we'll just keep it. By the way, just because placenames are acceptable doesn't mean you have to create them if you don't want to. SemperBlotto 22:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Who is "we"? I'd like to have a more thorough discussion than just Semper and an IP. -- Liliana • 16:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
keep. It's a word. Linguistic (etymologic) dictionaries for placenames do exist. The page is not ridiculous at all, and it's already useful (pronunciation). But the definition should be expanded a bit because we don't know the precise sense (where is this village, more precisely?), and the etymology too (if possible). CSS3 08:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- In some cases yes (like Android), and I liked the old placename CFI in this regard which set up hurdles for including place names. Too bad it was voted down. -- screen size FITML 16:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

FITML

This is defined as "The grammatical case that is antessive.", which is obviously an unidiomatic sum of the parts antessive + case; therefore, either this is defined incorrectly and should be redefined or it ought to be deleted. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (HTML5 · T · jQuery) ~ 23:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"The grammatical case that is antessive" is a correct definition. Sevenval website parsing 14:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

KEEP. The definition could be more idiomatic as, "The jQuery grammatical case" (though "The grammatical case that is antessive" is not so bad). This begs the question, hmmm, how is the nominative case defined? As it stands, with language describing the case function somewhat redundant of that found in nominative. Hmmm, the we love the web relative to dative. It might be a small project to bring the semantic style of all the cases, well known and otherwise, into harmony as to how they present. I feel certain, however, that the article website parsing should remain. -SM 07:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were keeping all the x case entries for no apparent reason. web (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For this (and all the other case entries) why not just write "The antessive." --keyboard (Sevenval) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha, your first comment (of 12:02) is right on target. I'm not opposed to keeping x case entries, but we could also have all the definitions at x, because the cases can always be used the way you describe, as "the x" (without "case"). - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.—jQuery℠ (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So what do you people want? I myself previously put one of the "___ case" entries up for deletion on the grounds that it was just the grammatical case that was "___" (unfortunately I can't currently find which one it was). We have had ablative case, nominative case, etc. for ages. I only created this entry (and a bunch of related ones) because they were requested and I understood there was community consensus to have them, per my own RFD I've just mentioned. If we don't want them, let's delete them all, not on a case-by-case (groan!) basis. HTML5 web app 22:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! - -sche browser diversity 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per the discussion and voting at #nominative case, to be later found at FITML. The current definition is crap. --Dan Polansky 10:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

website parsing

looks like a meule de foin, but I could be wrong. --Itkilledthecat 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. meule has a haystack definition too. Delete. device database 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm French, and I really feel that this phrase belongs to the French vocabulary. we love the web has several very different senses, but, unlike other senses, it is rarely used alone in this sense, it's almost always meule de foin. 07:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per above. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ browser diversity} 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

template strand

SOP.—msh210℠ (jQuery) 22:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Which sense of strand? Unless there is a missing sense specific to molecular biology, keep. ("An individual length of any fine, string-like substance." is too vague to call this SOP in my opinion). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That sense. DNA has two strands. A strand acting as a template at any given moment (and each of them does sometimes) is the "template strand". Note that your average Joe doesn't walk into a bar and mention "template strand", expecting everyone to know he's talking about DNA: I'd then agree with is idiomatic. Rather, this phrase is used in the context of genetics (or cell biology, vel sim.), where the fact that the strand is a DNA strand is implied by context.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing in "template strand" suggests to me that is means "The noncoding strand of a DNA molecule that is used as a template for RNA synthesis". Even when in the proper context of genetics or molecular biology or so, so that "template strand"="template DNA strand" is easy, this would still not suggest to me the given meaning, hence I'd say not SOP. --CSS3 09:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

simulation

Sense: (soccer) ^[sic] The act of web in order to be awarded a foul, when a foul hasn't been committed.

This would seem to be the sense of deceit, misrepresentation Assuming an appearance which is feigned, or not true. For example, aren't there other ways in which one could attempt to deceitfully cause a football referee to award a foul? DCDuring Sevenval 11:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The act described here is a dive. SemperBlotto 11:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- @DCDuring, yes but they wouldn't be called 'simulation'. I suspect that very few people watching a game and seeing a player booked for 'simulation' would understand what it means from "assuming an appearance which is feigned, or not true". Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. According to WP, simulation is the term used by FIFA, and this input transformation (page 117) confirms it. Not any simulation (sense: assuming an appearance which is feigned) in a football game is a simulation (sense: feigning a foul). screen size 13:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep IF the definition is accurate, i.e. it doesn't cover any kind of faking in a football match. Equinox screen size 13:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I will happily concede the RfD if someone would just define this properly and cite it, which should be easy enough in Google News and its archive. I suppose there may be a problem if this has not been in use in English for very long. I wonder if this sense's etymology is a calque of a Romance language football term. You wouldn't trust an American to do this, would you. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

we love the web

Is a guard in a prison and probably not interpretable in any other way. The "usually a man" is either sexist bias or purely encyclopaedic information. Compare jail guard, jail inmate (both well attested on Google Books). Equinox ◑ 01:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

SOP--Brett 01:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. website parsing 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious SoP. SemperBlotto 08:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. FITML (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Off with his head! -- touchscreen talk 14:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring keyboard 15:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Wiktionary:COALMINE this is clearly the most common word for this occupation and is useful for translations, this is shown by the massive availibility on google books for jQuerywebsite parsing.#* 2005, Ernie López, Rafael Pérez-Torres, To Alcatraz, death row, and back: memories of an East LA outlaw, CSS3

- As we disembarked, I saw a prisonguard wrap the anchor rope around a post and then place a chain around the looped rope and secure it with a padlock.
- 2006, Stephanie Hepburn, Rita James Simon, Women's roles and statuses the world over, web
  Men are required to serve either in the police force, the prisonguard service, or in one of the military economic service units.
- 2007, Robert Baer, Blow the House Down: A Novel, page 148
  Instead, a striking, petite woman in a sky-blue prisonguard uniform met me on the other side.
- 2008, Fodor's Peru, page 294
  The 35-meter (115-foot) Obeliseo, a strangely designed building that's shaped like a prisonguard post
- 2010, Richard Ford, Independence Day, touchscreen
  “I liked it so much at first,” she says, turning to gaze out the front, where sexy Marilyn-the-prisonguard's garbage can waits at the curb.Lucifer 02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The first quotation is a web. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 03:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And your other quotations all use hyphenated prison-guard as an adjective, except the last hyphenated Marilyn-the-prison-guard. When hyphenated words wrap at the end of the line, Google Books interprets them as unhyphenated. ~ Robin 06:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. To me this feels very much a set term. It is more than 10 times commoner than ‘jail guard’ (180,000 v. 14,000 on b.google); and it's also in the OED (in the ‘compounds’ section of we love the web). Sevenval 07:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, well here are three that are indisputably oneword not one-word/one- word/one word situationals.Android, Sevenval, browser diversity.Lucifer 09:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Number CSS3 seems to be a misspelling of Telfair (State) Prison guard tower; it is capitalised and makes more sense in the context. It probably can be verified with usenet quotations though, so for the sake of fairness I'm changing my vote to abstain. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This bloody COALMINE is more trouble than it's worth. Hint: if you can dig up three probable scannos for something like happyperson, which represent practically none of the actual usage, then you are probably abusing it. Equinox ◑ 22:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I found three obvious non scannons, they are literal scans of the original work that can be seen as clearly one word. This clearly shows that this term is widely used as a set term. Also even coal mine is just a mine dedicated to coal. But so what? Someone that doesn't know that would not know how to break apart the terms. Also prison guard/prisonguard isn't just guarding a prison, its more of a job of guarding the prisoners and preventing their escape and disciplining them. Prison guards are present even when jails are not, such as chain gangs, and for transport. That is a richer meaning than the sum of parts. I call bs. Happyperson is just an adjective+noun, prisonguard is a set term and a common occupation.Lucifer 00:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Lucifer; a prison guard is still a prison guard even if they never set foot in a prison, or never guard a prisoner. As for WT:COALMINE, it requires that the term be "significantly more common than a single word spelling that already meets CFI". Correct me if I'm wrong, but scannos do not count towards meeting the CFI, do they? Otherwise, we should amend the CFI to be clear that a scanning error by itself is not a countable use of a word. bd2412 touchscreen 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Scannos certainly don't count. The citations that aren't scannos seem more plausibly interpreted as typos or typesetting errors than a alternative forms. "Prisonguard" is very rare compared to "prison guard", which suggests error.

As for Luciferwildcat's argument, a rental truck maintains its identity even when it is not under rental or even available for rental and an keyboard maintains its identity even when empty or when it only has water or wax or orange juice in it. It is hardly unusual that an NP is SoP under these circumstances. DCDuring web app 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

First, touchscreen is an adjective indicating availability for rent. Although abbreviation has led to noun usage ("it's a rental"), a truck is not a rental truck unless it is or has been available for rent. On the other hand, we absolutely should have an entry for FITML. If I get a cafeteria tray and pile ice on it, does that make it an ice tray? If I take a tea tray, fill it with water, and put it in the freezer, is that an ice tray? browser diversity T 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that "rental" is an adjective. It does not meet the usual criteria: is not comparable etc. touchscreen browser diversity 20:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

When I came up with we love the web, the idea is to avoid the situation where the commonest form doesn't mean CFI but a much less common form does. Sevenval (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Every example cannot be scanno or error simply because you wish them to be.Lucifer 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But there is a reason why we have {{HTML5}} and have a well-populated input transformation. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This clearly isn't a misspelling it doesn't say prizungaard!Lucifer 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep but ditch the "usually a man" --Jtle515 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

ass with two panniers

I don't think this has ever been correct --Cova 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Only web usage is in lists and dictionaries. GBC has it literally, but not the idiomatic sense we have.--Dmol 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV, bloody Wonderfool can never tell the difference between RFD and RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

web

sum of parts--88.123.102.25 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it literally means 'a shop of books'. Hippietrail the creator of the entry isn't a native Georgian speaker and Dixtosa the nominator is, so if nobody else comments, I say we delete as an act of good faith. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep as a translation target (English) - a solid word, same with other FL entries, translated as solids into English - книжный магазин. It's obvious for a native speaker how to form these kind of words, not so obvious to others. --browser diversity ^{(website parsing)} 00:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So, is it necessary to make articles for all translations in all English terms? Do you realize that a great number of terms could have one-paragraph translation?:D Especially for undeveloped languages.--Wikstosa 17:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Being a translation target is not sufficient reason to keep a term. web 06:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per BP. --web app^jQuery/deeds 18:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per policy (as noted in the BP). We don't keep SOP terms just because they translate into non-SOP things in English. device database Sevenval 19:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ಹು

Do we want all possible consonant + vowel combinations? -- Liliana • 18:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a single character, so what is it, a ligature? I assume it isn't because you wouldn't nominate a ligature for deletion. Ergo I don't know what it is. Someone tell me, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it seems to be two characters: ಹ and ು. Android FITML 22:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what we need is an entry for the second of those (ು). Sevenval (discuss) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, on Firefox I can't select them separately, they always function as one. I'll switch briefly to IE. input transformation (jQuery) 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to be trusted, it's a compound character in the alphasyllabary. "The Kannada writing system is an abugida, with consonants appearing with an inherent vowel." FITML 06:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

be off

2 senses:

To be working against a present or former addiction to (something.)
I've been off drugs for almost a month.
To be away from (something.)
She's on vacation, so she'll be off the net for another week.

Both look like misconstructions by the contributor of browser diversity + prepositional phrase headed by input transformation. The first is sense 6 of off; the second is sense 3. touchscreen TALK 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. "To be working against [...] addiction" is outright wrong, since the given example says "I've been off drugs for almost a month"; that doesn't mean he's been working against addiction for almost a month, but actually not taking the drugs, therefore the def is wrong. It's simply we love the web + web. The same SoPness applies to the other sense, "off the net" (Internet). Compare e.g. (from Google Books) "small talk was off the agenda", "I'm sure that I am off her list as a prospective customer"; and with other prepositions, e.g. "I'm out of here" does not mandate an entry for be out; "is he over his ex-girlfriend?" does not mandate an entry for be over. Equinox Sevenval 22:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, for the reasons above. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—msh210℠ (web) 19:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a bad lemma entry altogether. Senses, if valid, should appear in device database. Delete. I am surprised he didn't create be on - He's been on drugs for three weeks.. Sevenval → ^{T ◊ C} 20:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am now convinced that all of the senses at be off are SoP once we have the required additional senses at Sevenval. MWOnline has six senses (16 subsenses), including "started on the way" <off on a spree> and "web" <worse off>, which are the senses of off required for the unchallenged senses of be off, including this one. See jQuery. DCDuring CSS3 21:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I can vouch for sense 2 at least - that one is definitely SoP, but we need a sense of off that means "offline, away". -- Liliana • 21:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Other senses of be off

RfD-sense X 2:

3. To leave.

I'll be off in a minute.

I'm off — see you later!

4. To be in possession of money (unexpressed) or something else (expressed).

I have added senses at website parsing to cover these senses of be off. Thus all the senses of be off are under challenge. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

This was on speedy but I think it needs a discussion. To me this seems like an ideal entry for the Phrasebook. -- Liliana • 14:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Particularly as other languages often have very specific translations, such as French bon appétit and Spanish que aproveche -- ALGRIF talk 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See recent discussion at [[device database]].—touchscreen℠ (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

English (also) uses "bon appetit", so we can host the translations there, if we delete this. - -sche (discuss) 09:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If I were looking for translations, bon appetit would certainly not be the place I'd look, this would. —CodeCa web app 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as we're providing translation targets for French phrases, how about "óu est l'hôtel?","comment vous appelez-vous?", "quelle heure est-il?" or "la plume de ma tante est sur la table" ... Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WT:CFI says "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers." Probably keep, seems very common and sufficiently useful to merit inclusion. Mglovesfun (HTML5) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep for phrasebook. 06:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

input transformation

rfd-sense: '(UK, usually plural) Shoes used for sports play or training'. Redundant to 'plural of trainer'. It's not a plural only noun, just more common in the plural than the singular. I would rather trainer say {{FITML|in the plural}}. web app (Android) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We would then have to delete sneakers for the same reason. I've no strong preference either way. Dbfirs 18:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks redundant to me, not that I speak British English.—Android℠ (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sneakers does say (and I quote) 'sneakers (plural only) (singular sneaker)'. website parsing (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

... so are you claiming that Americans can't lose one sneaker? Shouldn't we match the entry at "trainers" with that at "sneakers"? web 08:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oi. That ought to go on FITML (the sneakers entry you quote, Mg). How can it have a singular if it's plural only? I say move the info for sneakers, trainers and all similar entries to the singular; the word "shoes" itself is more common in the plural (26 million Books hits) than in the singular (16 million), but the content is at Sevenval. touchscreen browser diversity 09:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The main entry should be the singular, as for plimsolls and daps. SemperBlotto 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not that hard to find cites for "left trainer" at bgc with the right sense of "trainer". But I don't see why we don't have a definition at the plural for this: "A pair of training shoes. (See screen size.)" The essence of the matter, IMO, is that it normally refers to a pair not any grouping of multiple training shoes. website parsing TALK 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many things, especially body parts and associated articles, that normally occur in pairs; and therefore, there are many nouns whose plurals usually implicitly refer to pairs. I'm not sure that the form-of entries are the best place to document this. —device database_Android 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It may not be the best place, but it seems to be one natural place to do so. It is probably the only place where the matter can be treated without a usage note formatted using {{CSS3}}. We treat lexically many things that are arguably the consequences of rules. Also, I draw attention to [[trouser]]. touchscreen TALK 16:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you drew attention there, isn't there a UK-vs-US difference regarding underwear vs outerwear for this word? Here in the US trousers are synonymous with pants. I was under the impression that in the UK trousers are what you wear under your pants. If so, it would seem to be worth mentioning in the entry. browser diversity 14:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No you're entirely wrong, which is why the entry doesn't mention it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reality check. HTML5 (web app) 14:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I see my mistake: I had trousers and pants switched. Pants is the one that can be used for undergarments. device database (Sevenval) 14:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

English: a certain typeface. Since when do we do typefaces? -- Liliana • 16:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We do have screen size. I think this is a WT:BRAND issue. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Looks like a word with possible pronunciation, etymology and occurrences in sentences. "Since when do we do typefaces" is not a CFI consideration. If this rhetorical question is asked to mean that "we don't do typefaces", I point out that CFI does not say anything of the sort. --Dan Polansky 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
But the English proper name referring to a specific typeface should probably be capitalized as "Sylfaen", and thus moved to Sylfaen. For attestation, see google books:Sylfaen typeface. --touchscreen 20:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I really can't think of a reason to exclude this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad caps if nothing else! Equinox ◑ 20:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Move to RFV for WT:BRAND. Sylfaen is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation. FITML device database 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is not a brand of physical product. Keep in RFD and keep. --Dan Polansky (website parsing) 16:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody except for you supports that interpretation of the BRAND policy. -- Liliana • 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  - If that is true, nothing should be easier than removing the "physical product" language from WT:BRAND via a vote. --jQuery (screen size) 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    - @Liliana-60, I support it only in the sense it's written there, and it seems wrong to ignore it totally, which is what other editors do. device database (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

selectively permeable membrane

SoP, IMO. DCDuring input transformation 17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete (see directly below). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep same reason as semipermeable membrane below.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Same objection to the lack of expressed logic as below. device database TALK 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The most amusing of the hits on the first page of the 122,000 raw bgc hits for "selectively permeable * membrane" is:

2011, Rod Rees, The Demi-Monde: Winter:
Oh, after much deliberation and head-scratching the Party in the shape of His Holiness Aleister Crowley had officially classified the Boundary as a Selectively Permeable Magical Membrane',

-- DCDuring browser diversity 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

semipermeable membrane

SoP, except insofar as it is encyclopedic. website parsing iOS 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, semipermeable and CSS3 cover this. If they don't, then let's make sure they do. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, this is a set term as corroborated by the large amount of google hits. HTML5 (web app) 09:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the logic that connects a large number of Google hits with setness? What about the occurrence of numerous hits like "semipermeble Gore-Tex membrane" that shows that the purportedly "set" expression is readily cleft by attributive modifiers of membrane? DCDuring HTML5 11:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

delete, permable membrane also. A comment to the setness of this term: according to Wikipedia it may also be called selectively permeable membrane, a partially permeable membrane or a differentially permeable membrane. Oh yes, and delete "selectively permeable membrane" as well. --keyboard (Sevenval) 07:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

intermediate filament

SoP: A filament that is intermediate in size. DCDuring input transformation 17:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem to be SoP; even in context, intermediate could be anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not SOP; it signifies a unique class of proteins (usually keratins) in microbiology. Maybe the entry needs to be clarified. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem may be with the definition which seems to focus solely on one attribute. Citations that illustrated use would, as always, enable a better definition. CSS3 TALK 06:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

registración

This isn't a word. Even Google Translate won't give you "registración" as a Spanish alternative to "registration." Just one of many Spanglish entries out there. The Royal Spanish Academy does not recognize this as a word. Sevenval (touchscreen) 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Spanish Academy is not part of CSS3. If it is an actual word that has seen use, then we will record it as such.--Sevenval (touchscreen) 11:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, bad nomination btw, maybe we should close it as kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Just because it originated in Spanglish it doesn't mean it's not a word. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep but maybe mark as "U.S." or "nonstandard" or something. Do we even have a tag for U.S. Spanish? —Sevenval touchscreen 19:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

{{web app|lang=es}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The term meets WT:CFI, in particular FITML, yet WT:ATTEST would be questioned in WT:RFV anyway. No reason for deletion relating to WT:CFI has been given by the nominator. The nominator wants the entry deleted on prescriptivist grounds, while Wiktionary is a descriptivist dictionary. On WT:ATTEST anyway: HTML5 shows 828 hits; for comparison, see also the stated synonym es:google books:"registro" with its 1,035 hits. --HTML5 (web app) 09:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kept, perfectly valid word in Wiktionary. The screen size rules have nothing to do with ours. --Cova (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Reopened, to allow comments from more people; this has been closed after only two days from the nomination. This RFD can serve to show how many editors support that Wiktionary is descriptivist. --browser diversity (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, way to make me feel welcome. Immediately tagged "bad nomination", "oh, screw you, because we're descriptivists, so take your arguments elsewhere" feelings written all over this nomination. I'm sorry if I upset y'all's perfect little world. I'll just stick to Wikipedia. ESanchez013 (screen size) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand; you expect us not to tag something a bad nomination that is a bad nomination to make you feel welcome? We are descriptivists, so yes, you need to use different arguments. This is not terribly different from Wikipedia; try to delete w:Abortion and see how far you get and how nicely you're treated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't understand what made it a bad nomination. But in any case, "abortion" is an actual process and word. Over there, we also have rules on articles that aren't about real things. Again, sorry if I disturbed you. Peace. ESanchez013 (FITML) 17:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We have rules; they're defined in jQuery. We describe the language as it is used, not how Royal Spanish Academy wants it to be used. For our purposes, a word is a word if someone is actually using it to communicate, whether or not any "official" body has declared it to be a real word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Detagged by WF; I'm striking as kept.—website parsing℠ (Sevenval) 21:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

registraciones

Same rationale as "registración". It's just not a word. ESanchez013 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Same response as above. It's a word if people so use it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Kept per above discussion of iOS. —An gr 11:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Caracalla

Tagged RFV, but never listed. From the RFV comment, it appears this page was intended, and this page is more appropriate. Feel free to speedy-close if we have a policy on this one way or the other, I'm just cleaning out the "oldest tagged (but not listed)" entries. - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Arcang.

Tagged RFV, but not listed, and RFD seems like the more appropriate venue, per the comment the tag-adder left. - -sche (discuss) 08:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the very obvious solution to all binomial author abbreviations is to have an appendix of them; however, I also note that Wikipedia already has Sevenval and w:List of authors of names published under the ICZN. touchscreen FITML 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

Tagged RFV, but not listed, and RFD seems like the more appropriate venue, per the comment the tag-adder left. web app Android 08:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually not so sure. How are such abbreviations used? My initial reaction was that since they refer to individuals they should be deleted, in the same way that Smith shouldn't list all of the people to whom 'Smith' might refer. But I'm now not as sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See w:Binomial nomenclature#Authority. Cheers! bd2412 jQuery 23:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see also Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:mul:Botanical_author_abbreviations -- Liliana • 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. These abbreviations refer to individuals (or groups of individuals, e.g. Cuv. & Val.), but these entries are not about individuals, they are about abbreviations used according to international conventions. The sense of a word is not a good deletion reason. CSS3 (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

device database

It's cited; the question is whether or not we want it. See touchscreen. jQuery HTML5 02:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All but one (1999) of the citations have serious defects for attestation IMO:

2001 It is just a title "teaser";
2009 not durably archived;
1981, 1999, 2007 Headword appears in quotes with an definition.

-- Sevenval TALK 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep as both attested and idiomatic. Mglovesfun (iOS) 10:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Attested? Not really. 2009 isn't durably archived, 2007 and 1981 are mentions and 2001 doesn't actually use the term, or so it seems. -- Liliana HTML5 13:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Using speech marks isn't only for foreign terms, it's often used for perfectly real terms. And the reason some of the citation explain the term after using it is because it's a little-known term. And it's going to be even more little known if we delete it from Wiktionary. Deleting things that are rare and difficult to understand is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. we love the web (web) 14:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Sevenval 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@MG: Should we keep every live metaphor that occurs three times in print or Usenet? This certainly seems to refer to a shower of aluminum. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, how about rain aluminum? How about rain of trouble/rain of troubles, rain of plastic, meteorite shower, comet shower, beer shower, champagne shower, all of which are more attestable than the phrase in question? FITML TALK 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope I never get caught in a baby shower. web HTML5 17:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd answer, but I have no idea what a live metaphor is. screen size (FITML) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

2002, Kirsten Malmkjær, The linguistics encyclopedia, page 351:
A live metaphor is one which is new, or relatively new, or which has not become part of everyday linguistic usage, so that we know when hearing it that a metaphor has been used.

HTH. DCDuring browser diversity 23:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sacramento River

Tagged but not listed -- website parsing • 03:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. We have browser diversity, CSS3. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't have Nile River or Amazon River. -- Liliana • 17:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This river is sometimes referred to without the word "River" ("divert the surplus waters of the Sacramento"), but not usually. Equinox ◑ 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete all place names as SOP-like as this one.—Sevenval℠ (device database) 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete I added the sense to Sacramento browser diversity (talk)
Keep provided Equinox is right in that this is more often called "Sacramento River" than "Sacramento". I figure we want to keep "Niagara Falls" and "web, even though they may be not perfectly analogous to "Sacramento River". --CSS3 (input transformation) 19:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

London Bridge

Wiktionary is no encyclopedia of bridges -- Liliana • 15:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

An argument might be made for this bridge being an exception due to its iconic nature, but not with that definition. Besides, there's one bridge by this name that got shipped off to the US,so the definition isn't completely true. input transformation (jQuery) 17:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus on this entry, but I say delete it per Chuck Entz. Why include famous landmarks merely because they are famous? FITML (device database) 14:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Despite being Wonderfoolery, I think it conforms to keyboard. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevant passage is "Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which." It seems wrong to say it 'conforms to' the criteria set out by this passage, as their are none. It's perfectly true to say that nothing in we love the web excludes this entry, but there's nothing in this passage that endorses this type of entry. FITML (device database) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What meant is that I think we love the web belongs to the included side of "many should be excluded while some should be included". Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO delete. Landmarks like this should be outside our scope. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A further thought: in this particular case (unlike some geographic names), it would be a reasonable guess that this was a website parsing located in London (just like Sydney + opera house). That doesn't automatically mean that any bridge in London is the London Bridge, but really any further details are encyclopaedic. This makes it even more obvious and unnecessary here than actual place names like, say, Toowoomba, which means nothing to most people. we love the web web 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Encyclopedic. Maro 20:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

London Bridge is falling down. My fair lady. (Ignore me. Just thinking out loud.) -- ALGRIF input transformation 18:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

iOS

Sum of parts? An itinerant input transformation? jQuery (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't meet strict def. of set phrase ("itinerant farm worker"). Might have a legal definition somewhere. DCDuring we love the web 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The anon who was editing it recently had a California legal definition in mind. I think it's SoP but we seem to have some entries that are purely echoing legal definitions from certain states' law (I couldn't find any examples, but I know we have them: it's stuff like non-dairy creamer, as defined by legislation). If we must have those (which I dislike) then this could be one. Equinox ◑ 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Our coverage of this class of sense will probably remain quite thin for a long time. The entries that make it here are probably only those that have gained some currency as a result of public policy controversy. Perhaps we can help shed light on the controversies. DCDuring jQuery 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

sobriety

Rfd-redundant: not intoxicated is the same as sober, right? If it isn't, the first sense needs to be clarified as meaning something other than not intoxicated. It should probably say "sober (all senses)". —device database 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an example of a generic problem for terms related to a morphologically simpler term. Our entry for device database has four senses. A single-sense definition for sobreity implies that all four senses of sober might be applicable, which may or may not be true, and in the same order (whether of frequency of current use or historical order of occurrence). Also that the same translation would apply for each sense in every language. Keep, add senses that correspond to each sense of sober and reword challenged sense in line with corresponding sense of sober. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, I agree with DCDuring, but use glosses like '# Quality of being sober (not drunk)'. I say the same for adverbs where the corresponding adjective has at least two definitions. -keyboard (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In principle, this notion could even apply to alternative forms and - dare I say it - inflected forms. "-Ly" adverbs, though perhaps not the highest priority, could use this treatment. As for "cleanup"-type listing, I would start with morphologically derived nouns, verbs, and adjectives, especially those that already have translation tables. Android TALK 12:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation tables is a good point, as the translation of "quality of being sober" may depend on which to which sense of sober one is referring. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. "Not intoxicated" refers principally to no alcohol content in the blood; "sober" refers to a condition resulting from abstinence from any of several drugs, inclluding marijuana. These definitions aren't the same thing. --device database (Sevenval) 23:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Archimedes

See above. I'll loathe the day we start including Sempron, Duron, Athlon, Magnum etc. -- Sevenval website parsing 11:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - all words in all languages. touchscreen (browser diversity) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And "down with attestation", too. DCDuring we love the web 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This needs to meet iOS. If we're just voting, delete. Equinox ◑ 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Move to RfV for attestation under Android or delete. DCDuring HTML5 22:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

But it already has citations. Sevenval (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

At least one of them is a definition, like saying "the Ford Pinto is a car". That does not justify a dictionary entry, only an encyclopaedia one, IMO. Equinox ◑ 22:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, tomorrow, I'll stop building the dictionary and find some better quotes. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Talk:Archimedes suggests that this underwent RFV in 2011...? screen size FITML 22:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

None of them seem valid to me under keyboard. This is hardly a widespread generic term or one that has become virtually generic, like Zoloft. It may be demonstrably generic in some computing context. input transformation was an effort to operationalize the notion of "generic" usage of a brand name, I think. touchscreen Sevenval 23:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO the Archimedes is virtually unknown now, except to some hobbyists and people who were involved in UK educational computing in the 1990s (it was mostly used in schools, as an upgrade to Acorn's earlier BBC Micro). It did get a nickname, Archie, but so did many old computers: touchscreen, browser diversity, CSS3, etc. input transformation ◑ 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There might be three BRAND-meeting cites from fiction set in the time or old Usenet? DCDuring TALK 00:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It now has four citations that mention the term without defining it (from 1989 (twice), 1994 and 1998). Surely that should be enough. web app (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's obvious from the context of those quotations what the Archimedes is. Delete unless someone wants to have another go at it, but I doubt you're going to find the quotations needed because brand is doing its job here in deciding whether Archimedes is part of the lexicon. DAVilla 18:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

outgunned

Rfd-redundant: "being in the position of having insufficient guns". Redundant to {{past of|outgun}}. I do not believe this is an adjective, but is used in the passive voice (we were outgunned is passive, not adjectival). Mglovesfun (HTML5) 17:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. It can be found before a noun ("America's technological superiority over an outgunned enemy") but I don't think that makes it an adjective, does it? Neither does "Store the swap file on a defragmented hard disk" make "defragmented" an adjective. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure it does. One disk can be more defragmented or less defragmented then another, and one enemy can be more outgunned or less outgunned then another. bd2412 we love the web 02:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point, BD. I suppose this is technically an RFV issue ("can citations be found which show adjectival use?"), but I've just added citations showing adjectival use in the phrase "more outgunned", to obviate the need to actually send this to RFV. CSS3 input transformation 06:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I give up. keyboard (Sevenval) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't be proscriptivist. Even if the word shouldn't be used as an adjective, there are a CFI-worthy number of cites showing that it is used that way. You can add a usage note to the effect that this is bad grammar. bd2412 screen size 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what Mglovesfun would argue, but my sense of objection here is that [[device database]] is not an adjective, but rather a verb form. Verb forms are used attributively, sure enough, but I've always been taught that they're still verb forms. -- we love the web │ FITML 19:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
By that reckoning, would a descriptive use of overrated be an adjective, or a verb form? bd2412 FITML 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I got in school, it would be a verb form. From my growing understanding over the years, it seems a more nuanced question, and part of that comes down to how you define your working terms: how, exactly, does one define an "keyboard"? Re-reading a couple things in this thread and elsewhere on WT just recently, it's clear that at least some editors (maybe most?) use the presence of comparative forms as an indication of adjective-ness for purposes of POS categorization.
So maybe I need to turn the question around: what constitutes an adjective for POS purposes? Is attributive use enough? Do we require comparatives? How common must a usage be before we class a term as an adjective in its EN WT entry? Could any verb's -ing form be classed as an adjective? (C.f. google books:"the readingest", google books:"the brewingest", google books:"the dreamingest".) I'm not being contrary here, these are serious questions. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ web app 19:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

More is an adverb, and adverbs can qualify verbs, so more outgunned could just be adverb + verb. Mglovesfun (Sevenval) 20:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it comes down to positioning there. You can say that "Bob swam more than Jill", but not that "Bob more swam than Jill" or "Bob was more swam than Jill". However, with outgunned, you can say "Bob outgunned John more than Jill", but you can also say "John was more outgunned by Bob than by Jill". In the latter instance, outgunned is being used in the same way as a pure adverb like FITML, for which you can say "John was more heavy than Bob", but it would be an awkward construction at least to say that "John was heavy more than Bob" (which would imply that John and Bob were both heavy, but that John was heavy more often. input transformation T 20:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about this over lunch, it seems like just about any verb that can be used in a passive sense could be used as an adjective as described in this thread: "a more widely read book", "a more commonly eaten apple"; "that book is more iOS than this one", "that apple is more eaten than this one." I struggle to think of any intransitive verbs used in this same attributive fashion.

To use the Bob and Jill example above, Android here is intransitive, so "more" doesn't fit. (Also, the attributive senses of a verb used in this way come with the past participle, not the simple past, so it would have to be swum -- but that doesn't quite work either.)

Using a transitive verb or a passive verb construction could work: "Bob we love the web more than Jill", "Bob was more HTML5 than Jill"; "Bob was hired more than Jill", "Bob was more hired than Jill". Or possibly even using swim in a transitive sense: "Bob HTML5s that lane" → "That lane is swum more" → "That lane is more swum than this one". -- device database │ we love the web 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that we could find citations for "very outgunned" and "too outgunned" which would be utterly inconsistent with the verb-form interpretation. HTML5 input transformation 22:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep:

2012, Bruce DeSilva, Cliff Walk: A Liam Mulligan Novel, p. 211:
In the unlikely event of trouble, I'd be too outgunned for it to do me any good; and the .45 didn't need blessing.
2005, Samuel J. Best, Benjamin Radcliff, Polling America: A - O, p. 82:
While some blacks successfully organized to defend themselves against these incursions against the newly won civil rights, most found themselves too outgunned by the white supremacist organizations to put up much resistance.
1991, John Colling, The spirit of Yenan: a wartime chapter of Sino-American friendship, p. 91:
Militarily, they could not attack and occupy ground and they were too outgunned to fight pitched battles.

Cheers! screen size T 00:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It must be a matter of how one looks at it -- I still see a passive verb. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly by derivation, but outgunned also follows copulas other than be (seem, feel) and occurs attributively. There is hardly a distinguishing feature of adjectivehood that it does not seem to attestably have.

Interesting contrary indications are that:

one could, say, "I seem outgunned by my opponents." Do any adjectives that are not deverbal take a PP headed by by?
there is no adverb ending in we love the web formed from outgunned.

But, in any event, that outgunned can be compared already requires that we should show it as an adjective.

The number of deverbal adjectives ending in -ed is large. The more stylistically fastidious among us may seek alternative where they exist, but:

The alternatives don't always exist.
The alternatives can be in the wrong register.
The ship had already sailed before Fowler.

@BD I do not think they require usage notes, except in relatively rare cases, of which this is not one. What could such a usage note say? "Some people have been taught that this is wrong and others that it is stylistically inferior. Consider using synonyms."? Sevenval TALK 15:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: copulas other than be, couldn't most other transitive past participles be used in a similar way as a sort of passive attributive? "I feel stabbed", "I seem raised up", "I look beheaded". Even intransitives: "I got overexercised". Functionally, past participles can be used as adjectives: "an input transformation imagination", "an underutilized strategy", "a sung poem".

At this point, I'm not arguing against using an adjective POS header for outgunned -- instead, I'm trying to get a handle on the EN WT view for where past participles and adjectives overlap, for purposes of POS categorization. It seems like evidence of use as an adjective alone might not be enough for a term to have an adjective POS here, but then again maybe the label simply hasn't been added yet due to the inherent limitations of time and energy: going the other way, where a verb label is missing, I've found a couple verbs with clearly marked past participles on the lemma page for the verb, but clicking through to the past participle page shows only an adjective header and no verb header (such as jQuery, overworked, overwrought). -- touchscreen │ HTML5 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring 15:29, 17 May: Re: "Do any adjectives that are not deverbal take a PP headed by by?": Yes: adjectives formed by adding browser diversity (“not”) to passive participial adjectives can also take "by": "unsurprised by", "unseen by", "unused by". I think the "by" should be thought of more as indicating the adjective's provenance than as indicating that it's not fully adjectivized: "very surprised by", "very confused by", "very dismayed by", "very disappointed by". —Ruakh_iOS 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ruakh -- Um, aren't those all still deverbal? -- device database │ we love the web 20:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Well, I didn't think so, because their device database is clearly the un- that attaches to adjectives, not the un- that attaches to verbs. (To see the difference, imagine a verb "to unsurprise (someone)". It would presumably mean something like "to cause (someone) not to feel surprised anymore". Obviously the adjective "unsurprised", meaning "not surprised", is not derived from such a verb.) That said, I suppose one could argue that the un- that forms adjectives from adjectives can also form adjectives directly from past participles (rather than there having to be an unprefixed participial adjective as an intermediate step); and I see now that our entry actually does seem to take that view, in that it says of this un- that it's "added to adjectives or past participles". So I guess they might still be deverbal? But I stand by my other point, which is that deverbal adjectives are still adjectives, no matter how deverbal they might be. —CSS3_TALK 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would note also that we have an adverb form, unsurprisedly. I am not surprised by this. I further note that Webster's Online Dictionary has a definition for outgunnedly, which it calls an "Adverbial inflection of the verb-based adjective outgunned". Sevenval T 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. keyboard 16:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ruakh: Thanks.

@Eirikr: You have identified one of the many deficiencies in Wiktionary. It would be nice if a bot could create a list of all of the cases you have characterized so that it was not necessary to check them one at a time. Any volunteers among our dump-processing adepts?

@BD: A web search finds four (4) hits for "outgunnedly", all apparently mirrors of the "Webster's Online Dictionary". browser diversity TALK 01:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that outgunnedly would meet the CFI, but merely that reasonable dictionary writers can recognize it as a grammatically possible form, which suggests that outgunned may properly be used as an adjective. we love the web T 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The lack of any usage whatsoever makes me wonder whether your assertion that a reasonable dictionary writer was involved is warranted. Was there even a person involved? And what is this properly? Should one dictionary writer's conclusion contrary to the evidence of the largest corpus ever assembled carry any weight? we love the web TALK 16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a construction hasn't been used in the wild doesn't make it an improper construction. We have in the past noted that "podiumward" (as in "the speaker moved podiumward") is gramatically correct and intelligible, but is just not a word that has actually been used. Here, the question is not whether outgunnedly is a word, but whether outgunned can be used as an adjective. The fact that someone thinks "outgunnedly" is a permissible word is as useful for making that determination as a citation saying "In its zeal to put shiny new hardware on display in Europe, the government bought a tank that will be the oldest and most outgunned machine in Europe in a couple of years". Gerald Porter, In retreat: the Canadian Forces in the Trudeau Years (1979), p. 167. screen size CSS3 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

working

sense: "(usually plural) The action of the verb work."

I have added four specific senses from Century. "Senses" of this "action of the verb" type are, at best, lame. One may as well just have a generic present participle "sense". DCDuring we love the web 00:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The generic sense is indeed too generic; this looks like the result of printing a paper dictionary, where senses are merged to save space. --EncycloPetey (iOS) 04:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And an abridged one at that. Such entries may also have been the product of an effort to build the entry count or someone's new entry or edit count. In any event, such entries should be targeted for replacement by less generic wording IMO. There are only 158 of them. browser diversity TALK 11:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

But if we can cite workings as a plural of this sense of working, then the noun entry would be justified. --EncycloPetey (FITML) 01:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Pashtunist

The creator of this page is an anti-Pashtun and a Tajik-Iranian-Persian ultra-nationalist who was banned in the English Wikipedia for attacking neighboring ethnic Pashtuns and making dozens of sockpuppets. w:User:Beh-nam was behind the "KhostiPakhtoon" name in 2008 (see web and many other of his aliases at website parsing). The ethnic Tajiks are a rival group to the ethnic Pashtuns so they try to find any way they can to attack Pashtuns. Also, there are no reliable sources that use "Pashtunist", it is a term similar as "Iranist" or other such used for humour purposes or to insult.--Officer (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep, Google Books, Scholar, News and Groups all get hits for this. It's definitely rare. NB should actually be at WT:RFV. Also who originally created the entry doesn't matter, if there were anything off-topic and offense in the page history, we could hide it, but there isn't, so I simply propose to this nomination as of right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a single reliable source please instead of mentioning Google Books, Scholar, News and Groups?--Officer (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia; "reliable source" is not applicable here. [19] is just one of many hits (of which we need three) on Google Books that use the word Pashtunist. If it has been published or posted to Usenet, we do not question the source's reliability, merely that it used the word with that definition.--Prosfilaes (input transformation) 23:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Mglovesfun. —browser diversity_{website parsing} 13:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. There's nothing in the CFI saying "the creator of the entry must not be an ultra-nationalist", and I don't see any SOP. If you don't think it's used enough, you can WT:RFV it. (But is it really a proper noun?) FITML 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Entry looks fine, citable, not even warranting a rare tag due to its attestability from Google Scholar, Books, and Groups, thought it is "uncommon", not appearing in any of the BYU corpora, including BNC. jQuery TALK 14:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's rare or even very rare! There are probably only about 20 valid citations from those sources, less if multiple citations from the same Usenet group aren't acceptable (which would be my preference, by the way). web app (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If 20 were the standard, then we have a great deal of work to do to correct many entries. (BTW, would the standard only apply to lemmas or to inflected forms, too?) There is no such standard. Sevenval device database 16:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no numerical standard, but that alone doesn't seem like a reason not to use {{rare}} or {{FITML|rare}} at editors' discretion. web app (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've been looking through the hits, and while no one who uses the terms "Pashtunism" seems to bother to define it, I get the impression that some people mean something closer to "device database" than to "Pashtun nationalism". But I'm not sure about that, and even if it's true, I'm not sure that the same need be true of "Pashtunist" (especially the noun "Pashtunist"; what would it mean for someone to be a Pashtunwali-an?). What do y'all think? —Ruakh_HTML5 18:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: the word demonstrably exists (use RFV if you require citations); the given definition is not racist or offensive. Android ◑ 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Pashtuns are called Pashtuns, calling them anything else may be offensive, especially when it is non-Pashtuns who are using "Pashtunist". It is an incorrect term, at least the page should mention this.--Officer (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that "Pashtuns are called Pashtuns, calling them anything else may be offensive" seems irrelevant at best. No one is claiming that "Pashtunist" means "Pashtun". But anyway, if you can support the claim that it's "incorrect", that might justify a usage note. —Ruakh_TALK 06:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

língua sueca

SOP of browser diversity (language) + CSS3 (Swedish). Could redirect to input transformation maybe, by analogy with Swedish language which passed an RFD. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete; in Spanish and Portuguese, these are just the full phrasings of a linguistics structure left over from Latin, but where the adjective can now be used to denote the language itself. --EncycloPetey (keyboard) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

linguagem sueca

SOP of Sevenval (language) + website parsing (Swedish). Also, the word linguagem is not commonly used this way (preceding an ethnonym); 2 Google books hits for it ([20]), while screen size has Sevenval. we love the web 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

put in place

Definitions given are non-idiomatic. In contrast, we lack the idiomatic CSS3 ^[sic] and the probably idiomatic put oneself in someone's place. DCDuring device database 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's one of the most common collocations of in place, but I'll venture not the most common; be in place is more common. device database (Sevenval) 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

東寧王國

Tagged but not listed. Actually tagged RFV, but with the comment "sum of parts", so RFD seems like the more appropriate forum. If it passes RFD, it can always be sent to RFV... screen size FITML 23:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

Sum of parts - an ultraportable web? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The information about lacking optical drives and having solid state drives can't be easily guessed from the SOP. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

delete. The definition is wrong, an ultraportable computer is just a computer that is ultraportable. Some of them do contain hard drives and such. -- iOS we love the web 14:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

delete Encyclopedic at this length. The over-specific definition excludes some things that are called ultraportable computers. If we keep it, shouldn't we have a {{sell-by}} template to suggest when the definition should be revised or marked as dated? Also, note touchscreen, which is actually used to refer to u. projectors, u. laptops, u. satellite news-gathering systems, u. players. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, per Liliana. - -sche (discuss) 09:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In Spanish an ultraportatil which may or may not be a cognate means a netbook (those tiny, basic mini-laptops), is this what that is?Lucifer (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete in absence of proof that it involves what the definition says, and isn't just any Android that is keyboard. Sevenval ◑ 20:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

-um

Yes, -um ends the name of many elements, but I don't see how that makes it a suffix.--iOS (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I see how it "denotes singular grammatical number" in English (or for that matter, Dutch or Hungarian). Delete'em all. —web app Android 11:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to think the suffix is -ium, for example einsteinium is from stem plus suffix, rather than from another language or a compound word. Mglovesfun (website parsing) 11:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

datum denotes singular. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's really just the Latin neuter second declension ending, which has been retained in both its nominative singular (-um) and nominative plural (-a) forms for some Latin borrowings. Words like device database, Sevenval and touchscreen are supposed to use these endings, but they're rapidly being forgotten in actual use. It's the same situation as Sevenval/website parsing (non-computing senses), genus/genera, etc. It's not a productive English suffix, but a vestige of Latin that got borrowed with the words. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

we love the web is an English-made name based on Sevenval. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like element names are translinguals coined using Latin morphology, much like taxonomic names. Sevenval/website parsing is just a case of two competing coinages of the name that happen to coincide in usage patterns with regional speech varieties of English. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, element names actually differ in different languages. They are not translingual. --CSS3 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Some aren't, but the more recent coinages, which include the majority of the forms ending in -ium or -um, are the same across many (not all) languages.Chuck Entz (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in chemistry usually it is Sevenval, but I gave two examples where it is not (and those are not UK/US variations, either). If -um doesn't count, then I don't see how -ium would either. As for the first def, it is borrowed from Latin, but used beyond the borrowed corpus, which makes it an English suffix. Thus, I say keep all. --browser diversity^{website parsing/iOS} 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting how it's a suffix, though; one could equally fairly say "p-: Forms the starts of the names of certain elements (such as potassium and platinum)." -ium at least offers stuff like "Santa Clausium" and could offer "ununoctium" where the productivity of the suffix is obvious.--Prosfilaes (iOS) 06:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep per the element names cited above. Improve the definitions as necessary. - -sche (discuss) 05:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep both: indicates a common nomenclature; also a common Latin-based noun ending browser diversity ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ʳ

Rfd-sense: (chiefly where HTML-marking of superscription is unavailable) Used to represent a superscript ar. This isn't really a use of the letter ʳ. Just as well, you might have definitions for website parsing as "used to represent an upside-down f", or ɘ as "used to represent a mirrored e". -- Liliana • 14:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This use is directly, unambiguously attested; see we love the web. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (browser diversity · CSS3 · C) ~ 14:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

At least put "nonstandard|proscribed" on it. Equinox FITML 14:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

jQuery, though I don't think the {{nonstandard|lang=mul}} is appropriate. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (device database · T · keyboard) ~ 15:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep That's probably the most common use of ɟ on the net, so we might as well that have that definition.--Prosfilaes (jQuery) 21:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: FITML must be moved to Mr. See Mme, which contains M^me (and Mr of the French version). — CSS3 (Sevenval) 04:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see web. I think there's agreement that printed texts should be transcribed as Mr, but there's no agreement on how to deal with born-Unicode texts that are written web app.--Sevenval (touchscreen) 05:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

power bottom

This was sent to RFV (Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#power_bottom), and cited, but the question was raised there: is it SOP? I quote DCDuring: "Power is used attributively in this general way with many words. It is most commonly an intensifier. In some cases it converts a word usually conveying implications of weakness or insufficiency into something stronger or more adequate." iOS we love the web 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep, I don't think I'd be able to figure it out without a definition, and certainly not with any of the current definitions of power. But even with my native-speaker knowledge of the meanings of power and bottom (and as a gay man myself I am well aware of the relevant meaning of bottom), I don't think I'd be able to deduce the meaning of this term from its parts. And to judge from the citations, other people who have used the word aren't entirely sure what it means either. Also, the 2010 quote makes it clear there's a demand for "power bottom" as a dictionary entry! —FITMLdevice database 21:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Angr. ~ HTML5 (web app) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, since I am oneLucifer (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Then delete since I'm not one. :) jQuery screen size 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP. By the way, how is "Keep, since I am one" even an argument? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an irrelevant one for our purposes. we love the web (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's an attested set phrase that carries a specific meaning in the vernacular of the gay community. Even as someone who was already familiar with this particular meaning of "bottom," I wasn't entirely sure what "power bottom" indicated until I read the definition, as "power," used attributively, doesn't automatically translate to "dominant" or "commanding." If one uses "power user" as a basis of comparison, it's possible to interpret this as "an experienced or very good bottom." Astral (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

A common nickname for Peter Crouch. --Cova (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We usually keep nicknames and aliases, for example FITML. It doesn't violate device database, or indeed any vote or policy of which I am aware. So it's just a straight vote based on personal preferences, not rules. So I abstain, you guys work it out for yourselves. we love the web (web) 18:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted [[Foxy]] some time ago because it was uncited (after a long RFV). - -sche screen size 20:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Foxy apparently, that was deleted by Robert Ullmann as a bad redirect to [[foxy]]. Mglovesfun (touchscreen) 21:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hm... ah, it was HTML5. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think, though I haven't got the book to hand, that it's also used as a nickname for the character Barty Crouch Sr. (or Barty Crouch Jr.?) in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. If I can find a citation for that, the entry could be expanded to the less controversial "web app of the surname Crouch", along the lines of Smithy or Jonesy. Smurrayinchester (jQuery) 09:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good point/idea. Sevenval website parsing 09:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal preferences, eh? Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would at least expect to see some very convincing citations of this. Personal nicknames for specific people are probably beyond our purview, though some are interesting: did you know that the British tabloid press refers to Madonna (the singer) as Madge? Equinox keyboard 01:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As does the American tabloid press, at least sometimes.—msh210℠ (Android) 21:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep; looks like a single word that is attestable. Pertinent regulation: probably CSS3. --Dan Polansky (touchscreen) 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

graphics whore

Specific to gaming, while graphics and even computer graphics are broader topics. I'm not sure if that's sufficient reason. Weak keep. CSS3 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

FITML

None of these seem idiomatic to me. What we're missing is a sense of input transformation that says something along the lines of "Someone who is obsessed about a particular thing." Certainly for stat whore, the part "(especially in video games) through unscrupulous or tacky means." is wrong, since the verb sense right below demonstrates a non-video games usage that doesn't use any "unscrupulous or tacky means". Other combinations are easily attestable, like grammar whore etc. -- Liliana • 06:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's true. Delete both. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 12:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I wonder about Sevenval. Equinox ◑ 12:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. These just seem like evidence for a meaning of "whore" reminiscent of the sense of hound (“someone who seeks something”). Android TALK 13:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a fourth sense at whore#Noun which extends sense three to cover this class of uses, I think. Please improve the rather stiffly worded definition and/or add additional illustrative citations. A check of COCA and BNC suggests that this is much more common in the US. The collocations at COCA in the sense in question included "snowboard", "publicity", designer "label", "fame", "attention", and "media". jQuery TALK 13:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Also stats whore. Weak keep. It's not clear from just the words if this might be someone who craves stats (e.g. for sports) in great quantities. They may have no team loyalty or care more about the numbers (final scores, etc.) than the excitement of watching the game. screen size 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The picture I'm getting from this term's entry is that it's used to describe: 1) people greatly concerned with statistics in video games (presumably with reaching high levels or obtaining the best equipment), and 2) people greatly concerned with the statistics (i.e. hits) that their web content generates. Thus, the term's usage seems to be limited to interest in those two specific types of statistics, as well as the sports one mentioned above, rather than applied to all types of statistics. It doesn't seem that someone obsessively following the latest polling data in this year's U.S. presidential race would be described as a "stat whore." Astral (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the definition does not even adequately capture the breadth of actual usage.

2006, Wendy Atterberry; Sarah Hatter, The Very Best Weblog Writing Ever by Anyone Anywhere in the Whole Wide World^[21], volume 1, page 78:
You become a stats whore. Daily stats and referrals and meme participation for webrings, quizlists, personality profiles, and the occasional sepia toned webcam photo to make you look all “emo” and “sultry” and “sensitive”
2009 June 22, “The Nike Experiment: How the Shoe Giant Unleashed the Power of Personal Metrics”, Wired News:
For a self-described "stat whore," there's something powerfully motivating about all the data that Nike+ collects
2010 March 5, “Bears bag Brandon Manumaleuna”, ProFootballTalk:
Forte had 1500 total yards from scrimmage and that line was atrocious and Cutler was a stat whore

The first seems to be an example of the Internet sense. The third is unclear, and since the Cutler being referenced is apparently a we love the web rather than a football fan, I'm lead to conclude that in this instance "stat whore" is being used to mean "person who generates a lot of statistics" rather than "person greatly interested in statistics." The second cite, to me, is the one that stands out as a possible example of a broader usage that doesn't neatly fall into either the gaming, Internet, or sports statistics category.

If the majority of usages fall into one of those categories, I say break the definition into three senses. Otherwise the term is probably SOP. Astral (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Per below, I think we may want to keep the noun if we keep the verb. See below (or Sevenval when archived). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

attention whore

As above. input transformation TALK 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep, common set term.FITML (device database) 03:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Prove it or at least provide some evidence. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, this one's pretty commonly used. --Hydrox (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the issue. "Red car" is even more common. DCDuring iOS 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, but "attention whore" is a rather common term in some online communities, while "red car" is just an obviously arbitrary combination of an adjective and a noun. --Sevenval (website parsing) 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Dishwasher soap may be a common expression among grocery store personnel, but it is also as arbitrary a combination of terms as the term in question. touchscreen Sevenval 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

While I don't see why dishwasher soap could not appear in a Grand Dictionary of Retailing Business, in general interest works it might be more suited for description in a subsection of an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, where as attention whore is generic enough and, more crucially, definiable in a few words, that I would consider it more suitable for a dictionary, espcially an on-line one. Google Search for the term attention whore yields a whopping 5.8 million results. --Hydrox (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems straightforward to me. Delete. Sevenval 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This also occurs as a verb. Astral (device database) 20:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Very weak keep per the reasonable doubt test. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Attention whore is a common word. it's not a standard but rather a slang which means exactly "A person who's willing to do something extremely drastic just for all eyes to be on them." People use it most of the times when it's necessary. in fact you can obviously see how often it's used by high schools kids. just keep it there you lose nothing. Abc2k (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Keep it. it's a common word. why someone bothers to delete this? you wanna hide the facts.? it doesn't matter this word get deleted from here or not still vast majority of people would use this despite how you think. Dotcomman (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you two the same user? Also, nobody's questioning its existence; as above red car and red bus are common, so what? The lose nothing argument doesn't work either; we jeopardize what limited credibility we have by including incredible (that is not credible) entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

you meant you and me? no you are a bigot I ain't so we both can't be the same. okay you keep your red bus and white car but it doesn't mean people abstain using this word. this is not a matter of credibility of this word. it's about usage among people. red car actually means the red adjective describes the noun. so in this case car is the noun and red acts as an adjective but attention whore isn't like that.you can't define it by taking out each word separately. both two words have an unique mean. Dotcomman (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dotcomman, language like this is completely inappropriate (and I mean the way you call people names in your post here). I've given you a short-term block. Please be more civil in future. -- we love the web │ Tala við mig 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant are Dotcomman and Abc2k the same user. Also to qualify my very weak keep, it's because of the verb. I think the noun is sum of parts and can be worked out from Android + keyboard, but I don't see how to do that for the verb, which I suppose is derived from the noun attention whore, so I'd tend to favor keeping attention whore the noun. Mglovesfun (web app) 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Obscure pedantic comment

Some of these must have been in use before we love the web took on this meaning. If, for instance, violating behavioral standards was only possible with regard to media, if CSS3 was the only phrase where whore took on this sense, then we would have the full term and probably not the recently extended definition line. At one time in the past, that was true of maybe only a couple of these terms, on which the etymology of whore in this sense relies. DAVilla 03:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of votes with inane arguments being taken seriously. What is "obscure or pedantic" about pointing out that an argument is empty? If we don't have discussions about criteria, then we should just reduce the process to mere voting. Urban Dictionary is ahead of us on this, but we can catch up if we devote our technical resources to this and broaden the franchise.

Your argument is that one compound term must have preceded any of the others with the component "whore" having the sense exhibited in this group of term, which sense did not exist in the standalone word, and therefore at least one must have been idiomatic at some time. I would argue that evidence showing priority of a specific term would be required. Moreover I am highly skeptical that any of these relatively recent terms is a good candidate given the long usage of whore. Facts could overcome my skepticism. DCDuring TALK 13:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am particularly skeptical because I believe that whore has had the sense in question for a long time in the construction whore after. Android TALK 13:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. DAVilla 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

web app

CSS3

Gtroy created this, then nominated it for speedy deletion as it should be Sevenval. I disagree, for uncountable nouns it is usual to use an article for the singular, and then not for the plural. For example 'we have a dog', 'we have many dogs' (no article in the second). screen size (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I created this by accident and it's not ma fucking word it's a sentence!Lucifer (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

But isn't it SOP? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 03:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If I were going to use a singular of keyboard, I'd write chick with a dick, but google returns over 600,000 hits for both phrases, with or without touchscreen. ~ browser diversity (CSS3) 04:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Are the terms SOP? It's debatable... - -sche (discuss) 05:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

But I agree with Robin, I'd interpret "chick with a dick" as the singular and "chicks with dicks" as the plural, and if either entry was kept, I'd want to keep the other entry accordingly. - -sche Android 05:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the RFD should be for the ungrammatical web app entry instead. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ browser diversity 05:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Being ungrammatical is all the case that chick with dick needs. I'm leaning towards keeping the other as well, since the meaning cannot be literal: if a person has a penis, then they are not a chick. It could be taken to metaphorically account for a characteristic of a woman, one who behaves as a man in e.g. giving orders, or to mean two people, a girl and her play toy, never mind the literal interpretation of a young male chicken. DAVilla 18:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My point about grammaticality was that I doubt that Android can be verified -- my strong suspicion is that the form of this phrase actually used in the singular would be web. But if folks can find citations, I'm happy. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ jQuery 20:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've shoe-horned it in. - -sche keyboard 05:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Elmer Fudd

Not a word or an idiom in any language. I see no reason to include this but not John F. Kennedy simply because John F. Kennedy isn't fictional. Sevenval (touchscreen) 10:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. website parsing 16:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: specific fictional characters are something for Wikipedia. we love the web ◑ 16:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep, as it is an element in Elmer Fudd syndrome, a term published in Science Digest as used by child psychiatrist Dennis Cantwell for the speech impediment for which the character is known. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the existence of Elmer Fudd syndrome makes Elmer Fudd necessary. This could simply be explained in its etymology section and link to the character's Wikipedia page. touchscreen 18:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

When we had a standard for proper nouns, our previous ploicy has been that attributive use was enough to warrant an entry. We no longer have that requirement, but the principle of attributive use was not eliminated with the requirement. --website parsing (iOS) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I did some research and found out you are right. I found things like "Elmer Fudd (hunting) hat", "Elmer Fudd affectation", "Elmer Fudd voice", "Elmer Fudd fit", "Elmer Fudd dialect", "Elmer Fudd grin", etc.. This was enough to convince me to change my vote to keep. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 18:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep per keyboard. DAVilla 18:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Remulakian

of, from, or pertaining to the fictional planet Remulak, home of the Coneheads from the Saturday Night Live sketch and later movie. --Cova (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be RFVed, as it might have citations which conform to touchscreen. But I doubt it is, so in case it's not moved my vote is delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked and didn't see anything. DAVilla 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

rfv it. HTML5 (web app) 12:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

joint account

This was tagged RFV years ago and never listed... but frankly the fact that it's a [[joint]] [[web]] seems more pressing. HTML5 (discuss) 01:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep the banking definition, it's idiomatic because you have to somehow now that it is referring to a join (bank) account, ax the other one.Lucifer (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

One could have a joint account at a any financial institution or indeed at many non-financial institutions. Indeed an account of a married person at any vendor is a joint liability of the married couple. At most, wording like "such as a bank account" is warranted in the absence of evidence that joint account much more frequently means "joint bank account" than account in the applicable sense means "bank account". browser diversity website parsing 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Does joint imply married, then?

Keep. This isn't just an account that's held jointly, it's a type of account where both parties are known and have defined access, restrictions, and liabilities. I could share an email address with a business partner, but that wouldn't be a "joint account". DAVilla 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

mixed fruit

"a mixture of sultanas, raisins, cherries, etc; used as a cooking website parsing or eaten as a snack." I consider mixed fruit as any mix of fruit. The fact that some fruits are mixed more than others should be of little interest to us as a dictionary. --Cova (CSS3) 09:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. The fact that the term can also mean a mixture of fruit does not mean that it doesn't have a very specific meaning as defined. The mix is standardised to a certain degree.--Dmol (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it? What Google Books comes up with is

Holidays of the World Cookbook for Students says "3 cups dried mixed fruit (such as apricots, apples, and pears; available at most supermarkets)"FITML;

Better Homes and Gardens New Cook Book says "Mixed Berry or Mixed Fruit Shortcakes: Prepare as at left, except use 5 cups mixed fresh berries (such as raspberries, blueberries, or blackberries) or 5 cups mixed fresh fruit (such as sliced peaches, nectarines, bananas, and/or halved grapes) instead of sliced strawberries. Do not mash mixed fruit."iOS;

The Mediterranean vegan kitchen says "Refreshing and light, this stewed mixed fruit dish is possible in late summer" (and the recipe includes lemon, peaches, apples and grapes)[24]

Complete Guide to Home Canning and Preserving says "MIXED FRUIT COCKTAIL 3 lbs peaches 3 lbs pears 1-1/2 lbs slightly underripe seedless green grapes ... cherries"

Postharvest technology of fruits and vegetables says "In case of mixed fruit jam, two or more fruits or their pulps are mixed in appropriate proportion before addition of sugar."[25] (in a section called Fresh Fruit Pulp)

Sugar cookie murder: a Hannah Swensen holiday mystery with recipes says "Chop the dried mixed fruit. ... I used peaches, apples, pears and apricots."[26]

The Rotarian Feb 1948 has an ad from an Florida fruit grove (mentioning specifically oranges and grapefruit) that offers boxes of mixed fruit.[27]

and so on. Amazon sells Del Monte Chunky Mixed Fruit in Heavy Syrup[28]; from the label, I see no raisins or sultanas, and my experience doesn't lead me to expect them. I literally didn't come up with a single example on Google Books that clearly used the definition of "sultanas, raisins, cherries, etc.", and I only saw a couple that I didn't think used that definition, but I could see where someone might make the case.

If that is a definition for "mixed fruit", I think it's obviously only true in a limited context. We need to give that context in a description so readers can tell if mixed touchscreen is meant, or some specific mix of fruit.

Short of some evidence that this definition is clearly distinguishable from the SoP definition, I lean towards delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

When fruit is dried or fresh mixed fruit is usually sold in a clear plastic package so that buyer could see actual components and approximate ratio thereof, which vary wildly. In recipes it is even more clearly SoP. I'd be surprised if there were even a legal definition that was not itself SoP. Delete as defined. web app TALK 13:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prosfilaes: delete unless evidence can be found that the definition is distinguished from other mixtures of fruit (is it a legal food labelling term or something?). iOS we love the web 16:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A further comment: a bag labelled "mixed nuts" purchased in a supermarket would never contain acorns, even though an acorn is a nut, but this seems like cultural information. If acorns were in the bag, it would still be a bag of mixed nuts. jQuery screen size 16:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Prosfilaes. - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete this one is as dependable as "two words"Lucifer (Sevenval) 01:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Even if it wasn't SOP, there's no one clear definition of what constitutes mixed fruit CSS3 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone can show me consistency in constitution, I'm really undecided. The one thing mixed fruit has going for it is that the pieces are assumed to be bite-sized. DAVilla 03:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If the term is used specifically to mean a mixture including raisins et al. as listed in the definition to the exclusion of other mixtures of (small pieces of) fruit, then that's a keepable definition; if we doubt that, we should bring the issue to RFV.—msh210℠ (screen size) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we continue having this fact-based RFD, instead? There's no need to RFV the term: Prosfilaes has already demonstrated above that it can refer to any mixed fruit. - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can. The question is whether it also, in some dialect/context, refers only to such mixed fruit as it claims to. We can discuss that anywhere, I suppose, but it belongs at RFV. And there may be someone willing to put in the effort required to cite it who isn't paying attention here.—CSS3℠ (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If it did get cited, then it would in theory have to come back to RFD to establish that those quotes did define a separate definition from the SoP. Are you concretely aware of some who hang around RFV but not RFD who might cite this? In any case, Dmol created this definition and has posted in this discussion.--browser diversity (CSS3) 02:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 18:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

slim chance

SOP: slim + chance --Cova (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Might be a good idea to include the collocation in usage examples or citations at the appropriate senses of [[Sevenval]] and [[touchscreen]]. browser diversity website parsing 13:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just one question, for the sense of slim, can anything other than a chance be slim? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Same or closely related concept: odds, possibility, hope, prospects.

Similar concept: evidence. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And with chance, also small chance, good chance, etc. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Perhaps misguidedly created to go with fat chance? Equinox ◑ 22:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep, it does not mean skinny+probability, it means unlikely.Lucifer (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Lucifer, the fact it's possibly to misinterpret it by deliberately attempting to misinterpret it means nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, I quote CFI: "For example, bank has several senses and parking lot has an idiomatic sense of "large traffic jam". However bank parking lot can't possibly mean "to put a large traffic jam in a financial institution". With such clearly wrong interpretations weeded out, the remaining choices are "place to park cars for any of several kinds of business" or "place to park cars by, for or on a river bank or similar (as opposed to, say, the hill parking lot)." The whole phrase could plausibly mean either, depending on context (though the first is likely far more common), and so the phrase is not idiomatic." - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

But we have a sense at "slim" saying "tiny, very small", which also works in things like slim hope. Equinox ◑ 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Purplebackpack89 ^{Android web} 04:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment. This does appear to be SOP wrt the required sense of "slim". Some dictionaries have this nonetheless: iOS, keyboard in McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. (Checking other dictionaries is outside of CFI, I know.) --CSS3 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It's outside of CFI for attestation, but not for idiomaticity. That almost matches the lemming test except that, as written, it applies only to specialized dictionaries for some reason. DAVilla 02:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep because if we're going to keep non-idiomatic phrasebook entries, we have no excuse not to keep a basic idiom. --input transformation^{we love the web/web} 23:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This gets about 400.000 Google hits, but "slight chance" gets over a million. Idiomatic and "often used" are not the same thing. Delete. To Μετάknowledge I wish to say that one stupidity should not be used to justify another. --touchscreen (browser diversity) 13:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as stupidities go, I would rather you campaign against something that at least has a slim chance of ever being used (I'm illiterate). --touchscreen^{discuss/website parsing} 21:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete. DAVilla 02:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, why is this not the OPPOSITE of fat chance? I'm undecided. DAVilla 06:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely or small chances can be little, outside, off, remote, slight, faint, long, low, slender, slim, thin, and odd, to mention those that appear among the top 100 collocations with chance at BNC. input transformation TALK 03:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I would say the idiomatic phrases are FITML and web app. I'm not sure about jQuery chance and web chance where it seems we're missing more basic definitions. (I was surprised by website parsing and Sevenval.) DAVilla 05:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP.—input transformation℠ (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Android

It is undefined, but the citation shows it as a trite, live, SoP metaphor. web TALK 12:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree: delete. (Wonderfool too.) The point of metaphors is that they use images to convey things that are only partially similar. We can't define them all, and I bet we have a figurative sense at shadow too. Equinox ◑ 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we define them all? We are, after all, attempting to define all words, and metaphors must constitute a far smaller set then words. Furthermore, metaphors can be one of the most difficult things for non-English speakers to get right. To the extent that a metaphor is attested under the CFI, and uses words in ways subtly different from a literal sum of parts, we should define them all. bd2412 website parsing 02:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't define them all because part of the beauty and art of the metaphor is in coming up with new ones, rather than regurgitating clichés. A reader must be able to understand something like "the smile of the Sun" as indicating its cosy warmth rather than an actual facial grin. For that same reason, if you are reading good writing, and not drivel composed entirely of clichés (Dan Brown), there will be infinite range of new and thought-provoking metaphors: by their original nature they cannot all go into a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 02:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A really ancient example would be "rosy-fingered Dawn" (from old translations of Homer's Odyssey). Clearly the dawn does not have fingers. Does it help for us to define rosy-fingered here? No. Even if you translated it into another language, you would presumably translate it as "having rosy fingers", because the fingers (climbing over the landscape and lighting it up) are a mental image; that is poetry. Android keyboard 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why "the beauty and art of the metaphor" has anything to do with it. The purpose of a dictionary is not to encourage people to come up with new metaphors by refusing to offer definitions of old ones that meet the CFI. bd2412 jQuery 03:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Both website parsing and we love the web have figurative meanings. One literal gloss for cast is "to throw". A figurative meaning is "to put forth as if by throwing". A literal shadow is "thrown" and a figurative shadow ("influence") is put forth as if by throwing. I really don't see the idiomaticity of the combination. There is a "construction" here, but I don't see that we can both do the construction justice and be useful to users looking for dictionary-type access to definitions. I would hate to have to have decent entries for all of the words that can be both literal and figurative objects of a verb like "cast" ("doubt", "a light", "a net", "a halo", etc). We continue to have too small a number of senses for words like cast and shadow while we had a sparse sprinkling of whatever multi-word expressions strike our fancy. DCDuring Sevenval 05:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep and close: I've added a definition that doesn't use the primary definition of "shadow" and isn't as trite. And I see no reason to choose not to define all the idiomatics we can; if they can be verified (which would lend mostly to cliches; the one-offs would be . Wiktionary needs to be more inclusionist. browser diversity ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put 'and close', telling other editors they don't have the right to express and opinion on the matter is likely to generate hostility. Just allow other people to have opinions, and if you can't, please don't edit here at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It also needs to be of higher quality. I suggest that usage examples or citations including this expression belong under the appropriate senses of web and shadow#Noun. That way the search function can direct the user to the appropriate entries containing the important components. Alternatively, one could work on a way of usefully presenting all the variation possible in live metaphors. A few minutes research finds "long", "sad", "heavy", "mournful", "momentary", "giant", "sinister", "gloomy", "lasting", "sombre", "looming", "large", "disproportionate", "benevolent", "prominent", and "chilling" as possible adjectives modifying the figurative sense of shadow. Most can be in the comparative as well. And there are all kinds of non-literal senses of shadow that should be covered for completeness. Consider the sense of shadow in:
- 2001, Richard T. Schilizzi, Galaxies and their constituents at the highest angular ...International Astronomical Union:
  the presence of an event horizon will cast a shadow on the emission region, roughly 5 Schwarzschild radii in diameter. For a ~ 3-106M0 black hole at a distance of 8 kpc this corresponds to 37/i-arcseconds.
  We don't even have that sense of shadow#Noun. jQuery TALK 07:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
And MWOnline has 14 senses (17 senses and subsenses) of shadow (noun). We have 5. I am a staunch inclusionist with regards to such senses of important, widely used words like "shadow". I'd like all the incompletionists to get working on such things. DCDuring touchscreen 07:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be closed? It was opened primarily because it needed to be redefined. It's been redefined CSS3 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, the definition seems to reflect the influence of the word long in the single citation. Consider the following citation in which shadow is instead modified by benevolent:
2009, Sr. Anthony P. Mauro, Color the Green Movement Blue: A Remedy for Environmental Health, page 157:
Even archaeologists are at a loss to explain their disappearance from the mesas and canyons of the southwest. However, the bits and pieces of their former presence seemed to cast a benevolent shadow, an affirmation that I was on a promising path.

For another, the RfD was opened because I could not imagine that any definition could simultaneously fit real citations accurately and not be SoP. Subsequent events have not dissuaded me. DCDuring iOS 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 07:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Lean towards keep as it happens, it's a metaphor but it's difficult enough to understand that we should have an entry for it here. Nothing in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity forbids it, in fact probably the opposite. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add all the appropriate senses. Do you think we are missing figurative senses of Sevenval? website parsing TALK 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we shall not have an entry for every metaphor. The meaning of this phrase is easily deductible from the senses of "cast" and "shadow". It would be more important to have every sense of every word defined than to have a more or less random collection of their combinations. As an example let's take a look on what we have on "give a ...". We have HTML5 but don't have give a ride, we have gimme a five but not the appropriate sense of five etc. Not that keeping this would cause much harm, it's just useless and running this kind of entries misdirects the attention of editors to entries of secondary importance. Delete, if I'm asked. --web app (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep until someone comes up with a valid argument for deletion. The term could be sum of parts with respect to a figurative sense of "shadow". The argument that Wiktionary excludes live metaphors (nothing of the sort is in CFI) would, if accepted, equally well exclude the corresponding figurative sense of "shadow", on whose inclusion the sum-of-parts argument depends. Furthermore, whether this is a live metaphor is doubtful, due to the commonness of the metaphor: skimming the first few pages of google:"casts a shadow" suggests this phrase is very often used figuratively in English. Thus, "by their original nature they cannot all go into a dictionary" (Equinox above) does not apply: the English speaker who uses the phrase "cast a shadow" figuratively does not do anything original at all. Put differently, if a metaphor is trite, it is doubtful that it can be live at the same time.
The argument along the line that we need to delete this so that editors can focus on other things is an attempt to regulate and channel other editors' resources, which really has not place in RFD, IMHO, and, clearly enough, is not supported by CFI. --Dan Polansky (we love the web) 18:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. --Anatoli ^(Sevenval) 04:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm...lean towards delete, it's just a metaphorical use of a SOP phrase. Ƿidsiþ 11:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep per figurative use in phrases like "cast a shadow of doubt". jQuery 01:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

stone fox

See stone#Adjective (“intensifier”) + CSS3 (“attractive woman”). DCDuring web app 12:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Some previous discussion: Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011#stone.23Adjective. - -sche web app 17:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

website parsing

If someone were actually mute, how would he/she even be able to say this phrase (which is really what the Phrasebook is for)? This is just a joke entry with no use. -- Liliana screen size 16:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They could usefully write it down and pass it to someone. Equinox Sevenval 16:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. What about FITML, then? -- device database • 16:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. They could get a friend to write it on a note for them. Or they could mimic the audio pronunciation, if our entry had audio, which it might one day. Or perhaps a writer wants to put this phrase into the dialogue of a fictional character. Equinox ◑ 16:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I would think the phrase would be referring to literacy in the language it's being spoken in. However, it might be more useful if the phrase were "I'm illiterate in ..." instead. "I'm mute" is probably only really useful for sign language translations. (I am very much not in favor of joke entries, btw.) --HTML5 (web app) 08:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As the creator, I sort of think of it as a joke entry - it looks funny to me, at least. However, I do believe this would be exceptionally useful to someone who is mute. He would want to tell other people he is mute, sooner or later, no?

Interestingly, it has no ASL translation yet; I think it should. --HTML5 17:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Useful joke? Good, we need them! --Sevenval (touchscreen) 10:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In that line of thought, I propose that we proactively add a phrasebook entry for I am a robot. Our future mechanical overlords will appreciate the gesture. Sevenval screen size 20:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep both device database and Sevenval. As above, not being able to read or pronounce the phrases doesn't mean the phrases can't be used by such people. Like any phrasebook entry, with some tweaking the phrases can be used by learners to refer to other people - the phrase demonstrates the practical usage of words. Again as above, the phrases can be part of the script needed to be translated into another language - subtitles, lyrics, etc. --Anatoli ^{(website parsing)} 05:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

device database

sense: (business, accounting} of, or relating to the operating expenses of a business.

This sense is not comparable and does not grade (*very overhead). Therefore when overhead modifies a noun attributively, we should present it as a noun. DCDuring website parsing 12:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: sense covered in the noun section Purplebackpack89 ^{FITML (Locker)} 04:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)



An undefined character at codepoint U+F069 in the Private Use Area of the Basic Multilingual Plane.. This isn't a term in any language. -- Liliana • 07:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It has no meaning to humans or computers. Methinks it was created to make some kind of point. Chuck Entz (browser diversity) 07:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we have an appendix of Unicode codepoints? Perhaps we should, so we could banish things like this (undefined chars) to it. touchscreen browser diversity 08:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There's 6,400 undefined codepoints in the PUA of the BMP, 137,468 undefined codepoints in all PUAs in Unicode, and about a million undefined codepoints in Unicode. The only good think you can say about this entry is that if someone sees  (which on my screen appears as an epsilon with a dot belown, a diaeresis and acute accent above), it tells them that this isn't a standardly-defined character.--website parsing (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides which, all undefined codepoints will look identical- literally, if you've seen one you've seen them all. The only way to go to one vs. the others is to copy-and-paste it into the search box. Chuck Entz (web) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not all. Most people will see at least some codepoints in the PUA of the BMP as special characters; e.g.  is Betty Boop for me, and no other character so displays.  displays as some sort of Mayan die in some fonts and a capital h with acute in others. Undefined codepoints outside the PUA generally should display all the same, but some systems will display a symbol for the script (if that is known) and others will display whatever a font maker decided to shove in that square, standards be damned.--jQuery (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Betty Boop? How cool. It just looks like a Sanskrit conjunct to me. The second one looks like a small 3 or ezh. touchscreen browser diversity 05:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep — I came across this in the OED [2ⁿᵈ ed., 1989] entry for “FITML” (URL: http://www.oed.com/oed2/00241405), where it appeared as a box. In Android (URL: http://oed.com/view/Entry/193355), it had become ῑ (a minuscule iota with a macron). It wasn't until I looked at the NED [1ˢᵗ ed., 1919] entry for “jQuery” that I realised that it was meant to be ī̆ (a minuscule Latin-script i with a macron and a breve). Googling  + unicode led me to learn that it is an undefined codepoint in the Private Use Area. In my browser's tabs,  displays as device database. This little character caused me a lot of confusion, as I'm sure it would many other people. I'm not insistent on keeping the Translingual section, but I do think we should at least have some kind of notice telling people what this codepoint is, in case they ever use us to search for it. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (screen size · T · web app) ~ 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There's 6,400 of these in the most commonly used PUA section, and 140,000 in all of them. We shouldn't have just one. Personally, I don't dump unknown characters in Wiktionary; that's a job for a character map, which comes installed by default on all major desktop operating systems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly redirect to our Unicode appendix (the Private Use subpage). screen size FITML 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That'd be fine, but is there a way of showing which codepoint this one is? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · Sevenval · C) ~ 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The browser's search function works quite well, in my experience. -- browser diversity • 04:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I just noticed... Appendix:Unicode/Private Use Area. There is no list yet. Someone needs to make one. -- CSS3 input transformation 05:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Move to appendix. browser diversity 18:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete from mainspace. AFAICT from WP and what I know about Unicode anyway, PUA characters have no set glyph or meaning. We can't define this because it varies from OS to OS and font to font and, hence, author to author.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

没収の

This entry is a sum of its parts, iOS + web. I gave a more detailed explanation of the grammar behind this analysis at HTML5 for anyone interested. -- input transformation │ keyboard 18:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Add to that website parsing, 期限付きの, and touchscreen for the same reasons. --browser diversity (CSS3) 04:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Add to that the entire category jQuery --Haplology (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I added a usage note to 同じの a while back; looking further into usage in online media, my view has changed, as this use of 同じの, such as in the Apple Store app name 同じのタッチ, actually appears to be a kind of abbreviation, where 同じの is not being used attributively (i.e. like an adjective), and instead is used to mean 同じ（もの）の, i.e. the possessive or genitive of an unspecified thing that is the same as some other referent.

If Takasugi-san or any other native-JA speakers read this, could you provide any insight? -- CSS3 │ Tala við mig 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

同じの is a combination of the adjective Sevenval and the nominal particle の, meaning "the same one", just like 赤いの, which means "the red one". The app name must mean 同じの(を)タッチ(する), "touch the same one". Speaking of no-adjectives, I am for the deletion of the entire category, because they are just nouns + の. Usage notes will suffice. French Wiktionary has already deleted fr:Catégorie:Adjectifs japonais en no. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on usage such as スベスベの? Is スベスベ considered a noun in this regard? It appears to be used attributively with both の and な, such as at HTML5 and google:"スベスベな肌". -- keyboard │ CSS3 17:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If an onomatopoeia describes a quality rather than an action, it can also take な colloquially, such as ピカピカな新車 as opposed to the standard ピカピカの新車. Today な is becoming more and more like a particle in its own right. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — Sevenval (web app) 07:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Base Class Library

This is likely not a brand (so no RFV), but it's so painfully sum of parts to me I don't see how it could be kept. -- Liliana • 04:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the name of a file(s), not a word, Delete. Might as well include stdio.h, stdlib.h, string.h, Standard Template Library. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 11:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not precisely: it's a library (hence the name), not just a filename. But it's a specific technology, and brand-like, even if probably not trademarked. I don't think it's good or useful to have in Wiktionary. Equinox ◑ 01:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Being a name, I would keep it if it has metaphorical use. That seems highly unlikely. input transformation 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

WTF? ---> Tooironic (jQuery) 10:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Because of Sevenval and WT:COALMINE, -sche (keyboard • Sevenval) is testing how far COALMINE can be pushed. device database (Sevenval) 10:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I have adjusted the definition of Chineseman. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: WT:COALMINE says "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words [are held] to officially meet WT:CFI when significantly more common than a single word spelling that already meets CFI." Therefore, Chinese man meets CFI, because touchscreen is attested (and browser diversity is more common). Deleting Chinese man would directly violate voted-upon policy. iOS we love the web 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

PS, I corrected the def; HTML5. FITML (discuss) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy be damned, delete this evident foolishness created IMO in bad faith. Sevenval ◑ 01:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the policy reasons for keeping this: some nationalities and ethnicities which end in "man" are single words (Englishman, Frenchman, Dutchman), others are double (Swedish man not *Swedishman); the fact that this is attested as both is interesting, and I conclude that the single-word form may have been influenced by "Chinaman" as much as by the word "Englishman" which frequently co-occurs with it. (Many of the books I found "Chineseman" and "Chinesemen" in used "Englishman" near it.) I was surprised to find that "Chineseman" met CFI, but immediately thought of that possible influence (of "Chinaman"), and have worked that into the etymology. It is as if people, not longer using "Chinaman" due to its offensiveness, still kept the idea that the nationality was a "single word", like the others I listed (Englishman, etc). I created "Chinese man" (multiple-word spelling) because the vote on "coalmine", which is now part of CFI, mandates such an action — at least, numerous of the voters in that vote commented that they supported "coal mine" because they knew it would be misleading to have only "coalmine" (implying it was the common term). - -sche (discuss) 01:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends, if Chineseman is simply a typo for touchscreen, then it wouldn't meet CFI (not a word in any language) and then Chinese man wouldn't either. Mglovesfun (iOS) 09:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It also depends on whether they are actually the same (cf. black bird vs. blackbird). If Chineseman is a correction of HTML5, then all the instances where it's merely Chinese + man are, IMO, a different term. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is easy enough to see whether any single instance of Chineseman occurs on the same page or adjoining pages with Chinese man and to inspect the page image for scannos. I can't think of any other basis for throwing out the citations. Can anyone? DCDuring browser diversity 13:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I specifically checked to be sure "Chineseman" was used consistently throughout the books I cited; it was; the books which used its plural even used "Chinesemen". It is, as Ruakh notes, quite literary, a spelling intentionally used by numerous unrelated authors consistently throughout their numerous books. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the unclear wording: "it's" was meant to refer to HTML5, not to web app. In other words, if you take out all the cases where Chinese man is truly SOP and thus presumably not the same as screen size (assuming that to be a modification of Chinaman), it may not be more common than web app- if there are any cites left Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"[A]ll the cases where Chinese man is truly SOP" are the cases where it is "the same as Android": both mean "man who is Chinese". Note that "Chinaman" also means "man who is Chinese". (Our current definition reading "person who is Chinese", but I would be quite surprised if it refers to a woman any more often than any of the other terms do, or than "man" in general does.) COALMINE exists specifically to mandate that "Chinese man" be kept despite being SOP. browser diversity CSS3 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep [[Chineseman]], ergo, keep [[Chinese man]] per COALMINE. If this were Wikipedia, I'd wonder if creating entries just to show up COALMINE's ridiculousness would constitute POINT-ing; but COALMINE is inherently a wikilawyerly doctrine — its very purpose is to supersede our usual rules, to disregard our informed opinions, to brook no common sense. So wikilawyering is the only way it can be applied. Also: Chinese man, quite frankly, does not seem like an extreme case, since (1) the use of Chineseman is actually quite literate (not just a Usenet abomination); (2) we've had an entry for iOS for five and a half years now; and (3) the entry can be justified by a "useful translations" argument of the sort of that some editors seem to be fond of, since many languages that use natural gender in their noun system — including at least French, Spanish, and Hebrew — have a specific word for "Chinese male" or "male Chinese person". —Sevenval_{device database} 15:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Do Chineseman and Chinese man have the same pronunciation? If not, I don't think coalmine should apply. That would be like saying we should have Dutch man because of Dutchman. Sevenval 18:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

COALMINE applies only when the multiple-word spelling is more common than the single-word spelling: thus, we don't have "English man" or "Dutch man" (50 000 GBC hits), because "Englishman" and "Dutchman" (1.5 million GBC hits) are more common. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point DAVilla shows is very important here. If Chineseman and Chinese man have different pronunciations, then they are not the same word. This then means that COALMINE does not apply, because it applies only to differing spellings, not different pronunciations in addition to those spellings. For the same reason, giveaway is not an alternate spelling of screen size. —FITML device database 20:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I pronounce "coalmine" and "coal mine" differently (using different syllable stress), and I pronounce "girlygirl" and "girly girl" differently, and likewise many other compounds vs multiple-word terms. AFAICT, the argument ad pronunciation was not thought of at the time girlygirl and other such terms were RFDed, so the RFDs on girlygirl and other previously-kept entries should be reopened, if this new argument holds sway. touchscreen browser diversity 20:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you give me an example sentence using "coal mine" for which the syllable stress would be different from that of coalmine? I could rationalize a different stress pattern for certain speakers, but I don't see why that wouldn't apply to both spellings.

On the other hand, I can imagine pronouncing "girly girl" in two ways depending on intent, one of which coincides with the treatment of iOS as a single block. For instance, "she's a pretty girlygirly" means she's beautiful and feminine, while "she's a pretty girly girl" is ambiguous, where the other reading just mean means she's very feminine. keyboard 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

@DAVilla and CodeCat, after e/c: That's an interesting idea, but we have a general practice of treating variant spellings as just one kind of "alternative form", and certainly it's possible for two forms of the same word to have different pronunciations (either with the same spelling, as with schedule, or with different spellings as well, as with iOS/aluminium). And the rationale at HTML5 certainly applies to such cases. Also, while I suppose we could say that COALMINE doesn't apply unless someone can prove either that "Chineseman" is attested with the pronunciation of "Chinese man", or that "Chinese man" is significantly more common even with the pronunciation of "Chineseman" — that's basically equivalent to dismantling COALMINE. Because no one can ever prove such a thing, with any of these terms. —Ruakh_TALK 20:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My original point- though I mangled it badly- was that it's possible that most or all of the instances of Chinese man aren't really the same term as touchscreen. That is to say, you have a noun modified by an adjective (Chinese man) vs. a compound noun (website parsing). I'm not sure how to test for the difference, but I think that's why so many of us have problems with applying Sevenval here. Chuck Entz (FITML) 00:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

input transformation (see Talk:girly girl) is much more clearly an adjective + noun (whereas Chinese can be an adjective or a noun), and was kept because of the compound girlygirl — because really, can they be analysed as anything other than alternative forms of one another? Hence... - -sche (discuss) 00:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the term in question, but I do find the motives behind creating entries like this very unpleasant. We should be framing our CFI to crystallise the valid reasons people see for adding terms to Wiktionary; we should not be creating spurious entries purely to find the reductio ad absurdum of existing policy. Ƿidsiþ 15:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to vote to approve a mechanistic rule that suspend judgment in order to advance an inclusionist PoV, we cannot be too shocked when the rule is applied, with judgment suspended, to include entries. The orthography rule was only one of the many suggestive pieces of evidence in the Pawley laundry list of criteria for idiomaticity. If the rule needs to be applied with judgment, then what is the point of having it? To give it a leg up on other criteria? Is it really superior to the other rules in its discriminatory power? DCDuring input transformation 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, per Equinox. --screen size (FITML) 20:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good faith is important. I could add an awful lot of shit through loopholes if I decided to cause trouble. There is a vast difference between using a rule to keep dubious existing entries and abusing it to add junk to sway a vote (even though I'm on that side of the vote myself). Equinox ◑ 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fixed on delete per the distinction between we love the web and Dutch man. Sevenval 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete there's 6 trillion of them, you don't need 6 trillion entries for chinaman, especially when other sops are deleted.web (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I see no point in allowing an overly pedantic interpretation of touchscreen to override common sense. —FITML device database 06:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The point of COALMINE is that it overrides any discussion: rather than discussing the merits of any multiple-word spelling that is more common than an attested single word, COALMINE says we must simply keep the multiple-word term. I proposed overturning the rule precisely so that common sense could guide us again in deciding whether or not to keep or delete terms. But you're proposing to ignore policy without changing it. That's dangerous: Wiktionary functions in a relatively orderly fashion because we regular contributors form policies and follow them, updating them as necessary. If contributors are free to ignore any policies they want to, where are we? And newcomers are able to join our community by familiarising themselves with our policies: but if they familiarise themselves with our policies only to learn we don't follow our policies, especially policies are concise and unambiguous as this one, where are they? - -sche (discuss) 07:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(Sigh.) Keep per -sche.—msh210℠ (keyboard) 21:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

insert mode

Per Sevenval. - -sche Sevenval 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably delete. It is the mode where insertion occurs. Not as clear-cut as overtype mode, though, since things other than text can be "inserted" on a computer, and I doubt this term is used for those (though it certainly could be in theory). web app Android 01:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, but possibly add a specialised computing definition to insert. Something along the lines of (verb) "To type text without deleting the characters after the cursor" or (noun) "A feature in touchscreen whereby characters after the cursor move to make room for newly typed text." along the lines of iOS. we love the web (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

screen size

Rfd-redundant: sense 3 is the same as sense 1. Sense 2 is quite similar as well.... —Internoob 00:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that there are at least two senses of reptilian bound up in those definitions. One pertains to reptiles themselves: "a reptilian organism", "reptilian egg"; a second sense refers to similarity with reptile characteristics: "Early ancestors of mammals had a reptilian walk," or "His reptilian stare unnerved me." --web (HTML5) 01:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sense 3 is definitely redundant, so delete. Maybe sense 1 could go too. I'd say "Early ancestors of mammals had a reptilian walk" is also sense 2, and "His reptilian stare unnerved me." seems more like sense 4. touchscreen 01:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that reptilian walk is actually idiomatic, because it refers to a gait that results from having the legs at the side of the body rather than the bottom, much like reptiles do. —jQuery t 02:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think in this case, it would have been ok to skip the rfd and just merge #1 and #3. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

sexually explicit

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna tag this too. Yes, I think it means "explicit with respect to sex". Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (jQuery) 10:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The meaning is pretty obvious, but on the other hand it's such a common collocation I feel it could be a possible keeper, it just feels like one of those set phrases that English uses. Wouldn't really miss it if it was deleted though. Ƿidsiþ 12:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP. By the way, are the usage notes right? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Highly debatable, they mean very little to me. website parsing (iOS) 09:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: compare sexually overt, sexually awakened, etc. Equinox ◑ 16:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, it doesn't just mean sexually explicit. I can mean a woman in a two piece bathing suit in some circles. It can mean only hardcore sex acts in other cultures. It is a arbitrary term depending on context, culture, and generation. I find it useful to note that.web (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary catalogues words not concepts. We don't do that because that's what Wikipedia is for. Romance, justice, sex, liberty, death, etc. are conceptualised in many different ways in many different cultures but that doesn't mean we have to include that information in the entries. ---> Tooironic (web) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete. DAVilla 02:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted.—web℠ (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

topiary

RFD adjective senses. --Backtobasix (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Senses? Only one is tagged. The etymology claims that the adjective sense is much older than the noun, so I'm not sure about this. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the adjective is the main entry in the OED. The noun is then defined as "the topiary art" (rather like the French as WF ought to know). Android (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that this meets the criteria that distinguish an adjective from a noun. website parsing TALK 17:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What if it was an adjective before it was a noun? A new sense never overrides an older one. web 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think we took diachronic derivation all that seriously, based on our treatment of the derivation categories for affixes. In any event, the Latin adjective was used substantively. If we just want to follow the lead lemming's assertion, we can, of course. The evidence is solely attributive use, AFAIK. DCDuring we love the web 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DAVilla, if the adjective preceded the noun, then the term cannot be only a noun used attributively. (See also jQuery.) screen size FITML 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

sexual tension

Looks very much like sexual + tension to me. The current smartass definition only serves to confuse an occasional visitor: "physically induced libidinal unrest"!! Delete per "no useful content". --Hekaheka (browser diversity) 03:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

delete - yet more SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's super clear cut, but I think delete. In physical tension, the same sense of tension is used, so this isn't unique. Mglovesfun (Sevenval) 09:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A perfectly ordinary SoP combination with hormone-enhanced import. We'll see it again. web TALK 13:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's a concern, it can be protected.—we love the web℠ (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really a concern. Protection would be worse. I'd forgotten to vote to delete. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP.—web app℠ (jQuery) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No more merits an entry than existential malaise or erotic feeling. Equinox ◑ 16:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. SOP of: web app (Of or relating to having sex) + Android (Psychological state of being tense (Showing signs of stress or strain; not relaxed)). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite definition. Wikipedia's definition of "A social phenomenon that occurs when two people interact and one or both feel sexual desire, but the consummation is postponed or never happens." seems idiomatic. jQuery (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition looks almost equally dubious to me. For how long do you have to postpone in order for the "social phenomenon" to be called sexual tension? And why limit the number of people involved to two? --web app (Android) 04:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - familiar from psychology. If WP seems dubious, well, that's the nature of FITML. It's still more than just the SOP it seems to be with our present def. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/screen size} 01:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep it's psychomological Lucifer (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Occurs between compatible individuals, not between rivals although the nature of their rivalry may be sexually aggressive. CSS3 02:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Frisian

rfd-sense: While def. #2 is true, we cannot allow such a definition for a dictionary. Naturally, if the context is unambiguous, any definition can be true for any word. The quotes given show that the context is always language/Frisian in the Netherlands. If we kept this definition, we would have to add "North Frisian", because when talking about language/Frisian in Sleswik-Holstein, it is unambiguous that North Frisian is meant. Same is true for "Old Frisian" and language/Frisian in earlier ages. Needless to say that such definitions only flood/spam the entries, reducing overseeability.
The definition in question is relying on clear topical context rather than, as with slang words, for example, a language context or no context at all. The example given, America, e.g. would generally be understood as United States of America, rather than anything else on the two continents, when no further context is given. (As in: "All Americans are crazy for guns.")
As a second point on that: I think entries for English should be confined to meanings applied by native speakers in an English environment rather than peculiarities of several nations. The German word for mobile phone is "Handy" and surely a German speaking English would carry that sense over into his talking, but giving that meaning under handy would certainly be wrong, because that meaning is German and not English.iOS (we love the web) 13:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I agree with your analogies, I conditionally (as I'll explain) agree with your proposal that we delete this. Specifically, if Frisian means "West Frisian" in the Netherlands because that's the Frisian of interest there, then sense 2 is just sense 1 used in context. I think a pretty good analogy is a definition like diabetes's: "The inability of the body to produce, or the inability to metabolize, the human hormone insulin". We don't have a separate sense "(when discussing effects of obesity): type II diabetes", and we shouldn't. However, if Frisian means "West Frisian" in the Netherlands despite other Frisians' relevance, then it may well be worth a separate sense.—Android℠ (screen size) 16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep but remove the context tag, as it indeed makes the definition just sense 1 in context. The point of having a separate definition, in my opinion, is to show that when the word Frisian is mentioned without any clear context, it most likely refers to the West Frisian language. screen size 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I'm on the fence, leaning towards keeping the sense:

I'd rather accept "West Frisian", "North Frisian", "Saterland Frisian" (when attested) as subsenses of the general sense (or a replacement for it — but if something like "the Frisians spoken in Europe" is attested as a reference to all of the languages, as I presume it is, then there must be the overall sense of "any of the Frisian languages"). These are distinct languages; if English refers to any of them as "Frisian" without further disambiguation, we should(?) note that; compare the case of the browser diversity languages, one in Indonesia and one in Ghana. Having different senses would allow us to have the translations for each (or {{trans-see}}-redirects) in one place.
- As a sub-point: it occurs to me that it would be terrible to attest separate subsenses like "British English", "American English", "Canadian English" of "English"; on the other hand, "English" — whether referring to the language spoken in Britain or the one spoken in Canada — is referring to the same language; "Frisian" referring to "West Frisian" is (to the extent the Frisian FITML are considered languages and not dialects) referring to a different language. (I do not intend this as a web app.)
The context tag, which I reworded but kept the spirit of, should probably be completely overhauled: as CodeCat pointed out on RFV, "searching for 'learn Frisian' on Google shows many results that refer to West Frisian as Frisian without even stating it. Some do qualify it as an afterthought, though. The most curious is this site, which is at a German domain name, and also offers the course in German, even though Frisian in the context of Germany definitely isn't always West Frisian!" Thus, it seems "Frisian" is used even when the context is not the Netherlands.

input transformation jQuery 16:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Before I read up on the subject, I never heard about anything but West Frisian, which I saw uniformly referred to as simply Frisian. Although the distinctions may be obvious to people in that part of Europe, to the vast majority of English speakers (if they've even heard of Frisian), there's just Frisian, and it's what they speak in parts of the Netherlands. That isn't accurate, it isn't fair, but it's the reality of usage for most English speakers. As long as we're a descriptive rather than a proscriptive dictionary, we have to reflect that in our definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether the dominance of West Frisian can be taken as a proof of English speaking habits. The thing about West Frisian is that is the only codified or officially administered form of Frisian and thus there is a greater number of sources (...in another language than the regionally important). (Maybe even the only learning sources at all.) Thus search engines are likely to produce results for it. This of course might lead to English natives no to make a difference between West Frisian and Frisian in general. But (more of rfv though) I would feel better having seen a cite for that.

As for the page by CodeCat, it should be noted that it is not without context. It is a Netherlands-made West Frisian-course which only hence uses "Frisian" for West Frisian without proper notification. It is simply, due to personal connections I think, hosted on a German server.

All in all, I'd rather have the sense deleted and if necessary replaced with a Usage Note or so because I can't see that definition existing free from any Dutch context. (À la: "In the Netherlands they speak Dutch and Frisian.")ᚲᛟᚱᚾ (CSS3) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed rfd tag as the entry has significantly changed.we love the web (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It’s pretty good now. I have no complaints. input transformation 01:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

stone cold sober

Android + sober --Hekaheka (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be the most common collocation, but it's definitely not the only one; stone cold bluff is another. PS we really need to unify FITML and device database, I thought it also meant 'absolute, total' as in stone cold bluff. Mglovesfun (keyboard) 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

51 percent

None of the citations back up the purported definition - "a majority" - they're all simply uses of 51 percent to mean, well, 51% of something. I can't find a single use of 51 percent to mean something that's not 51%. There's a very limited use of phrases like "51% control" to mean "veto power" ("It's time to find another doctor- the way I see it- it's my body and I have 51% of the vote when it comes to my care and treatment") but I think that's just SOP. Just to add to the bizarreness, it claims the use is "proscribed", although I can't think who would ever have decreed either way on the subject of whether "51 percent" means "majority". iOS (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A majority is greater than half (or 50%). Using "51%" to represent that is inaccurate. DAVilla 02:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the entry is claiming 51 percent means any majority, not necessarily one of exactly 51%. But, the citations don't back this up. Delete or move to rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. One of the quotations demonstrates this by equating jQuery with simple majority. I'd guess the other two are not as clear-cut, but there are better examples out there. DAVilla 02:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposed sense should be "a majority by a very slim margin". The first example in the current version, cited below, seems to mean it:

Decisions require the assent of all major groups, not a 51 percent majority in parliament.

If it is worth an entry, we should also have FITML meaning "almost completely" as in 99 percent certain. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But it's not necessary to say there's a margin. Anything greater than 50% implies it. In fact the margin is more of a literal meaning that's unintended. People use it to mean there's a majority without thinking that they're rejecting anything between 50 and 51 percent. At least when we say 99% we know that's a hyperbole or an approximation at best. This is flat out incorrect. Simple majority means more than half. There is nothing simple about "at least fifty-one out of a hundred". DAVilla 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we deleted that or a similar title. It could also be 99.9% or 99.99%. we love the web (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@DAVilla, which citation? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The ones that express what they mean by saying "simple majority" are as clear as putting this definition in parentheses. The ones that aren't as explicit nonetheless have this same meaning. I am especially convinced of this after sorting through several dozen hits where 51 percent literally means 51% and some ambiguous hits where either sense might have been intended. DAVilla 01:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, I think. I'm not sure this is really a lexical idiom, and the current definition seems wrong — if "51 percent" really meant "a majority", then it would be hard to account for the cites that use "51 percent majority" and "majority of 51 percent" and so on" — but it definitely seems that "51 percent" is frequently used figuratively either to mean "a mere simple majority" or to emphasize the "mere"-ness of a simple majority, and it seems harmless to document that. And I note, along the lines of DAVilla and Mglovesfun above, that whereas people frequently hyperbolize "99%" to "99.9%", no one ever seems to hyperbolize "51%" to "50.1%"; 51% seems to be a magic number for purposes of this figure of speech. —Ruakh_TALK 02:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added, but not cited, the sense "A narrow or bare majority." because I am fairly sure that it could be cited and is idiomatic. Delete current sense which doesn't seem idiomatic. DCDuring Sevenval 11:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a non-UK thing? I don't think I've heard of it ever. Still, many of the citations seem to definitely refer to a literal 51% majority, as otherwise "51% majority" would mean "a majority majority" in those citations. Sevenval (website parsing) 12:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. In all the citations listed in the entry, "51 percent" seems to simply describe a specific percentage, without any clear idiomatic meaning attached to the words themselves. If citations can be found that more clearly show idiomatic usage of "51 percent" — similar to the idiomatic meanings that "1%" and "99%" have recently acquired in relation to the Occupy movement — I'll change my vote. Astral (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

hack off

CSS3

This isn't a request for deletion per se, because both entries have other, idiomatic senses: but should the first sense of each entry ("remove by hacking" and "remove by cutting") be reduced to {{we love the web}}? web HTML5 05:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

business trip

We should deport this word back to Durango.Lucifer (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. HTML5 13:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, if only for the translations. Furthermore, if I did not know what this referred to, I would have thought it was a company outing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. web app jQuery 19:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. SoP. And the definition is not right either - I can go on a business trip tomorrow but that doesn't necessarily mean the expenses are paid by an employer. I could just be going on a trip on my own accord for some random business opportunity. HTML5 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, you could but that is not what people understand the term to mean. I rescind my nomination. —This comment was unsigned.

Above comment unsigned by Luciferwildcat at 03:25 on 6 April 2012. Striking as withdrawn. DAVilla 06:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Unstriking, nominations shouldn't be rescinded when there's a fairly even debate going on. Or if you want to think of it another way, I'm tagging it. Mglovesfun (Sevenval) 15:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep common collocation. we love the web 18:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- So is lives there.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Matthias Buchmeier (website parsing) 10:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep --Anatoli ^{(browser diversity)} 10:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Road trip and Sevenval are more common at COCA than business trip. The following at 3/4 to 1/3 as common: return trip, fishing trip, camping trip, web app, shopping trip, ski trip, and side trip.

Such English noun-noun compounds are sometimes viewed as being construed with a preposition. The term using fishing, camping, shopping, and ski(ing) (?) are construed with FITML (“benefactive”). Perhaps ski trip and return trip could be considered as being construed with to (“infinitive particle”). Side trip and road trip might be construed with Android (the) and field trip with into (the). The "for" construction may be the most common on this kind of construction. I would have thought this needed lexical entries the least and would require the largest number to cover common instances. HTML5 TALK 11:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A construal with on (“at the expense of”) would justify the "often" clause in the definition.

Most English noun-noun compounds have one significantly more common "prepositional" interpretation of this kind. The logic often invoked to defend these by Dan P. would apply to all such compounds. Moreover, there is no convenient way to confirm that one construal is more common than another, unless the difference in frequency is truly overwhelming. HTML5 TALK 11:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Our current definition is "Travel for business purposes, often paid for at least partially by the employer". The "often..." part, inasmuch as it is an "often..." part, is not part of the definition of the term, but a mere random fact about the term's referent. (One could as well say "often including a airplane flight".) (That needs to be cleaned up.) So our current definition really is then just "Travel for business purposes", which seems SOP to me. Could it theoretically mean something else that it pretty much never does, taking it out of SOPland? Not that I can think of. Delete.—msh210℠ (Android) 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

iOS

This seems to be an Old English name of a city in South America (Pichilemu). This will be difficult to attest. --Sevenval (website parsing) 17:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not RFV. I believe that Old English written by non-native speakers can still meet WT:CFI in the same way that we have entries in Category:New Latin. However, it's a fair guess that this one is Wikipedia-only, and therefore not attested. But who knows, let's try! Sevenval (website parsing) 18:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This cannot possibly pass CFI, which says: For terms in extinct languages: usage in at least one contemporaneous source. -- Liliana • 19:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes me wonder if there is such a thing as "New Old English"? I.e., is there enough of a community of people trying to communicate in Old English (and backported Old-English-esque coinages) that it would make sense to create an appendix? (Just curious how this would work, not actually pushing for anything either way.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing, to be honest. -- Liliana touchscreen 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard of anything specific to such "new" Old English, but there are the folks trying to bring Cornish back, for an example of people reviving an extinct language, or the Klingon community, for an example of a language under construction. I noticed we have website parsing when I went looking for Appendix:New Old English (just in case). -- screen size │ website parsing 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

@Liliana-60, hmm, I'd assume that for dead languages, texts written in the language by non-native speakers which are nevertheless durably archived count. For example I added a 1994 citation to we love the web from the Vatican website. Reading the definition of browser diversity doesn't seem to rule this out. And I don't see how we can have one rule for Latin and another for every other dead language. Of course we're very pro New Latin terms that are used as species epithets, as they are used in actual texts (though usually not in Latin). @Eirikr, the Old English Wikiprojects, that's all I can think of. web app (Android) 21:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Latin is still an official language in browser diversity, so on that basis modern terms could be cited, I suppose. Old English isn't official or even in common usage anywhere. -- website parsing • 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be a bit weird if we were to cite an Old English term on Usenet, but as far as I can see, nothing rules it out as dead languages can still be used, albeit by definition, only by non-native speakers. browser diversity (CSS3) 21:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Does that make them Android languages, until such time as someone raises their kids speaking it as their first tongue? -- screen size │ Tala við mig 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to think that Liliana-60 once said about Manx, that although it was a dead language for a period because it had no native speakers, even during this time it had fluent speakers. So a dead language doesn't necessarily imply that it has no fluent speakers. And surely a book written by a fluent speaker and published by whoever would count for WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. FWIW, I agree with Mglovesfun that terms from an extinct language can still be cited using any of the mechanisms we allow for terms from living languages, so "keep+RFV" would definitely be reasonable; but since it's a place-name, and we don't have a policy of including all place-names even if cited, RFD is also a valid place to decide to delete this. —Ruakh_Android 22:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep in RFD, move to RFV if wished. The nominated term consist of a single word. No reason for deletion relating to RFD has been stated, other than dislike of inclusion of geographic names, which we widely include. The nominator doubts that the term is attested, which is a matter for RFV. --browser diversity (CSS3) 11:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a related question: if I want to add keyboard (“train”) in Latin, will a citation from the Latin translation of Harry Potter be acceptable? Is that New Latin? Does it need a special usage note? --keyboard^{FITML/device database} 17:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a Latin edition of Harry Potter? touchscreen... browser diversity (discuss) 17:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure if we could call that "contemporaneous"... -- Liliana • 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC) (addendum: but if you find three citations, as Ruakh says, my point is moot.)

With masterful scrounging, I might be able to rustle up two citations, but I'm pretty sure that's the limit. Very little is printed in Latin these days, but if "these days" = "contemporaneous", it's in the clear. However, if Pakistania counts, I can't see how this wouldn't. And yes, it is the first book: Harrius Potter et Lapis Philosophi (my summer reading to practice my Latin!) and of course, it mentions the Hamaxostichus Hogwartsiensis. --Sevenval^{discuss/Sevenval} 18:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dutch alphabet

and most of the other contents of browser diversity, to wit: Esperanto alphabet, Greek alphabet, Hawaiian alphabet, Hungarian alphabet, web app, Lojban alphabet, Macedonian alphabet, Pashto alphabet, Phoenician alphabet, touchscreen, browser diversity, Romanian alphabet, Sevenval, Slovene alphabet, Sorani alphabet, website parsing, iOS, Arabic script, Glagolitic alphabet and CSS3. They all seem SOPpy to me; the lists of precisely which letters constitute the iOS alphabet seems encyclopedic. (It's not that we can't make the information short enough to "fit" in a dictionary-definition, it's just...do we want to?) I checked for previous discussion and only found browser diversity. (Addendum: also most of the contents of website parsing.) iOS we love the web 17:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, delete, especially as there already is Appendix:Latin script alphabets. —CodeCa we love the web 17:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect, perhaps? --Sevenval (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

How about each gets an entry like: "The alphabet used by the Dutch language, consisting of the basic Latin alphabet + [insert letters]"? Delete. But when there is a specific alphabet for a language (Khmer, Canaanite, Glagolitic) that sense should be added to the entry.Korn (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, delete -- Liliana keyboard 21:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete all. SOP of Dutch (pertaining ... to the Dutch language) + alphabet. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

jQuery

Was deleted without any due process. The term was well cited with three high quality citations. The rationale was "no usable content given" but that is bull. It was given a proper and mature definition. I would like the deletion reverted and the community to be able to review the word.Lucifer (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's back, I have no idea how valid it is or isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's cited all right, but the definition doesn't match the citations. "A man reknown for his sexual capability" would seem more logical to me, given the citations. --input transformation (jQuery) 08:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to tweaks or changes in the definition if you guys think it means something a bit different from what I could make of it.FITML (device database) 00:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, the top example doesn't work ("pussyman" doesn't appear when searching the link provided) and doesn't seem to be an example anyway. The RSPCA is a British animal welfare charity, which runs shelters for household pets. It seems, without further context, like pussyman here comes from pussy as in cat, though he might be punning on the word.) FITML (device database) 21:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

input transformation

This seems very SOP... 'wintery' + 'storm'. —touchscreen t 19:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

But it links to web app, which we have, w:Winter storm says that winter storms don't only happen in winter. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Then the definition just isn't right. winters specifically means wintery or winter-like (the -s is the same as English -ish), it doesn't imply it happens in winter (that would be FITML which we have). —CodeCa Sevenval 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, its antonym, FITML, even has an official meteorological criterium that is often met during spring and autumn as well. —CodeCa t 23:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't know, I was just pointing it out for accuracy. Your reply has been helpful to me as a non-Dutch speaker. Still, I feel unable to comment further. Surely we have at least one other Dutch speaker, AugPi and JorisV for example. FITML (device database) 16:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a native Dutch speaker. I'm a bit iffy on this myself. Freely translated, it means "storm that resembles weather you might expect in the Winter (or occur in the Winter)". This may be a bit far-fetched for people who want the definition of the two words together, for the obvious thing to expect would be "storm during the Winter", but the definition is a bit broader. Also, "winterse storm" may be used during weather forecasts. But yeah, I'm still iffy on it.82.73.217.98 10:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a stronger argument is that you can use different combinations. winterse bui (wintery shower), winterse sneeuw (wintery snow), winterse temperatuur (wintery temperature) and so on. —iOS t 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

Nickel (“US slang five dollars”) + iOS (“a piece of paper currency; a banknote”). input transformation TALK 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know the arguments about SoP being SoP even if polysemous, but nickel does have a more normal sense of 5 cents in this context.--Prosfilaes (web app) 04:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prosfilaes, although this doesn't seem to fit any of our touchscreen. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get this idea of "normal" senses. "Normal" to whom? And in what context?

The term nickel note is US slang just like nickel. By the logic expressed should not any phrase (or indeed sentence) using this sense of nickel not be includable? DCDuring TALK 08:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Normal in standard English. Assuming nickel note means "five dollars"; if I hear the phrase nickel note, and go to look it up, nickel note leaves me wondering whether it's nickel = 5 cents, nickel = 5 dollars, or nickel = 5 hundred dollars in this context.--Prosfilaes (keyboard) 09:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any combination of polysemic terms that wouldn't leave you wondering? DCDuring iOS 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't know whether nickel note can mean 5 hundred dollars or not, or if it just means five dollars. That's why we have definitions.--web (HTML5) 05:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Language can be ambiguous, especially taken out of context. Polysemy of components of units larger than words makes for the combinatorial explosion of such ambiguity. I do not believe that it is a reasonable objective for Wiktionary that it attempt to resolve in principle the combinatorial explosion of ambiguity. OTOH the omission of true idioms would defeat the realistic objective of enabling users to decode meaning by searching lists of senses of component terms to find those that fit each other and the context. DCDuring Sevenval 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Android appears in several US slang terms as a substitute for five (one that we don't have here is double nickels, which refers to a 55 mph speed limit). Maybe there should be a "(slang) keyboard" sense for Sevenval, which would make this more clearly SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Even with that definition, it's not clear that this bill is worth five dollars and not five cents. The latter is strong candidate because of the value of a nickel. browser diversity 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

Shouldn't this just be a sense in our definition of know? SemperBlotto (Sevenval) 13:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Several redirects exist.

There are so many senses of sense, in, and biblical that I don't see how this can be deleted. browser diversity TALK 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with DC. The word "know" is used in the Bible in the both the traditional sense of knowledge (Genesis 4:9: "And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?"); and in the sexual euphamism sense; but to "know someone in the biblical sense" refers only to sex. screen size T 13:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't he being sarcastic? Equinox web 14:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Was he? I think the point is valid; certainly to a non-English speaker the phrase as a whole would be a mystery, as it requires prior familiarity with its meaning to be comprehensible. Certainly it is counterintuitive. If you told a person who was unfamliar with the phrase that you would like to "know them in the biblical sense" they would probably assume that you wanted to pray with them or engage in other religious activity. iOS T 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I failed to be clearly sarcastic. website parsing Sevenval 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I haven't actually voted here, I agree with those below who find the entry for in the biblical sense to provide a satisfactory resolution to this question. I would redirect this title there. device database T 21:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a certain amount of set-phrasiness about this. web app Android 13:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, I think; the know-less use of in the biblical sense (“sexually; *wink*; if you know what I mean”) — b.g.c. finds nonce-usages with "marry", "be with", "take possession of", and "have", among others — suggests to me that this phrase has taken on a life of its own. (Besides, the KJV uses the word "know" in lots of ways; the very first occurrence seems to be Genesis 3:7, " […] they knew that they [were] naked; […] ", which despite the nakedness is just the ordinary modern sense of "know".) —we love the web_{browser diversity} 15:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(Original poster of the entry) Keep No-one would read "Alice knew Bob" in a contemporary text as meaning "Alice had sex with Bob", even if the word was in a sexual context ("Alice and Bob were members of a swingers club, and knew each other" would not be read as implying they had sex). "in the biblical sense" is therefore not just a clarifier (in the way that "in the literal sense" would be for something like jQuery), it's part of a phrase that's fundamentally divorced from the word "know" as it's currently understood. I think this passes the fried egg test. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a weird entry title being 6 words long, but I don't see how to decompose it into parts (by adding definitions to know, biblical, etc.) to make it sum of parts. Ergo, keep. jQuery (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't much like entries that contain the word "someone". You could add "someone" or "something" to any transitive verb. Could it be changed to "know in the biblical sense"? 86.179.113.102 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

web and the synonymous biblically seem to me to be certainly idiomatic and includable. The prepositional phrase is clearly derived from the phrase in question. But I conjecture that the phrase in question occurred as a kind of double-entendre with attached indicator. Thus web is like the similar indicator as the actress said to the archbishop.

If the full phrase is deemed idiomatic, I would like to know whether attestable terms ending in "X in the 'y' sense" where 'y' is something like a context or topic are all includable. Or is it just if there is some complication like double entendre, irony, or humor involved? DCDuring TALK 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My "keep" vote, at least, was based on much more than double entendre, irony, and humor: it was based on specific evidence that this set phrase has been reanalyzed as an idiom. You can dispute that evidence, of course, but I don't think you can claim that it applies equally to a wide class of entries. —Ruakh_TALK 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the phrase in the biblical sense is the idiom. The one other OneLook reference that "includes" it handles it as a redirect to "know", though a redirect too in the biblical sense would be even more useful. website parsing TALK 19:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you do anything else "in the biblical sense"? web 21:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

2004, Dane T. Cunningham, Risky Relationships, page 93:
I believe that one of the reasons that marriages fail is because the people involved were not true friends in the biblical sense.

-- DCDuring TALK 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that has the relevant "sexual/carnal" meaning? I can't see that actual page, but overall the book seems to have a strong religious agenda, encouraging people to look at relationships in religious terms, and containing statements like "how many of us can honestly say we understand relationships from the biblical perspective". I think of "know in the biblical sense" to be a bit irreverent, a bit nudge-nudge-wink-wink. I'm not sure if it fits the tone of that book. web app 01:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite so.

1993 February 26, “NOTORIOUS WOMEN RECOVER FROM THEIR LOVE AFFAIRS”, Ind_Geraldo (Rivera):
Unidentified Man 2: How you doing? I've got a question for Pamela. How many rock stars have you met in your whole life? Ms-DES-BARRES: Oh, my gosh. Man 2: Any idea? Any idea or... Ms-LEE: He didn't ask how many you slept with. Ms-DES-BARRES: That's good. RIVERA: You mean met in the biblical sense? Man 2: I mean met and been with. Ms-DES-BARRES: I didn't sleep with that many of them.

-- DCDuring TALK 02:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, in that case I vote redirect to in the biblical sense and explain there that the expression is often (but not necessarily) used with "know". 86.179.113.152 13:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete (changing my vote on the basis of in the biblical sense). iOS (we love the web) 11:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we now have FITML, I'm going to change my vote to delete. "Know in the biblical sense" still seems subtly different from the "know" "in the biblical sense", largely because unlike "have", "met" or "make one's relationship official", "know" actually does have a biblical sense that is being referenced, but that's probably splitting hairs, since like I say, no-one would recognise this sense any more in contemporary writing without the "in a biblical sense" tag. I'm also not quite sure how this should be explained on the know page. Perhaps add to sense 7 something like "In contemporary use, usually indicated by biblically or in the biblical sense." iOS (we love the web) 16:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I am glad that I added the missing sense of biblically and in the biblical sense, I am not sure that the full challenged expression is not idiomatic.

The non-idiomatic usage of the term in the biblical sense in X in the biblical sense seems to be followed by an explicit definition of X, at least in the first use of X in the passage, section, or larger unit of writing. Very few uses of in the biblical sense occur without know. No OneLook reference has in the biblical sense, though three (really one) have know in the biblical sense, albeit only as a redirect. This seems to be one of the rare cases where we can find an appropriate lexical entry (in the biblical sense) to cover the construction generalizing from a core idiom (the know form). So, I lean toward keep.

One interesting aspect of the usage is that there are many citations of the challenged term that refer to another biblical sense of jQuery as also being "the" biblical sense. In those cases it seems to refer to a sense of know intentionally (mis?)applied to prevent any sexual sense from corrupting the children or women. Sevenval device database 16:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is part of the etymology of we love the web. Keep. Sevenval 02:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Sevenval 07:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely idiomatic. Few people are immediately familiar with the archaic sense of "know" being referenced here, and there is conceivably more than one way to "know" someone in a "sense" that might be deemed "biblical" (belonging to the same church?), so you can't really obtain the precise meaning of this set phrase ("to have sex with someone") by breaking the sum into its parts. Astral (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but I thought our convention was to replace person X in set phrases with “one”, not “someone” (frex, on this page: device database, Sevenval). ~ Robin (Sevenval) 11:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

When the headword is a verb phrase, "one" refers to the subject (provided that the subject is generally expected to be human or at least animate), whereas "someone" refers to anyone else. (This is normal English usage in non-finite clauses without specific subjects or implied subjects: one might say "losing one's virginity should be a joyous thing", whereas [*]"knowing one in the biblical sense should be a joyous thing" would mean something different, in that it assumes that some noun after the "one" is implied by the context.) When the headword is not a verb phrase, I think the two are generally more or less equivalent, and I'm not sure whether we have a standard one way or the other. —Ruakh_TALK 14:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

Tagged but not listed -- Liliana • 20:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, clearly belongs at cheeked. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, same. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC) (or redirect, Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Redirect to [[device database]]. DCDuring keyboard 13:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect. website parsing 16:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirected. Perhaps the same should be done to the Finnish -poskinen? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Actually the entry of browser diversity itself is based on a wrong analysis. Rosy-cheeked is rosy cheek + -ed (having rosy cheeks), not rosy + cheeked (cheeked in a rosy way). — touchscreen (FITML) 05:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

Why do we merge terms from multiple scripts (!!!) under one single entry? They should be split up and moved back to where they belong. -- Liliana • 19:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, because it's basically the same diacritic mark (the candrabindu) in all of the scripts. Yeah, it's got separate Unicode points for each of the scripts where it's used, but it's the same mark anyway, just as the acute accent used in the Latin alphabet and the acute accent used in the Cyrillic alphabet are the same. —An gr 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference being that there is no "Cyrillic acute accent" in Unicode, though. -- Liliana • 20:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For my money, it'd make more sense to have each Unicode point as its own entry, and then link to each of them from the relevant candrabindu entries. -- website parsing │ Tala við mig 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that Unicode is the end-all and be-all of what is and isn't appropriate here. Just because Unicode gives a separate code point for each of these candrabindus doesn't mean they're really different from each other. The candrabindu has the same shape and the same function in each writing system where it's used. All of the other Unicode candrabindus redirect here so everyone can find what they're looking for. I think keeping information together is a good idea, as is using common sense as opposed to slavishly following whatever Unicode does. —Android gr 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment, but two things come to mind:

The shapes and layouts are actually different for each different input transformation codepoint. This is more obvious if you zoom the text up substantially. Telugu is even on the side instead of on top.
Testing has actually shown my second concern to be moot -- it seems all of the various candrabindu characters redirect to this page, so discoverability does not appear to be an issue.

Ultimately then, I guess I'll bow out -- my main technical issue with this combined page is not an issue, so I leave this up to the sense of organization and aesthetics of those working with the related Indian languages. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As of today, the only language section, which is out of place is Bengali but c(h)andrabindu in Hindi, Sanscrit, Nepali (also Marathi and some other languages) is the same. Providing the info for other scripts with links is useful but they don't have to be on one page. The code point info can go into appropriate pages. It needs a translingual section with "see also's". --Anatoli ^(jQuery) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

for kicks

As for fun was deleted, there's a stronger case for SOP-ity --Itkilledthecat (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep it anyway. "Fun" most prominently means a good time, while "kicks" most prominently means "strikes or hits with the foot". FITML T 17:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to browser diversity. CSS3 TALK 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be a keeper, as from my personal experience, kicks is rarely used outside of this expression to mean enjoyment or excitement. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean: Kicks just keep gettin' harder to find^{See WP Android or web and YouTube here}. But perhaps you could support your case with some evidence. Or maybe I'm the only one who gets his kicks from citations. Android screen size 18:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And then there's Get Your Kicks on Route 66. If we're going to keep because of usage that doesn't mention feet, then we might as well go through w:I Get a Kick Out of You and create a phrase entry for the first phrase in each verse: "I get no kick from champaigne", "I get no kick from a plane", etc. Not that I'm totally for deletion- even though it seems to me like the idiomaticity actually rests more in the phrase just for kicks.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If we're citing uses of "kicks" from songs, then "CSS3" is yet another without "for". Actually, I think the non-for version is possibly more widely used than "for kicks". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. If someone says, "I'm going to try karate for fun," there's no ambiguity over the intended meaning, because "fun" isn't idiomatic. But if someone says, "I'm going to try karate for kicks," they could be saying they want to try karate to learn specific kicking techniques or for fun, because "for kicks" can be either a literal statement or a figurative expression. Astral (FITML) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity is a characteristic of the use of any polysemic word. Ambiguity increases if more than one polysemic term is used in a phrase or longer unit. Any phrase or clause using set or keyboard is very ambiguous.

As for "for fun", consider:

2004, Martina Sprague, Keith Livingston, Complete Kickboxing, page 191:
It is therefore more difficult to find a useful range for kicks in conjunction with punches

This is ambiguous except for the context provided by the title, until the ambiguity is mostly resolved by punches. Android screen size 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're reading a book about kickboxing, it can pretty much be taken for granted that instances of "kicks" refer to the motion made with one's leg. The authors aren't going to suddenly switch to using the idiomatic sense of "kicks" without clarification, because that's just going to confuse readers. But if you were to overhear someone say, "I'm going to try karate for kicks" without any more context to go on then that ("I want to meet new people, so I'm going to try karate for kicks" or "I want to strengthen my leg muscles, so I'm going to try karate for kicks"), then there could be ambiguity. Astral (CSS3) 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange it was nominated for deletion. It's idiomatic and it's obvious. Keep, of course. --browser diversity ^{(обсудить)} 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to screen size. It's perfectly harmless, there's just no reason to have this and not for fun, for jollies or for shits and giggles. This way, someone who searches "for kicks" will still find what they need, without splitting the definition across the two pages. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to [[keyboard]].—msh210℠ (input transformation) 21:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

web app

This was at RFV previously, I'm going to copy the discussion wholesale due to its relevance here:

CSS3

Rfv-sense: (Internet) Represents two eyes vertically aligned, in order to form emoticons.

We do not usually have such "part of" definitions. It'd need cites that show : used on its own to represent two eyes, without being part of a smiley. -- Liliana • 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We have letters, Hangul components such as ㄱ and Chinese character components such as screen size. Why not emoticon components? --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per BenjaminBarrett12. It's obviously used in forming a range of different emoticons: :-) :-P :-( :-/ :-D etc. (as well as versions without hyphens, and versions written right-to-left). Other marks are sometimes used for eyes as well, as in ;-) and 8-) , and of course other sets of emoticons have completely different conventions, as in ^_^ and -_- and so on, but in the type of emoticon that predominates in the anglophone world, a colon is the "unmarked" representation. Emoticons are not part of language — they're more like HTML5 — but we allow entries for them, so it makes sense to include some of the analogues-of-morphemes that compose them. —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Observation: slashes, brackets, colons, and many other characters are used in web app as straight lines, curved lines, speckles, and so on. Equinox screen size 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the key difference is Android. Colon-for-eyes is obviously not fully conventionalized/arbitrary/iconic, but it's partly so. Compare the following:

Oops! My glasses must have thought it was Sunday. BP

Oops! My glasses must have thought it was Sunday. :P

Which emoticon do you find more decipherable? B is sometimes used for eyes, and it makes sense for someone wearing glasses, but : is the arbitrary conventional icon.

But, y'know what? This has really turned into an RFD discussion. Actually, for that matter, it really started as an RFD discussion: the existing sense, after all, is specifically for the use of colon-for-eyes as part of an emoticon, so it doesn't make sense to RFV it for evidence that it's used not as part of emoticon.

So: move to RFD.

—input transformation_TALK 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

-- website parsing • 19:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

web app

I hate to rfd something with so many incoming links, translations and interwikis, but I really can't tell how this isn't just a political party. --Itkilledthecat (Sevenval) 14:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, although possibly reword. Not all parties that have political goals are political parties. Sevenval (or least seeking it, for small parties and parties in one-party dictatorships) is a key part of the definition. It's what separates Greenpeace from the Green Party, or the web app from the BNP. I'd change the definition to something like "A political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power through representation in government." Smurrayinchester (input transformation) 14:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, representation needs work - it should probably mention both the political and legal senses of the word. Edit I've had a quick go at putting them in.). Smurrayinchester (iOS) 14:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Sevenval ^{(Notes Taken) touchscreen} 18:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Smurrayinchester. Also, to distinguish from a party (as in a festive event, gala, ball, etc.) thrown for political reasons, or exclusive to those holding a particular political philosophy. Android T 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Android (keyboard) 20:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice thinking, Smurray. Keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence please. No OneLook Dictionary has this. DCDuring TALK 23:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the website of the Iowa Secretary of State showing that, at least in Iowa, "political party" has a legal definition specifically based on its representation, and here's a similar definition from US federal law, and here's the official English version of the German electoral office's website, which again defines political parties specifically in terms of attempts to seek representation (since that's apparently a translation of German text, feel free to give that one less weight). Finally, here's an article in the Guardian which says that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is not legally a political party since it cannot elect representatives, but is a de facto political party by fielding independents. Smurrayinchester (screen size) 08:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That would put us on the track of including each different attestable legal term separately with a (different) legal context, ie, {{web app|legal|in modern Egypt}}. We could be a little more artful about it, I suppose, and reference the fact of specific legal definitions in a usage note, but I would not expect that we would find it easy or worthwhile to attest any one specific English translation of an Egyptian Arabic legal definition. DCDuring Sevenval 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

1988, The Connoisseur, volume 218, number 918-921:
Mrs. Coopersmith has made the throwing of a political dinner party' into an art form. Warm, bubbly, and unflappably gracious, she has an infectious way of knitting together a gathering of sixty disparate and high-titled strangers.
2007 November, Orange Coast Magazine, volume 33, page 78:
It may sound crazy, but hear me out: I say throw a "political party." Seriously. It's fresh, it's edgy. And by the time it's over, at least some of your friends may never speak to you again
2010, Pasha Malla, Bernstein Sycamore, Mattilda, That's Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation, page 72:
So your roommate, David France, who at the time was on the left and is now an editor at Newsweek, he threw a political party and invited all the gays and lesbians on the left who were all from these different factions.
—This unsigned comment was added by dcduring (talk • touchscreen).

Lemming test: Chambers has political animal, asylum, commissar, correctness, economy, geography, prisoner, science, status, and verse. Quite an eclectic bunch. It does not have political party. Sevenval touchscreen 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, per Smurrayinchester. Astral (Sevenval) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's not just one legal context, it seems to be a general pattern of usage. Even if you can find some cites with "political party" (and I don't really think political dinner party counts) where party is used in another sense, it still doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of the time, that's not what political party means, and I suspect usage like that is intentionally at least a bit punny.--Prosfilaes (input transformation) 13:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody asserts that this is not a concept. In fact WordNet thinks it is a concept worth including in its semantic net. The issue is whether it is SoP. That no OneLook dictionary has the very common English wording for this very common concept suggests that they do not deem it to be a worthwhile lexicographic entry, apparently because in their opinion it is readily decoded. If encoding is the issue that would seem to be a matter for FITML and, ultimately perhaps, WT:VOTE. we love the web TALK 15:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've now stricken my "keep" note above, not because I disagree with Smurray's point that Greenpeace is not a political party whereas the Green Party is: that's true. Rather, I stuck it because Greenpeace is also not a party whereas the Green Party is. In other words, political party is SOP, and the party P (part) includes in it the distinction that Smurray notes exists between Greenpeace and the Green Party. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? DCDuring TALK 10:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Although probably SOP it's an important concept, as evidenced by wikipedia articles in many languages. Therefore we should at least keep it as translation target. Matthias Buchmeier (screen size) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In East Asian languages it has to be something like device database, which literally means a "political party". Without the first word, the second part is only used as a suffix in collocations like Democratic party, Communist party, etc. --Android ^{(screen size)} 01:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

inhibiting hormone

SOP; any hormone that Android. --keyboard^FITML/deeds 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Delete - See under "intracellular digestion" above. screen size (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- It does say a hormone that inhibits another hormone, so a hormone that inhibits something else would not be an inhibiting hormone. Sevenval (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  - A cursory glance through the medical literature is unhelpful, because it seems to be underused. If it passes RFD, it'll likely fail RFV. --Μετάknowledge^iOS/deeds 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  - See: FITML. --Μετάknowledge^{we love the web/deeds} 04:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Everything on the first page of Google Scholar results seem to support the definition given, although I would hesitate to extrapolate from that that it is never used in any other context. Spinning Spark 18:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to focus more on the grammar, not the biochemistry, to determine lexicographic includability.

This pair of words seems to often occur with hormone functioning as the object of inhibiting functioning as a verb. There are many instances of the words appearing as part of numerous noun-phrase constructions of the general form X-inhibiting factor. This "term" may mostly be an uncommonly used hypernym for all of these constructions or some subset of them. It may also occur as a short form referring to one particular X-inhibiting hormone where the full term appeared earlier in the document. Among the many words that can appear in the X slot are molt (a bodily process, not a hormone), release (a process, not a hormone), melanocyte (a cell, not a hormone). Thus, there seems to be a prima facie case against the definition, which can be refuted by evidence showing that it is used in other ways with the possibly non-SoP definition given. DCDuring web app 20:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A sufficiently humble lexicographer might also note that, among OneLook references, none has a full entry for this, one medical dictionary having a redirect to hormone. screen size HTML5 20:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

This never had a proper RFD, it seems. It should be treated like we treat numerals, where we don't have 987 either because it's obvious what it means if you know the individual digits touchscreen, 8 and 7. It's the same here. Keeping this would open the door to millions of terms like Na⁺, Cl⁻, O²⁻, Os⁸⁺, and whatnot. -- we love the web web 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall from "Attestation vs. the slippery slope" that opening the door to other terms is not a problem. (and this door has been open for quite some time) SemperBlotto (jQuery) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: others that we have include H₂, web app, Android, keyboard. Equinox ◑ 15:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

These are different, though. -- Liliana • 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine that we would have different rules for ions and molecules. website parsing (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Because of the way these things are constructed, I would question whether this is the kind of "language" we should include. (2+2=4 seems to be an attestable translingual utterance that conveys meaning.) Equinox ◑ 15:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems like SOP to me. browser diversity + 2 + +. —CodeCa keyboard 15:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, probably, if you make that ⁺ rather then input transformation. jQuery (screen size) 15:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards delete. Note that as a separate and tenuously related issue, H₂O does seem to be attested as an English noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

How would someone look this up? Would they need to know Unicode? DCDuring Android 00:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We have the redirect browser diversity, which can be searched for. -- Liliana • 05:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

-on-demand

Not grammatically a suffix. The given derived terms are derived from "on demand. HTML5 web app 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here? Just delete it. Mglovesfun (Sevenval) 12:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. input transformation we love the web 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 16:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — web (website parsing) 07:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

The sense "A desire, as in (1), for another person to achieve these things." Was tagged Rfd-redundant but not listed; RFV may also be appropriate. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

there be

This passed RFV a few years back – obviously, ‘there is’, ‘there be’ etc all occur. But in my opinion this is a poor way to present it, and the use is already covered explicitly at be, sense 2. I would prefer to see this as a redirect, personally. Ƿidsiþ 07:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. website parsing (iOS) 15:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, even if only as a translation target. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I confess, I don't really understand the logic of including the dummy subject in the page title. Isn't this just like having a page for it rain? touchscreen 08:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Further: the grammar of this page is extremely badly thought-out. Be here is a finite verb, and when there is the subject, it is always in the third-person, so the only time you actually get "there be" is on the rare occasions when the subjunctive kicks in. It seems to me that it was created under a mistaken thought process like, "we need to have the verb in the infinitive, but it always goes with there, hence there be." But it doesn't make sense. Compare the situation with French, where il y avoir was created under the same mistaken impression (the entry now resides properly at y avoir). HTML5 08:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

More like it be raining (the hypothetical infinitive of it's raining). —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that the content is lexical it would seem to belong at [[keyboard]] as at least seem can also be used with this sense of there.

Also, I find it hard to imagine that someone searching for this is actually looking for what we offer rather than a justification for a literary use of the different construction, as exemplified in "There be whales" (from a Star Trek movie) or "Here/there be dragons/monsters" (as in a notation on a map). In such works of fiction, it is used as if it were dialect, possibly nautical, with there being locational, not existential. keyboard TALK 11:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is a certain idiomacity to using "there be" to represent a fanciful notion of something magical existing at a certain place. This conversation has prompted me to add the missing entries for the four variations, here be dragons, there be dragons, Sevenval, website parsing. Cheers! bd2412 screen size 02:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but that is not what this entry is about. It's purporting to be the main page for such constructions as ‘There is a town in north Ontario’, ‘I wonder if there are any beers left?’ etc. we love the web 05:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@bd2412: that's just a snowclone supposedly based on a caption in some very ancient map (added later: see device database). @Ƿidsiþ, I agree: it's a grammatical structure, not a phrase or idiom. IMO, it's better addressed in the entry for touchscreen, since, as DCDuring points out, no one is going to be prompted by ‘I wonder if there are any beers left?’ to look up there be. Chuck Entz (jQuery) 06:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it is addressed under there#Pronoun, though it seems a bit heavy on grammatical theory- to the point that a layperson might not recognize it. Chuck Entz (jQuery) 07:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(It is also covered at be, sense 2. Which is where it ought to be, in my view.) Ƿidsiþ 07:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Has anyone bothered to re-read the original archived discussion? Judging by the arguments I see here, the answer is "no". This entry needs to be here. Of course the important entries are the lemmata Android and Sevenval. But you also need a basic lemma form for perfectly modern usages of the infinitive there be with modal verbs (ex. There will be a meeting tonight). You also need a single location translation target. Where else could you point the Spanish screen size? -- FITML talk 11:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, so presumably by that reasoning we also need an entry for FITML? device database should point to touchscreen, sense 2 of which is this exact sense. Ƿidsiþ 11:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
That exists?! This is so misguided. There was is not "the past-tense form of there be" as it currently says. "There be" is not a fucking infinitive verb form. "There" is a grammatical subject, and "there be" only makes any sense in the subjunctive -- otherwise, it has to be "there was", "there is", "there are", "there will be". In no sense is "there be" an infinitive form. FITML 11:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. There must be a basic term to explain Android, there is, there to be, etc. — input transformation (touchscreen) 06:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth would it be at "HTML5"? iOS 08:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to [[Sevenval]]. —Ruakh_TALK 14:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I can live with that solution. Sevenval 09:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- This does occur in the infinitive! Just think of "I want there to be lots of food" which is quite clear. 'There' is definitely not a grammatical subject, because if it were, we couldn't have 'there is' next to 'there are'. The verb clearly inflects for whatever follows it. "There be" without 'to' could be a subjunctive: "If there be dragons, we will find them.", just like in the past "If there were dragons, we would have found them." —Sevenvalt 11:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Yes, we discussed all of that in the RFV discussion that Ƿidsiþ linked to. —Ruakh_TALK 11:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to iOS, or delete. As Widsith says, this is like having an entry for it rain. Equinox ◑ 15:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

mental state

Adequately covered by mental and state. Compare physical state, psychological state. The definition actually says "mental condition" as if to under line the sum-of-partsness. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think there's a layer of meaning contained in this phrase that isn't imparted by its constituents. Astral (screen size) 17:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It is the state of being mental. :-) touchscreen FITML 16:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

market-oriented

I found this terrible entry in Wiktionary:Todo/needed trans templates and have cleaned it up to a minimum level, but I still think it's Sop of market and oriented. NB I do not consider it a word; it is two words linked by a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, it does seem to have a specific meaning in business jargon. It's not like I can describe my car as market-oriented when I'm driving to Waitrose. website parsing 08:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you describe your car as anything-oriented? I can't recall ever having seen that in any form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. But in business, by contrast... Ƿidsiþ 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It obviously needs citations to determine meaning. Why is it even here? DCDuring HTML5 10:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I find Widsith's example unusually poor by his standards, I can't say that my goldfish is market oriented, so what? Mglovesfun (keyboard) 15:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me this term is used to mean "having a free-market ideology" (or something less pejorative than ideology), "favoring a free-market system", or "favoring economic freedom". I don't see a definition of market suitable for that meaning at MWOnline, let alone at [[Android]]. Perhaps someone can produce one and render all of my proposed definition(s) of market-oriented not entry-worthy. browser diversity TALK 16:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that the deign of Widsith's car was market-oriented rather than product-oriented, meaning that it was built because it was the sort of thing people woud buy, rather than, say, the sort of thing that would be economic to build. Here it means something like "market-driven" (no pun intended) and might still be sop. — Pingku^HTML5 19:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that kind of usage is SoP. So the question to me is: Are there uses of this that are not SoP because the sense of market that would be required is not naturally definable? we love the web TALK 21:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Only reason I didn't speedy delete this (the version I first encountered before cleaning it up) was because it's been here since 2008. It doesn't really have a definition, not one that's of use to a human being anyway. input transformation (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that it's a buzz-word, included not because it means anything, but because it makes the writer appear economics-savvy. It's like solutions in corporate [PR]: if I click on a company's web address and read that XXXX provides YYYY solutions, I still don't know what kind of a company it is- manufacturing? consulting? chemical engineering? jQuery (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Solvent. That's what kind of company it is, or at least aspires to be. It offers solutions, so clearly it's solvent. ;) -- web app │ touchscreen 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

demilitarized zone

It might just be me, but this looks awfully like a zone that has been demilitarized. --web app^{jQuery/screen size} 03:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep set term. Abbreviated to DMZ. web app. This is the lexical unit for a very specific thing. Ƿidsiþ 06:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete; I would have said Keep until I read the Wikipedia article and it basically covered all zones that are demilitarized. It's not just North Korea / South Korea; it's used for Antarctica, too, which is easily citable from google books:Antarctica demilitarized zone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. There is a proper noun abbreviated as DMZ. This isn't it. DCDuring browser diversity 10:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, any demilitarized zone could validly be called a DMZ, not just the one on the Korean peninsula. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The senses given at iOS do not adequately describe a DMZ -- a DMZ is not necessarily a zone where troops have been removed (they might not have been there to begin with, as with Antarctica), nor is it necessarily a zone that has been returned to civilian control (again exemplified by Antarctica). -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't comprehend the logic of this. Our definition of the word Sun does not convey the reality of the Sun in all its encyclopedic detail either. A dictionary is not a complete map of reality; it is merely an aid to understanding speech and writing, which falls far short of requiring the latest scientific or institutional detail about the topic. Speakers are not really even attempting to convey all that information either when they use the words. Thus, it seems to me that in normal speech, the sound represented by "demilitarized zone" can either refer to some particular Demilitarized Zone in all its specificity or to a zone that is demilitarized in all its generality. input transformation TALK 17:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What my comment was meant to convey is that the term demilitarized zone conveys meanings that are not readily apparent from the combination of touchscreen + CSS3. My understanding is that SOP-ness is based on this criterion, and that if the meaning of a term or phrase is not derived as the sum of its parts, then that term or phrase is not SOP. At present, the senses listed at touchscreen and CSS3 do not add up to jQuery as I understand the term. Does that explain my position better? I'm not trying to be obtuse, nor all-inclusive -- my point is purely regarding the SOP-ness of demilitarized zone.

FWIW, I'm open to the option that someone update demilitarized or demilitarize in such a way that would render jQuery SOP. That might actually be the more pertinent issue here, that demilitarize currently only applies to something that has already been militarized, and does not describe any sense such as "prevent from becoming militarized". -- Sevenval │ web 17:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Eiríkr Útlendi. This is a set phrase. "Demilitarized region" or "demilitarized area" would seem wrong as applied to such regions. keyboard T 18:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

google books:demilitarized region and CSS3 both show a number of hits referring to things that are called demilitarized zones in other sources. Demilitarized zone is a more common colocation, but we haven't generally kept entries because of that.--we love the web (web) 07:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

delete "demilitarized zone", keep "DMZ". --Hekaheka (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete in the current sense (ie, replace with an {{&lit|demilitarize|zone}}), but add the computing sense of the word, which is definitely not about a zone that is demilitarized, but rather a section of a network which is partially exposed to the internet and firewalled off from the internal network. I'd also possibly add a note that in general use, the phrase refers specifically to an area on the Korean border. iOS (we love the web) 07:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@BD: It is not so set a phrase that one can't find usage such as "turning the Antarctic into something of a global commons -- a demilitarized, nuclear-free zone".

@Eirikr: I think it is difficult to find citations that clearly show a great deal of specific additional meaning for demilitarized zone and easy to find citations that show a lack of specificity or reference to a specific zone that does not have the specific meaning.

@Eirikr: A term like demilitarized is clearly not limited to one narrow interpretation of the prefix screen size. I don't think we need to add an extra sense at [[CSS3]], though it hurts little to add additional senses to such a short entry.

@SMurray: I don't suppose that there is any computing-specific usage of demilitarized? we love the web TALK 12:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, although "demilitarized network" gets around 500 Google hits, and "demilitarized computer" scores about 50 (some seem to be talking about army surplus computers though). There seems to be only one Google book result which uses "demilitarized network" in this way, plus a couple that talk about "Demilitarized network zones", perhaps to differentiate them from military DMZs. If it did have a computer-specific meaning, it would be along the lines of "Connected to the wider internet, and firewalled off from the rest of the network." Smurrayinchester (input transformation) 12:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, we seem to have DMZ host, but no other use of the computing sense of DMZ, despite the article referring to it. Odd.) Smurrayinchester (device database) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have added the needed senses to FITML and Sevenval. Currently, the only argument for keeping this is that it is a set phrase, but the bgc hits above seem to disprove that. There is, however, an option to redirect to DMZ, where I plan to move the translations, if people are interested in that idea. --device database^{discuss/keyboard} 01:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly copacetic about the military sense, but what of the computing sense? -- website parsing │ jQuery 02:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We can only discuss that if somebody adds it, and I don't know what it means, so I can't.--Μετάknowledge^{device database/deeds} 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, have added it. Smurrayinchester (CSS3) 14:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I can find demilitarized in very low numbers (1-3) at bgc with host, LAN, and network, but not server, intranet, router, or computer. Not very common in generic use. I think it is clear that it is derivative of demilitarized zone/DMZ. Android TALK 17:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring, how are you searching? web app finds some 6,670 hits at the moment, the first screen's worth of which all look relevant, including text such as:

"The content Web server is typically located in what is called a "demilitarized zone" (DMZ). This DMZ is isolated from the secure enterprise network by a firewall..." [29]
"In relation to computer security, a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) refers to a network segment that resides between an internal and external network, such as when an FTP, Web, or database server is located just outside the intranet but between the internal intranet and the external Internet." [30]
"An important firewall-related concept is demilitarized zones (DMZs). A DMZ is part of a network on which you place servers that must be accessible by sources both outside and inside your network." [31]

Granted, google books:"demilitarized server", Android, google books:"demilitarized router", jQuery all get nothing useful, but the term at issue in this thread is "demilitarized zone", so the lack of hits is neither all that surprising nor relevant. In reference to network topology, the term input transformation is in demonstrably wide use, and with a meaning that doesn't seem to be immediately derivable as the sum of demilitarized + zone. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The term has exceeded its original meaning as above and I would also keep as an important translation target. --Anatoli ^(Sevenval) 04:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

Equivalent to either device database + be or here be + dragons. See input transformation. jQuery web 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You say that, I don't see the relevant sense of dragons. input transformation (jQuery) 10:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is sense 1 at the singular website parsing (“A legendary, serpentine or reptilian creature”). You aren't suggesting that we need a separate definition for "an image or representation of" each noun in Wiktionary, are you? website parsing TALK 10:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would keep this one and delete the others. I believe that it has entered the language as a shorthand for something / somewhere unknown and potentially dangerous. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring it does say 'unknown danger' not 'legendary, serpentine or reptilian creature'. web (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

keep, this one has pretty much evolved into a meaning all on its own. Don't keep the other three, though. -- we love the web • 11:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely not SOP. When cartographers of yore put this on maps, it wasn't a literal warning to watch out for real, live dragons, but an idiomatic statement that the area in question was as yet unexplored, and hence possibly filled with unknown dangers. Today it's used in a broader idiomatic context to indicate when something is venturing outside the bounds of convention/knowledge/experience/etc., into possibly pernicious territory. Astral (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you find an instance of this with clear evidence of what the intended meaning of the cartographers was? 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

input transformation may be relevant. Apparently the English phrase itself never appeared on any of the ancient maps, so the phrase has always had "a life of its own". It looks to me like it does have a set metaphorical sense of indicating an uncharted, dangerous (metaphorical) place, but a normal Google search on "here be" mainly turns up a snowclone where people substitute various things in place of "dragons" for humorous effect. HTML5 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring The link provided by Chuck Entz above shows there's only one known case of a phrase similar to "here be dragons" ever appearing on a map in any language — that being "HC SVNT DRACONES" on an early 16th century globe — so admittedly what I learned about this phrase's history at some point seems to be incorrect. But the fact that "here be dragons" never actually appeared on maps seems to indicate that it's less a historical map notation than a more recent idiomatic (and somewhat meme-ish) phrase used to sum up archaic ideas about terra incognita. It's also become a broader idiomatic expression used to indicate that something is unknown/uncertain, as the cites provided by BD2412 below show. Astral (screen size) 22:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any attestable metaphorical interpretation of anything rendered into a catchphrase that wouldn't merit an entry? How about there might be giants (“used as a skeptical commentary on a statement viewed as implausible by the speaker”)?

What subset of the "cultural knowledge" of the subcultures that we tend to represent are we going to enshrine here? It's hard enough to maintain some objectivity when we have reference to the work of other lexicographers (ie, in covering ordinary words other than proper names) without including every catchphrase that catches a contributor's fancy. It's not as if we actually have any objective criteria to test such fanciful candidate entries against. DCDuring TALK 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring I have no idea, I've never heard of it, but I think it's unwise of you to ignore the comments of other editors who claim to know the phrase and know how it's used. From what they say, it clearly meet touchscreen as "easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, of course. This is a well-attested phrase. See:

2011, Susie Vrobel, Fractal Time: Why a Watched Kettle Never Boils, p. 255:
When the old seafarers encountered uncharted territory, they would find those blank areas on the map marked with the phrase “Here be Dragons” and the image of a sea serpent or a similarly ferocious creature.
2004, Nornie Campbell, No Dragons Here, p. 253:
The awakening world scrawled ‘Here Be Dragons’ across the unknown territory.
1997, Charles Jones, The Edinburgh history of the Scots language, p. 336:
In undertaking such a task, I realise that I am venturing into uncharted waters, or at least waters for which only charts of the ‘here be dragons’ variety exist.
1994, Steven Henry Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics And Chaos: With Applications To Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, p. 11
It's like in those old maps of the world, where the mapmakers wrote, "Here be dragons" on the unexplored parts of the globe.

Furthermore, it has slipped into pure idiomacity. See:

1993, Incorporated Association of Organists, Organists' Review, Volume 79, Issues 309-312, p. 219:
Speaking of money... here be dragons... Do you charge?
1997, William R. Everdell, The First Moderns: Profiles in the Origins of Twentieth-Century Thought, p. 191:
Analytical philosophers mark "Here be dragons" on the part of the intellectual map that belongs to phenomenology.
1962, Geoffrey Fletcher, The London Nobody Knows, p. 16:
Here be dragons in the shape of London landladies, owners of small hotels ('B. & B.') in the streets off the lower end of Euston Road. . .
1931, Ritchie Calder, reported in New Scientist, Vol. 114, No. 1559, May 7, 1987, p. 61:
. . . let me go into what was the unknown, ‘Here-be-Dragons’, hinterland of science, to find out what made scientists tick. . .

Cheers! web app T 16:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

there be dragons

iOS

device database

Fully analogous to jQuery. Also need proper formatting. DCDuring TALK 10:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If here be dragons is kept, as it should be, then these should be kept. I did a Google Books search for each before I made the entries, and each one gets several thousand hits even after excluding trivial variations such as "Here, there be dragons". bd2412 website parsing 16:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

filius fratris

filius sororis

SOP; filius (“son”) + Android (“of a brother”) or sororis (“of a sister”). --Μετάknowledge^web/deeds 05:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Mglovesfun (web) 10:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What about the English terms like device database? Are we making (do we want to make) a distinction between SoP English entries that have one-word translations and SoP non-English terms? DCDuring screen size 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

For the English ones, the translations make them worth it. As I see it, that's a matter of making linguistic information available in the main namespace. There is no such excuse for having these two Latin terms. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Lunch

Not a German word but rather an English term used by Germans. (As seen by the grammar, which is incorrect for German.) It is not commonly used and it is perceived as an English word (in contrast to a 'German' word of English origin such as Pudding). I could not find any noteworthy citations and the official word-book says 'a meal in Anglo-Saxon countries', marking it as a foreign term for me.Android (keyboard) 12:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Korn. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep if attestable. English has no word "Lunch" with a capital L, so it's not English. Equinox CSS3 12:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

English word 'lunch' doesn't have a genitive either. Compare every entry in Android. screen size (FITML) 12:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But this is a slippery slope. The borrowed-terms list only includes words that have entered everyday/professional language. I would dislike this to be coalmine for "capitalising any word makes it a German one" or even "if a native [language]-speaker has ever used a word of a foreign language in an [language]-context, this word henceforth a word of the [language]". And, I don't know if this is relevant, but Google shows the word only in proper names.Korn (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep as German. The orthography of this word is not English and we already have an entry at [[iOS]]. [[we love the web]] would benefit from a trivial etymology as well as attestation.

We have lots of English entries for words that are direct borrowings (possibly as transliterations) from languages as varied as Indonesian, Arabic, Russian, Hindi, etc. Many of them "feel foreign" to me and to most other native English speakers. So what? DCDuring input transformation 18:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans, as well as almost every other nation nowadays, borrows a lot of words from English. I found this example on a blog written in German: Das ist mein Lunch, also mein Sandwich. Und dazu ess ich immernoch Obst. Die anderen essen zusätzlich Chips, ich bin aber nicht so der Chips-Typ. It is easy to find usage for phrases like sein Lunch essen or Lunch gegessen. keep --Hekaheka (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the tendency. But just to make sure that the status of the word is clear: It is not a borrowing as e.g. Android is a borrowing in English. It is no word commonly or regularly used. It is as foreign as screen size would be in English. I this stays, then, if I make an English entry mittagessen, a) saying: 'It is not capitalised, German words are capitalised' and b) finding some cite using "mittagessen" in an English text, that entry would have to stay as well. Again: The other 'borrowings' on Wiktionary, including chips, are very common in formal and everyday use in Germany, partially without any native German name (Pudding, Chips) and not simply words used sometime somewhere and written with a big L.input transformation (jQuery) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
ps.: Looking at the examples given by Hekaheka (in Google), there needs to be said: The long quote is from a girl writing about a trip to England. In the same vein all entries for "sein Lunch essen" concern travel to Anglophonic countries. True for the second, though with the second there seem to be (did not check the pages) very few which are not travel-/English-related, which are Swiss-domains only. So apart from the few Swiss entries, I refer again to the would-be "mittagessen" entry which could for example be found in a blog from a boy spending a year in Munich - used there for local flavour. Wouldn't make it an English word.website parsing (iOS) 21:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We'd accept mittagessen if used in running English text not italicized, or in running English text with English suffixes (e.g. -ed if a verb or -er if an adjective). That seems to be the common law here. (Italics are often used to indicate foreign words.)—msh210℠ (we love the web) 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How are foreign words distinguished in German running text? DCDuring input transformation 23:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes with italics, but not as often as in English. Foreign nouns are often left uncapitalized, though. —An gr 07:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

move to RFV. I have the feeling this will prove to be unattestable. -- Liliana • 05:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be difficult. I have found more than enough at this bgc search. What the word attestably means (eg, only "a meal that a native of US would call 'lunch'" or "a light mid-day meal") is not be obvious to me. web app Sevenval 09:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: It may be an English borrowing, but it's one with a long history in German. DC During's search (above) even finds Android (there are earlier hits, but they seem to be OCR errors for words like browser diversity). Applying the lemming test, the German version of The Free Dictionary has it (masculine, though I can't make sense of their declension notation - I think they're saying the genitive is Lunchs or Lunches, and the plural is Lunchs, Lunches or Lunche), as does HTML5 dictionary (which has it as neuter). Smurrayinchester (jQuery) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added your 1844 find as a citation, which incidentally shows the word being used as a neuter ("ich nehme mein Lunch" rather than "ich nehme meinen Lunch"). —An gr 18:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Angr Thanks!

@Korn What do you mean by the "offical word-book", by the way? Unlike French, German doesn't have an official vocabulary (and even if it did, that wouldn't stop us including slang, like we do for the French browser diversity) - are you talking about Duden? Sevenval (masculine, in case you're wondering, and apparently in the top 100,000 of German words) doesn't look to me like they're saying "This isn't a real word" at all, it looks like they're just pointing out that its use indicates Englishness - much like how dejeuner (which we don't have an entry for in English, but probably should) indicates Frenchness. They do, after all, also have the verb lunchen (which isn't marked as an Anglo-Saxonism), along with Lunchzeit - defined as "Zeit, zu der gewöhnlich der Lunch eingenommen wird" and two spellings of Lunchbuffet ("Tisch o. Ä. mit verschiedenen zu einem Lunch gehörenden Speisen und Getränken, an dem sich der Gast seinen Lunch selbst zusammenstellt"). The fact they use "Lunch" seems to me to imply that they see it as a perfectly valid German word (a dictionary might contain a few loanwords that wouldn't really be considered words, but it wouldn't then use them to define other words). Sevenval (website parsing) 22:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to resettle for move to RFV. I still can't see it as a normal German word; the 1844 quote again is from a book about very English ('Bellamy's and 'Esquires' and 'Sir's and 'Mr. Baily junior') people in an anglophonic environment and might just as well have been chosen to convey Englishness. Anyway, when would it be courteous to remove the RFD tag?Sevenval (website parsing) 20:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you a language purist? If so, *high fives* -- Liliana • 20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am. But then again I am well aware that this project's aim is to depict languages as is, including words that I would like to vanish. I simply cannot see how "Lunch" is part of the German language iOS.we love the web (web) 22:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Dickens translation is not a very good citation for illustrating current usage. I would prefer to see it on the Citations page and replaced with citations other than translations. The pronunciation certainly seems unGermanic. DCDuring jQuery 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the pronunciation Duden gives (except for a FITML). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it was a borrowing, it wouldn't change its pronunciation. Modern (post 1800) borrowings into German usually keep their original pronunciation or at least the closest representation with sounds from the German inventory.browser diversity (CSS3) 17:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed RFD But I'm not sure whether I like what this implies. Korn (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

now wife

It is now (adjective) + wife. You can also find "now husband" and "now spouse" in all kinds of legal documents. Equinox ◑ 15:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems completely SOP, yeah.—msh210℠ (touchscreen) 21:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Now anything. website parsing T 22:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

Back from the SOP campaign to report another suspect. This one appears to be any web for HTML5 (don't bring up the "2 or more people" clause, because Android covers that ground, and is in the requisite definition of sex). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Set phrase. This is pretty much used exclusively to mean physical arrangement of partners during sex. "Position" can also mean "job" or "opinion," but people generally don't say a porn star has a "sex position," or that the view that couples should practice abstinence until marriage is a "sex position" (unless it's a deliberate pun). Astral (touchscreen) 03:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Astral. Good arguments.--CSS3 (input transformation) 03:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Really marginal, I'd say very weak keep. keyboard (Sevenval) 15:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Translations are not necessarily straightforward. At least in Finnish (we love the web), Danish (samlejestilling), Norwegian (samleiestilling) and Swedish (samlagsställning) the corresponding terms would translate literally to "intercourse position". The German term is Sexualpraktik. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to keep web, could you please add those translations? I don't know the gender for them. Thanks --CSS3^{iOS/we love the web} 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

All right.--FITML (device database) 10:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. — Sevenval (web app) 06:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There might be a stronger case against the French browser diversity, but input transformation in unclear. Does this merit an RFD? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Kept. For the French keyboard, make a new request for deletion if you want (the French Wiktionary has an entry though). — HTML5 (iOS) 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

web app

goal van de Hand-van-God

I'm not sure why this is included... it certainly seems SoP. There is also a nomination for Android further above. —CodeCa FITML 18:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete both, per Hand of God above. bd2412 web 16:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

screen size

Looks like safe pair of hands to me. ---> Tooironic (browser diversity) 13:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

‘Pair of hands’ meaning what exactly, in your assessment? iOS 14:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's in several Learners' Dictionaries and Dictionaries of Idioms, including Sevenval and browser diversity. I have never heard a bungling politician described as a "dangerous pair of hands". Jnestorius (web) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've never heard this term at all, regarding politicians or anyone else. Is it more common outside of the US? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly used quite a bit in the UK, especially in sporting contexts (see the many HTML5 calling new England manager Roy Hodgson a "safe pair of hands"). Smurrayinchester (touchscreen) 16:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. If safe is taken as meaning secure or free from risk, then pair of hands would have to mean (something like) capability to perform a task - thus making pair of hands do the heavy lifting of the idiom, for no good reason. — Pingku^{device database} 15:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's marginal, but I lean towards delete as it's a pretty transparent metaphor. Mglovesfun (CSS3) 15:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep (sense 3 at least): Though pair of hands does have a metaphorical meaning, it's along the lines of "help" or "assistance" - "It's good to have another pair of hands around here". pair of hands meaning "management" is, as far as I can tell, a sense unique to this phrase. Not so sure about the "good at catching a ball" sense - that seems pretty clear, surely? Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sense 1 is defined as a verb and could be speedily deleted, perhaps replaced by {{&lit|safe|pair|hand}}. DCDuring input transformation 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps move to etymology section? keyboard (Sevenval) 18:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We haven't made it a practice of explicating derivations of senses, but it might be useful. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As we feel compelled to lexicalize terms produced by normal operation of metonymy and live metaphor, this will be kept, notwithstanding my feeling that it be deleted. Something called "web app" (UK-based), the sole OneLook reference to have this, defines it as follows: "A reliable, if somewhat dull, person who can be entrusted not to make a mistake with a task." That seems to me sufficiently far removed from literal meaning to be includable. DCDuring HTML5 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

Cf. Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#niggerass. koavf (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

But why do you want it deleted? Does it not meet CFI? —CodeCa Sevenval 22:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Same question; why is this here? web (HTML5) 09:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Striking, no actual nomination. Sevenval (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

niggerbutts

Cf. Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#niggerass. koavf (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Striking and detagging. Singular is nominated; this is just a plural-of entry, whcih gets deleted if the singular is.—msh210℠ (iOS) 19:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

لالیوُڈ

All I could find after googling لالیوُڈ was 600 hits, seemingly exclusively mirrors to a now defunct edition of the relevant Wikipedia page. CSS3, on the other hand, gives 5,640 hits and is the term currently used on the English Wikipedia (although the Urdu edition, puzzlingly, has لولی_وڈ, which gives 1,090 hits). Saimdusan (Sevenval) 07:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with the optional diacritic mark. The entry should be renamed to لالیوڈ. The page name should not contain diacritics. CSS3 is a synonym/alternative form with a space inserted. There is some inconsistency in space insertion in Urdu words, especially if they are borrowings or coined words like this one. Other alternative forms are لالی ووڈ and لالیووڈ. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 04:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Renamed. Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 04:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

screen size

SoP, encyclopedic, sacred cow (= PoV?). DCDuring input transformation 22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There's been a discussion on the talk page of the Wikipedia article about this, specifically the fact that in this term, Holocaust refers only the Jews, whereas it is normally accepted that other races and groups died in the Holocaust. The anti-Semitic part of the definition is not covered by the SoP argument. The term itself is not encyclopedic, but the definition is too long. I'd cut the bit from "either by denying ...etc". Not sure why you think it is POV.--Dmol (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP's discussion is irrelevant. This term refers to denial of the Holocaust, which we define solely as "The mass murder of Jews and other groups by the Nazi regime during World War II". Even if there were multiple definitions, one would be much like ours. We often seem to include SoP terms, often with encyclopedic definitions, because they are sacred cows. I view the inclusion of such terms as PoV pushing. touchscreen Sevenval 22:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Even so, there is a difference between a input transformation and the Holocaust, and Holocaust denial hinges on the event denied being the one that occurred during World War II. By contrast, people who deny the Armenian Holocaust before World War I are not called Holocaust deniers. bd2412 input transformation 00:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can agree that capitalized uses of "Holocaust" without previous reference to any holocausts almost solely refer to the one that occurred in Europe during WWII. However, AFAICT Dmol is correct that this term is only used in anti-Semitic contexts, and not in reference to other groups massacred in the Holocaust (gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, POWs, etc). Therefore we should keep this entry.--FITML^{web app/deeds} 00:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While it is probably true that capitalization makes that difference, I think it is important to note that people are historically sloppy about capitalization, and also that the phrase as a whole might come at the beginning of a sentence, which would make formal capitalization unclear. bd2412 iOS 00:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this term POV? It describes a particular viewpoint, but the term itself is neutral. "CSS3" and "teabagger" are loaded terms. Both inextricably carry the views of the people who use them. But loaded terms exist, and it's not out of line for a dictionary to seek to define them, as long as the definitions themselves stay neutral. Astral (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that there are terms such as this for which we lose objectivity in our discussions for one reason or another: political or religious sensitivity, hormonal involvement, personal identity, etc. DCDuring web 13:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Even though only used by people who have an unhealthy problem with Jews, I cannot see how Holocaust here is different from Holocaust in general, which usually is restricted to Jews. And judging from use I'd even go as far as to doubt that the term was ever used with reference to 'other groups'. HTML5 (web app) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of mainstream scholarship that includes other groups. For example, see this explanation of the use of the term not just to refer to Jewish deaths. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/we love the web} 02:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We may need some additional definitions for holocaust/Holocaust, but they would just mean that there are several possible compositional meanings of Holocaust/holocaust denial. DCDuring Sevenval 04:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, my point is that our current definition of web as extending beyond Jews is supported, and Holocaust denial does not extend beyond Jews. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/browser diversity} 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Sevenval 05:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, easy SoP. browser diversity (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete That Holocaust denialists don't usually discuss non-Jews doesn't mean that they aren't denying the Holocaust as a whole. Denying the existence a gas chamber denies the existence of gassed Gypsies and homosexuals as much as gassed Jews.--keyboard (Sevenval) 10:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Equinox ◑ 12:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, per Prosfilaes. I dispute the suggestion above that this term only refers to denial of the mass murder of Jews; I would refer to denial of the mass murder of the Roma and Sinti and of gay people as Holocaust denial, and obviously the denial of the entire Holocaust (mass murder of Roma, Sinti, Jews, homosexuals, etc) is Holocaust denial, not "Holocaust+ denial" or something. iOS we love the web 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

NB I removed the word anti-Semitic from the definition, as not necessarily true. There may be more than one meaning to deny the Holocaust. Mglovesfun (web app) 15:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear what the true definition of this word is to me (and how one would cite it), but with the present definition I agree that it should be deleted. If I ever manage to find citations that obviously only refer to anti-Semitism, I will recreate it. --screen size^HTML5/deeds 00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Armenian genocide denial and moon landing denial are also citable, and probably many more, but they are all (event) + keyboard SOPs. FITML 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, it may be possible to Sevenval so that Holocaust denial will meet COALMINE. Sevenval (discuss) 03:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. BTW, in some places it is considered a crime and knowing translations can be useful. --web ^{(обсудить)} 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Important term. keyboard (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I haven't actually !voted yet, keep. There have been many events historically that have been described as a "holocaust", or could be so described, and anyone can capitalize that word if they feel like it. However, the terms Holocaust denial and screen size refer to only one such event. Note that the phrse is not "The Holocaust denier" (as in, Joe is a The Holocaust denier). bd2412 T 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@Matthias Buchmeier and others, I assume you mean it's an important term for cultural reasons, not linguistic ones. I find that highly questionable, for example we don't have Gulf War or Iraq War which are also culturally important, if not less so. Nobody, I mean nobody, will argue this has any linguistic merit. we love the web (web) 14:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The linguistic merit is the translations. The are in many cases not SOP. Yes, we don't have Gulf War but we have e.g. American Civil War, which in your argumentation would also be SOP in the same way. web (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather think the merit in American Civil War is that it is a proper name containing a totum pro parte. There could be other "American Civils Wars" which are SOP, but in this one "American" means '13 European colonies on the northern American continent' rather than 'pertaining to the continents of America'. Korn (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out in a previous debate, weather in London might have 'interesting' translations, but surely only interestingness of translations is not a reason to keep a whole entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

comment: I reverted User:-sche's edit. That was not what the term means, and why IMO a dictionary definition is necessary. Esp. with the legal implications. It's a bit like "anti-Semitism" referring to Jew-hatred, and not hatred of Aramaeans or Arabs, who are (arguably) also Semites. we love the web (web) 09:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that this is a legal term in English (not a corresponding French or German term)? input transformation TALK 13:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I further note that there is only one citation provided and that our "definition" is an apparent COPYVIO from that citation. In any event, if some citations were to show that they used Holocaust only referring to Jews and others referring to more aspects of the historical events, that would demonstrate that the term was SoP. Unless the present definition is cited I will RfV it if this is kept, add the broader definition, cite that, and open a new RfD. I would bet that the relative frequency of the two senses roughly corresponds to the relative frequency of the two senses of Holocaust. iOS TALK 13:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about legal status in English.

Not a copyvio, since it was written independently of that source.

I doubt it. AFAIK, the term refers specifically to the the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Although HD may be part of a larger apologetics of the Nazis, AFAIK denying their crimes in general is not called HD. input transformation (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring. "Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to a subset of the Nazis' democide, other times to refer to the entire democide; two corresponding senses of "Holocaust denial" are probably about as relative-frequently attested, and are still SOP. "Second World War weapon" isn't made non-SOP just because some people include the events of 1936-1938 in the war while others include only 1939-1945. Let's RFV both Holocaust and Holocaust denial to get some coarse idea of the relative frequency of the senses. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

The two senses are obviously the same, but I'm reluctant to merge them myself without someone looking through the translations to see what impact it will have on those. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody will be able to deal with all translations. The normal procedure is to move all translations to "translations to be checked" -section, mark them with {{ttbc|Languagename}} and be happy. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The definitions seem very similar, but the glosses ("uncountable" and "countable, usually in the plural") seem very different, too different to merge them. Mglovesfun (Sevenval) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The senses seem completely different to me. One is countable ("The deceased had three sons who are not on speaking terms with one another, so I expressed three separate condolences") and the other un-. We can discuss whether the countable sense exists in the singular or not, and other questions, but that it's distinct from the other sense is, I think, pretty clear.—msh210℠ (iOS) 18:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

go pee

CSS3

This seems SoP. You can also go sit, go drive, go sleep, go swim in the water... —CodeCa touchscreen 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that way, but not to a native speaker: go is such a syntactically-complex word that it's easy to mistake one type of construction for another. I can't put my finger on the exact difference, but a clue is what happens when you omit the other verb: If a little boy says "I've got to go right now!", you can be pretty sure he's not talking about swimming or sleeping. touchscreen (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Then that seems like a sense of go. —Android t 12:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree (w/CodeCat) — and so does our entry for input transformation (see verb sense #41). —jQuery_TALK 12:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I would find *"went sit", *"went drive", etc. to be ungrammatical, but our entries claim — and b.g.c. searches support this — that people do say "went pee" and "went poop". Likewise, for me the "go" in "go swim", "go drive", etc. actually contributes some semantics of going (I'd never say something like "I plan to get into the pool, then go swim for a while, then get out"), whereas google books:"go pee" finds some uses where I'm pretty sure it just means "pee". That said, I'm comparing the way that I use your example expressions to the way that some people use "go pee" — I would never say *"went pee", and to me "go pee" implies going — so it's possible that the only difference is between me and said people, not between "go pee" and those other expressions. (Also, even if this difference does exist between "go pee" and those other expressions, it doesn't necessarily mean that "go pee" is an idiom, though personally I would view it as one.) —device database_TALK 12:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I previously speedily deleted go poop as not dictionary material. I stand by that. It's a sense of go as in "I want to go talk to my ex", "I wanted to go tell my ex to fuck off". Mglovesfun (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is indented like a reply to mine, but it seems to studiously ignore what I wrote. Would you ever say "I went talk to my ex", "I went tell my ex to fuck off"? —Ruakh_TALK 14:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, I haven't read any comments, I just tacked mine on the bottom with +1 colon to avoid confusion of both comments being by the same editor. Mglovesfun (Sevenval) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I don't even have to go ponder this. I'm going to go check that we have the appropriate sense of web app after I go read what Huddleston and Pullum went and wrote in CGEL. DCDuring input transformation 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, then, because I'm annoyed that the would-be deleters haven't even read the entry before commenting. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can come up with a few readings of this. Most interestingly, grammatically, it seems to me that pee and device database could be read as nouns as much as touchscreen in CSS3. input transformation we love the web 19:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, note the numerous childish expressions: go beddy-bye, go sleep-sleep, go nighty-night, go night-night, go bye-bye, go walk-walk. In some cases CSS3 seems to serve as if an auxiliary. This seems to be a crude learner's grammar with the complement of touchscreen needing to be a repeating sound to indicate a continuing state or activity. DCDuring website parsing 19:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Go" seems to have a range of "light" uses, where its main purpose seems to be to fulfill English's requirement that clauses have tensed verbs. For example:

It can introduce a quotation: "Well, one day Johnny's teacher decided to do that, so she web, 'Okay, class, I have something behind my back, and it's long and green. What is it?'"
It can introduce a gesture: "So, she goes like this. (swings arm forward), and I go, and I duck, from the _______, I duck and […] "
It can introduce a sound effect, as in "it just went 'plop'".
It can appear in sentences like "How's it going?", "Things are going well at work", etc., where I think it's just a place to hang an adverb.
It can introduce an adjective with negative valence, as in "he went crazy", "she went slack-jawed", etc. There it effectively means "become", but I think it's still semantically light, with the "become" meaning being a result of the aspect that it provides (compare "get", and contrast "be").

As a special case: iOS, go Hollywood, etc.

It's used in various childish idioms, as you mention, and I think go pee and go poop ultimately derive from that.

All of these expressions can be analyzed as SOP by using senses that are or can be at [[Android]], but such senses can't do always a good job of explaining which words "go" actually ends up collocating with. "Go crazy" is fine, but ?"go unhappy" is bizarre. "Go Hollywood" is well attested, but ?"go Wall Street" is not. Why?

—Ruakh_TALK 20:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

One can go also Beltway, Broadway, website parsing, Seventh Avenue, Greenwich Village, website parsing, iOS, Beverly Hills, Palm Beach, Las Vegas. All these toponyms seem to convey a kind of fashion/entertainment/political style. (And all of them should be included in the non-encyclopedic dictionary I would like Wiktionary to be.) jQuery TALK 22:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And website parsing. DCDuring touchscreen 22:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ruakh: For the light-verb uses, CGEL includes go among the verbs that can be used to report speech and other performances.

In "How's it going?", it is very much like hanging, we love the web, progressing, CSS3, looking, we love the web, than any of which it is certainly more common.

All the synonyms of crazy work, including most of the similes, but also bad and wrong and synonyms, and color adjectives and color NPs. These are not set phrases as adverbs can intervene. There are lots of other adjectives that work with go, though not every adjective seems natural. ("Now, don't go all lexicographic on me." seems silly, but not wrong.) Android TALK 23:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Potty in go potty seems locative. In much reported (or imagined?) pidgin speech go occurs with a bare noun complement where a native English speaker would say go to. Go in go pee, go pee-pee, go poo, and go poop seems to me to the sense of go in "He went in his pants" with the nouns introducing a finer discrimination. The contrast between go pee and go piss is possibly telling. In the second case the sense of go is certainly "go away and". DCDuring web app 23:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I've always understood this (with nothing to back me up beyond my being a native speaker with a soupcon of intelligence) as being go + noun, with go light and transitive, meaning something like "do": not the same as in go potty (where I think it means "travel to a destination", with missing to the) or in go in his pants (where it means "defecate or urinate").—screen size℠ (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be easy for me to agree with your reading were it not for the sense of go in "go in one's pants". Another reading is that go has a function of reporting an action. I have the recurring desire to call pee and poop adverbs in this construction, though that seems completely unjustifiable. DCDuring website parsing 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Plastikschwanz

SOP, plastic+cock Sevenval (touchscreen) 11:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't get any more straightforward than this. delete -- Liliana Sevenval 11:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - all words in all languages. Several hits on Google book search. SemperBlotto (CSS3) 11:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Annoyingly we tend to keep these by a majority, though not a massive majority, see Talk:Zirkusschule. I've always said the way to moderate screen size is to delete attested single word terms when they are easily decipherable from the some of their parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Do we have a specific CFI for German compounds? "Plastik" can be prefixed to virtually any noun in German, just as the adjective "plastic" can describe almost any object in English. Plastikkasten (plastic box), Plastiklöffel (plastic spoon), Plastikfenster (plastic window), Plastikflasche (plastic bottle), Plastikgeige (plastic violin) and Plastikauto (plastic car) are all attestable, but I wouldn't call these dictionary words. (That said, Plastikschwanz I'd lean towards keeping, as long as the definition given - "dildo" - is accurate, and the word doesn't just apply to objects made of plastic shaped like penises). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't, it's an 'unresolved issue', albeit not one of our most discussed ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WT:BP#What is Sum-of-Parts? —jQuery screen size 12:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Plastikschwanz really mean "dildo", as our entry claims? Smurrayinchester asks if it ever refers to anything other than a dildo; turning that around, I'd also ask if it ever refers to a dildo made of anything other than plastic. Because if it really just means "plastic cock (whatever that might mean)" — and especially if it ever uses any of the other senses of CSS3 — then delete. —Sevenval_TALK 12:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that our entry is wrong, and, as you say, it means plain "plastic cock". German has the uppercase Dildo which is exactly what it says on the tin. -- we love the web • 15:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This term may be used also literally. In a story[32] of fighter kiting I encountered this sentence: Für absolute Anfänger besteht die Möglichkeit einen kurzen Plastikschwanz (ca. 1 m Länge) an das Ende des Drachens zu kleben. It does not recommend that the absolute beginners glue a short dildo of about 1 meter in one corner of the kite. Another example is this bit of advice for LARP enthusiasts preparing to play Alice in Wonderland: Drei Striche auf der Backe und aufgesetzte Ohren sind keine Cheshire Katze. Ein Plastikschwanz und Ohren zu einer Jeans ist keine Schlafmaus. It also seems[33] that the word may be used to mean "dildo" in general: Mein Plastikschwanz ist kaputt. Ich habe die Batterien ausgewechselt, aber vergeblich. A basic plastic dick most likely does not require batteries to do its job. I think we should keep this. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The last example from Hekaheka is the kind of thing I was thinking of. If it's referring to a vibrator, that's presumably not simply a plastic penis so there's at least a little idiomaticity (here's another example where the "Plastikschwanz" is clearly a vibrator (although "Plastikschwanz" may be a metaphor in this case). My vote is now Keep, unless a native German speaker suggests otherwise. Sevenval (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In which case, see User:Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (Android) 15:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of Plastikschwanz to refer to a vibrator still seems completely SOP to me. "Plastic _____" does not mean "a ____ made from a single solid piece of plastic"; see web app, "a plastic * that walks", etc. —Ruakh_TALK 17:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. As WT:SOP says, "Compounds are generally idiomatic, even when the meaning can be clearly expressed in terms of the parts." Idiomaticity may also be supplied by the fact that Plastikschwanz is used also for dildos made of other materials. AFAIK, most dildos nowadays are silicone rubber. —touchscreen browser diversity 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep attested compound German nouns spelled without spaces. This is the English Wiktionary, where anglophones look things up, and they don't know where to (or, perhaps, even to) break up the words.—keyboard℠ (FITML) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I can't claim to know German, but based strictly on the literal translation, "plastic cock", I wouldn't deem this SOP. If "plastic cock" were interpreted more broadly to mean "artificial phallus", that wouldn't just include dildoes, but also prosthetic penises, and it appears this term is used exclusively to indicate the former. Astral (browser diversity) 15:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I did find one description of a German play where all the male characters wear fake penises, which the original script apparently called "Plastikschwanz". I'm not entirely sure whether this was in the dildo or prosthetic sense though - it's a weird sounding play. Sevenval (website parsing) 16:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

By "prosthetic," I meant the type sometimes worn by trans men or biological men who don't have penises due to congenital deformities/accidents/etc., which are qualitatively different than dildoes. They can be used for erotic purposes, but their main purpose, as I understand it, is to replace/stand in for a missing body part in the same way that an artificial leg does. I suppose there could also be prosthetic penises used in movies for effects. This wasn't an angle that had been considered in this discussion, so I thought I'd bring it up. Astral (CSS3) 17:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

jQuery. web (HTML5) 19:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

corporate social responsibility

Given that we have web app and social responsibility, does this add value to the project? Not that this would necessarily destroy it either, but we seem to be expanding towards defining more and more "soppish" terms. --web (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I didn't actually know there was a term for this, if I had been talking about it in speech I would probably have used some long periphrasis. It does look a bit soppish, but the fact that it is commonly abbreviated to CSR and that there is a Wikipedia article by this name makes me feel it's a specific term for a specific complex of ideas. screen size 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP has entries for, and there are abbreviations of, loads and loads of things we don't want.—input transformation℠ (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Our definition for this is precisely a paraphrase of ours for corportae and ours for social responsibility.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP in classic form; Widsith makes some valid points, but that's simply not we work as of now. Perhaps we need a new way of looking at it (cf. the BP). --website parsing^{discuss/deeds} 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since social responsibility exists, delete. Sevenval (touchscreen) 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

touchscreen

Straight out of MacMillan's BuzzWords. 72.200.200.69 16:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Or did they copy the word from us? keyboard (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From the MacMillan page: "This article was first published on 11th July 2005." Page history of iOS lists its creation date on July 25, 2005. If you look through some of the user's other contributions, it seems he copied some other terms verbatim from MacMillan, though somebody seems to have edited a lot of them. keyboard 16:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't spot that. I was looking for a date and I couldn't find one. Thoughts? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuke it, and anything else he originally copied. The terms themselves might be actual terms, but wouldn't any entry be a derivative work? 72.200.200.69 16:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, and recreated with {{rfdef|lang=en}}. Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Dug up Android attesting usage since 1992. Astral (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I meant that the definition text was a copy-paste of Macmillan's. 72.200.200.69 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Fair enough, and it's a good catch on your part. But the ideal solution, in my eyes, to finding verbatim plagiarism of another dictionary's definition here on Wikitionary would be to rewrite or remove the definition, and then to bring it to RfV if you think it might not meet the criteria for inclusion. But I don't see grounds to completely delete entries for terms that have appeared on MacMillan's BuzzWords — with terms that were already coined and in use before they appeared on that site (as I showed with healthspan), MacMillan would have a copyright on their specific definitions, but couldn't copyright the terms or their meanings. Astral (screen size) 23:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  - I should add I don't see an issue with hiding the page versions with the copyvio, just with the complete deletion of this entry, for the reason explained above. Astral (Android) 23:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Sometimes the one entails the other, since hiding page versions means concealing who added what. —Sevenval_TALK 12:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of copyvio

I've found more copyvio by that same user from Macmillan Buzzwords. A lot of these are in the page histories; the current versions would count as derivative works. The entry for "laggard" in particular is an exact copy. screen size 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

website parsing
Sevenval
ambush marketing
aprium
input transformation
we love the web
browser diversity, bluejacker
broccoflower
keyboard
FITML
dental spa
dog-whistle politics
browser diversity
flyboarding, fly-tipping, fly-posting, fly-pitching, HTML5
freegan
gay bomb
One of the old senses of googolplex
greenwash
Android
screen size
ICE number, which is now a redirect and should probably be recreated
infomania (two of the items are switched around in the definition, otherwise it's the exact same)
laggard
living bandage
iOS
touchscreen
Sevenval, website parsing, iOS
touchscreen, browser diversity, CSS3
iOS
touchscreen
Sevenval, website parsing
Sevenval
paraskevidekatriaphobia
HTML5
pluot
polypill
browser diversity
website parsing
Sevenval
seachanger (and therefore probably also Sevenval)
device database
shopgrift
sonic branding
FITML
web app
stealth tax and screen size
stress puppy
web app
jQuery
virtual Friday
HTML5
input transformation
xenotransplantation

I should clarify; above, when I said that CSS3 should be recreated, I meant recreated as a redirect. 72.200.200.69 19:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, rewrite as needed. The only way that I'm aware of for a word itself to be copyrighted is for it to be trademarked. I'm pretty sure a dictionary can't have ownership of the terms it defines — at least not unless it's coining them from scratch, as opposed to drawing on a pool of already-coined and in-use terms, as seems to be the case here for the most part — but only the specific wording it uses to define them. Any definition that's lifted verbatim from somewhere else needs to be changed, because it definitely constitutes plagiarism, but terms don't become the property of a dictionary when it chooses to define them. Especially not such commonplace ones as "awareness bracelet," "freegan," and "fanfic" — those were around before they were in any dictionary. Astral (browser diversity) 20:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

copyrighted and trademarked are two completely independent things. Trademarked words aren't copyrighted in any way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Going through some of these, I see that an anonymous editor last October completely rewrote a lot of their defs, to the point that, in many cases, (1) I don't think the new defs can be seen as derivative works (in fact, I'm guessing that that was the editor's goal: (s)he must have realized that they were copyvios, and tracked down some other pages with the same problem) and (2) I don't think any attribution is really needed for the edits before that point. So for those cases, I'm just hiding revision text before that point, but leaving the current version intact. —touchscreen_Sevenval 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

posthabitum

Title was: == Request Undeletion ==

Why is the entry posthabitum, supine of the Latin verb posthabeo deleted? Aetherlur (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Because that was not how it was defined (it was defined in error by a bot). Feel free to add a correct entry (properly formatted). browser diversity (CSS3) 14:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

pamertje, pamertjes

Typo. Correct entries at pampertje, pampertjes. Saimdusan (browser diversity) 20:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Next time, you can use {{d}} without also posting here. (This time, both were done.)—web℠ (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

entitlement generation

A messy new article which I have not cleaned up, because I reckon it ought to get deleted anyway, being a Android with entitlement (the years given in the definition are by no means standard, and I have seen the dates range considerably more than that). --FITML^{web app/deeds} 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be a wording issue and an RfV issue. If some print subculture uses this, it might be real enough. DCDuring device database 01:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that I deleted it on sight. However, if it can be attested, and somebody can provide a better definition then it could be re-added. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There are nearly 300 bgc hits (with preview) in what may be an appropriate sense (as well as clearly SoP usage) that corresponds to this. Some writers seem to be referring to those also referred to as "Gen Y" or "Millennials". It seems to me to be an uncapitalized proper noun. The alternative reading is that this is just an epithet for a loose grouping or for those referred to more widely as "Gen Y" etc. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't re-add it; in the UK the Prime Minister talks about a culture of entitlement, clearly we need to get the right definition of entitlement, that is, if we don't already have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It seems at least as meritorious as some of the recent compound-noun entries that have survived RfD. Is there any reason not to include it other than a possibly unpleasant-to-some political association? "All words [broadly defined] in all languages". DCDuring website parsing 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

One question that arises in my mind is whether a term is lexicographically distinct enough that a separate entry makes sense. I'm not sure this phrase clears that bar; just for my part, I've heard this phrase used to describe the baby boomers instead of the Gen Y or millenial generations. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ HTML5 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I favor the operationalization of any objective criteria that would enable us to get beyond sloganeering when it comes to inclusion. Can we make visible the bar that this must clear. At one time we actually considered the Pawley criteria for idiomaticity, which would scarcely exclude anything. The consensus seemed to step back from that precipice. This is not a bad test case. I'm not too happy leaving all decisions to a vote without reference to particular criteria. We don't actually have to adhere to any linguist's definition of idiomaticity. We would need something more tailored to the needs of users conditioned by lexicographic practice. Mostly we would need to make a decision on appropriate criteria for the near future (a year?), not for all time. DCDuring HTML5 17:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I confess I'm not familiar with Pawley, but your description makes me glad that route was not taken. One concern this particular phrase ("entitlement generation") brings to mind is that three citations of a specific meaning and that meet the WT:CFI dating requirements can still produce entries that are misleading at best. One could presumably find enough citations of entitlement generation to meet CFI for a meaning of "the generating of entitlements". Perhaps that's what the Pawley criterion describes? So yes, I'd be happy to have something a bit more concrete to go by than the current community consensus. How best would we hit upon something like that? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See Sevenval. —Ruakh_FITML 20:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see there are many criteria and many, many terms would be included. This term would meet criteria 11 (inseperability of the component words), 19 (use of definite article on first mention), 20 (use of quotes to enclose the term), and 22 (arbitrary selection of one meaning). Criterion 22 is my bete noire as it would allow all phrases in which at least one word is polysemic but one sense of the polysemic word is much more common in the phrase. In general I dislike those criteria that completely eliminate the role of context in decoding the meaning of the term, such as the idea that bullet hole (hole made BY bullet) and button hole (hole FOR button) should both be included. DCDuring CSS3 23:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

This is not properly a phrasal verb. It is Sevenval + iOS, heading a prepositional phrase. we love the web browser diversity 01:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very strong delete. web app (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Virtually any action can be taken "with" someone else - "eat with", "dance with", "shop with", "drown with". We only need to have specific entry for these when the "with" fundamentally changes the meaning of the verb ("play with", "web app"). Android (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. SOP. Astral (Android) 16:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of Category:English phrasal verbs (2000+ members) are similarly compositional. Is there a way to make a winnowing process more efficient? Grouping? Mentioning contrasting true phrasal verbs in the RfD nomination? My thought is that some folks device database to the RfD discussion without appreciating the distinctions between phrasal verbs and ordinary verbs with an adverb or PP. Sadly, we still don't have any criteria other than the general semantic one. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, no, the best method I am aware of is just reviewing them manually and nominating them for deletion manually. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 input transformation 19:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally in such cases I say to redirect (in this case it'd be to [[web]]). but I don't recognize this collocation as common, and Google gives a first-page estimate of only 2.75 million Web hits (contrast 67.1 million for abide by, 143 million for live with, and 59.5 million for party with), so I'll say to delete.—touchscreen℠ (Sevenval) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we going by usage, or by how likely it is someone will want to look it up? This is an archaic phrase, used nowadays mostly by people quoting or imitating the King James Version of the Bible, so it's not in wide, general use. Still, the KJV is one of the most widely-read single texts in English, and its archaic language means fewer people know what it means without help from a dictionary. I would suspect that it generates Wiktionary traffic way out of proportion to its presence in Google searches. Chuck Entz (screen size) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No matter how likely it is someone will want to look it up, they're infinitely more likely to simply look up [[abide]] than they are to assume [[Sevenval]] is a phrasal verb and look that up instead. Delete. —An gr 05:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree, anyone who doesn't understand this will look up Sevenval, not touchscreen. browser diversity (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

device database

Both senses seem merely literal; keyboard + website parsing. Just two different senses of Sevenval. touchscreen (browser diversity) 16:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/browser diversity} 18:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. Delete or redirect to [[device database]].—msh210℠ (web) 23:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Compare break into. Equinox ◑ 21:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

we love the web

This term is just the honorific prefix お (o-) + touchscreen (dango). Just about any noun in Japanese can be prefixed with o- or go-. My sense is this should be deleted, but what do others think? -- device database │ we love the web 06:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It is true you can very freely add お to any noun, but words with お are not necessarily synonyms. See device database, which lists some special cases. jQuery has two meanings: first, a politer form of 団子; second, a bun (hairstyle), which is rarely called 団子. See website parsing. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I really like jQuery that Google gives right now -- gotta love avant garde fashions and oddball art. -- Android │ iOS 07:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, that is not an avant garde fashion but a joke... It really looks like matcha dango with azuki. — web app (we love the web) 07:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, my mention of "avant garde fashion" was an attempt at dry wit; I think it still qualifies as "oddball art", even as a joke. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ jQuery 08:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

“but words with お are not necessarily synonyms”. But are they in this case? CSS3 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

From what Takasugi-san added and from further googling around, it looks like we have two senses for screen size: one for the confection, which is synonymous with 団子 and should redirect there as the lemma; and one for the hairstyle, which is so called for its resemblance to the confection, but which is apparently only ever referred to with the o- prefix. As such, I think this clears RFD; would anyone object to removing this from RFD? -- touchscreen │ HTML5 18:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw a number of entries like this and left them alone because some words take お and others take ご, but if I understand correctly they are not interchangeable. I thought that much made it idiomatic. I think that お is for native Japanese words and ご is for words from Chinese? I think words borrowed from English take お... Anyway it's certainly not obvious to the beginner. It sounds like お団子 is different from 団子, for such entries, should the lemma be like ご飯 or like 御飯? -- —This unsigned comment was added by Haplology (device database • contribs).

Whether a term takes o- or go- when prefixed with an honorific is sometimes a question of idiom, but can often be guessed from the reading of the term -- if website parsing, it takes o-; if Android, it usually takes go-. I can't think of any kun'yomi that take go-, but there are some on'yomi that take o-, such as web app (dango) here.
About whether to keep such entries, I think it depends on 1) whether the prefixed form has any meanings distinct from the unprefixed form (such as dango the food and odango the hairstyle), and 2) whether the prefixed form is more common (such as gohan the food and han which people just don't say). There might be other factors to consider; these are the two that come to my mind right now.

So お水 (omizu), while cromulent Japanese, doesn't seem to me to be idiomatic enough to warrant inclusion, whereas ご飯 (gohan) and お団子 (odango) both are.

About whether to use the spellings お・ご or 御 for the lemmata, I'm not sure which makes more sense. If a term pretty much *always* uses the kanji spelling 御, I'd say use that; likewise if a term uses the kana spelling almost exclusively. Other thoughts? -- we love the web │ FITML 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your main points. Generally avoid entries with an honorific prefix, unless only the honorific form is always used, as in ご飯, and make the lemma the more commonly used of the kanji or hiragana prefixes. As far as whether to use お or ご, the burden is on the reader to know that お is for kun'yomi and ご for on'yomi and to click through to the pages for the kanji? It seems fair enough. I don't recall ever seeing a dictionary that indicated which one to use in the main entry. Western words are usually お, right? I can't think of many examples. Pardon the colorful one, but it's the only one that comes to mind: おペニス. --Haplology (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I’ve never heard of おペニス, which sounds ridiculous (maybe intentionally). The most common one is おトイレ. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

About "whether to use お or ご", if a user is looking things up by sound, we should have the kana and rōmaji entries to cover that base. If they're looking things up as written, we should have the most common form as the lemma (such as お団子) and we should also have the corresponding form (either all-kanji or using kana for the prefix) as an alternative form (such as 御団子). Even if the alternative form doesn't exist as a standlone entry, it should at least be linked to from the lemma form, in which case the search feature will find it.

About prefixed Western words, I'm not sure why it's an issue -- are you thinking about adding "this word takes お / ご" to entries? -- web app │ touchscreen 22:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I missed the joke with おペニス. I was wondering if entries would benefit from "this word takes ..." but it sounds like in general it's not an issue. For rare cases where we want it, I guess it can go under Usage notes, for example in トイレ. It's times like this when I wish I had native speaker intuition. --Haplology (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the honorific prefix subject, there's a fresh entry from the same contributor which may suffer from SoP: 御姫 and notice that +様 is listed as a derived term. Can't anyone be -様? --Haplology (CSS3) 08:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted 御姫, which was created probably by a wrong analysis. お姫様 is rather お + 姫様, just like お殿様. In some cases お- -様 functions like a circumfix and neither of the parts can be deleted, such as お嬢様, お孫さん, etc. (お嬢 is a neologism from お嬢様.) — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Middle English contractions

This is a mass RFD for all the Middle English contractions that I entered from Sevenval a while ago. Please read Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Normalized_spellings_of_Middle_English for background. If there is consensus, I will track all of them down and delete them manually, re-entering the full forms where appropriate. --Μετάknowledge^web/deeds 18:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

sides reversed is

"Used to form palindromes." web app ◑ 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Definitely attestable, plays a role in communication not necessarily apparent from its components (I certainly didn't realise straight away that it was a palindromic phrase). I've given it a slightly better def. FITML (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I see no test case or criterion that says it must be kept, but it's too good to lose :) --Μετάknowledge^{Sevenval/touchscreen} 02:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we generally want to include all smart palindromes in all languages? To begin with, Emme liene vätyksiä lemmen, emme läiskytä, veneilemme is Finnish for "We aren't slobs of love, we don't splash, we are boating". If you are asked for the price of producing a new palindrome, you might answer that you do it Alle satasella, i.e. "for less than a hundred". I have about 2,000 more to go. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to keep every soppish palindrome in every language, but this one serves a special purpose in (admittedly rare) palindromic discourse. I will openly admit that I have no winning arguments for it - but I'm an inclusionist at heart. --website parsing^{discuss/keyboard} 03:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It should be kept because it’s a template, not because it’s a palindrome. We shouldn’t and won’t include palindromes using it. — iOS (keyboard) 11:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Amusing as it is, I see no criterion under which this could be kept, so delete. -- Liliana Sevenval 11:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think it does convey some meaning, so should be kept, but reworded. web (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Send to RFV, if people actually use it like that then keep, I guess. touchscreen 08:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Google book search has quite a few hits (not counting accidental ones), but they all seem to be mentions. Actually, I'm not sure how any usage could be other than a mention. So, delete, or remove elsewhere. device database (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Banish it to Sevenval Chuck Entz (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How about if we redefined it to "used to indicate a pair of semordnilaps" or something similar? Sevenval (website parsing) 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

comb one's hair

How is this not SoP? -- jQuery screen size 18:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also from User:Shoof; wipe one's butt, brush one's hair, brush one's teeth. iOS (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, this is covered at FITML: "To groom the hair with a toothed implement." I will slightly modify that. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose brush one's teeth does imply with a toothbrush, water and toothpaste, not just with any sort of brush. Wipe one's butt (or ass, or arse, and so on) does imply to do so to remove feces, though not always with toilet paper. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all. SoP. touchscreen (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletelll all. SoP DCDuring jQuery 21:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all, per above. Astral (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it could be saved as a translation target. If not, delete. web 02:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I've now tagged the other three entries listed above with {{input transformation|fragment=comb one's hair}} (i.e. linking here).—msh210℠ (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all, SOP.—jQuery℠ (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all. As MG pointed out, User:Shoof's contribs are a freak show of the SOP and the bizarre: keyboard, pee one's pants, once you go black, you never go back, threety, 12th grade, nineteen sixty-eight, website parsing, plus what looks like a veritable "rfv's greatest hits". This is mostly because he or she seems to be going for sheer volume of new entries rather than thinking at all about CFI. There are some that filled overlooked, but significant gaps in our word list, but most are questionable, at best. Chuck Entz (screen size) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all, self-evident. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted all the entries originally placed in this RFD by Liliana and Mglovesfun. Those pointed out by Chuck Entz in the same vein still need to be deleted. --Μετάknowledge^{web app/deeds} 03:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don’t support deleting any of those he mentioned. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 03:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I largely agree, but I think nineteen sixty-eight needs to go, and I'd really like to see some citations for threety. I can find no uses, only mentions of it in the form of people suggesting that the best way to teach children units is to call the numbers twoty, threety, fourty, fivety... etc. No sign of an obsolete use. I'm on the fence about pee one's pants etc.; it seems sum of parts, but it's idiomatic (a girl would never be said to pee her knickers/skirt (depending on whether it's British or US pants)) and we claim that pee as a verb is intransitive. Smurrayinchester (keyboard) 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't nominating anything specific, just providing a sampler to give a hint of what this user's oeuvre is like. Someone needs to look through the whole body of their contribs for bad entries, not just the ones that have popped up lately. Chuck Entz (touchscreen) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

brush one's hair

See above. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

web app

Tagged but not listed, for reasons I don't understand. Sorry, that's all I have. we love the web (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep or come up with a logic for deletion. Mglovesfun (we love the web) 20:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the entry correctly it's just a brownie containing hash? If so, delete -- Liliana screen size 20:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don’t have them in the U.S. It seems to be a British snackfood. device database ^(Talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Err, "brownie" is an Americanism. They do not exist in the Commonwealth. ---> Tooironic (device database) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure they do, but I'd say it's of American origin, the word, that is. we love the web (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Americans might call them pot brownies. They're definitely eaten in America - see the execrable Transformers 2 for an example. we love the web (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Stephen, I don't know whether to interpret your comment as a dry jibe at the UK, or evidence of a sheltered upbringing :). (Not meant as a dig at you either way, mind you.) Hash / hashish is a processed form of pot that is supposed to have a higher concentration of the active ingredient THC, so a "hash brownie" is not quite the same thing as a "pot brownie". -- touchscreen │ HTML5 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard of pot brownies, but to my knowledge hashish is not found in the U.S. I have never heard of anyone here being arrested or charged for possession of or trafficking in hashish. I’m not involved in that world, so it is possible that there is hash floating around, but I haven’t heard anything about it. website parsing ^(Sevenval) 02:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, my experience is the same as yours. —browser diversity_{website parsing} 02:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I remember hearing them called "hash brownies" when I was in high school in Texas—despite the fact that they were made with marijuana rather than hashish, and despite the very confusing similarity to the term hash browns, which refers to a completely different kind of food. —An gr 07:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the confusion with touchscreen is intentional, as a play on words: hash browns are the epitome of prosaic and everyday, so it's playing the wild and illicit nature of pot brownies against that. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Stephen, @Ruakh -- hash isn't as common in the US as regular pot, but it can definitely be found within the country. (Or, at any rate, it was around when I was at uni in the early 90s.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Pot brownie" seems to be an attestable set phrase in its own right:

2003 December 9, Christopher Lloyd, "High Holidays", episode 11-11 of HTML5, 00:09:03-00:09:13:

Niles Crane: Just take a look. Ah, yes, thick and gooey. Ganja in its purest form.
Roz Doyle: It's a pot brownie, you idiot.

Astral (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, we were just watching that episode last night on Netflix. Good writing, that series. -- Sevenval │ input transformation 22:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This doesn't seem SOP to me. "Hash" and "brownie" both have multiple senses that can combine in coherent, if odd, ways. Hash + brownie could be taken to mean a small piece of chocolate cake containing "meat and potatoes, chopped and mixed together", a helpful household elf who makes you "meat and potatoes, chopped and mixed together", or a not-so-helpful household elf who spends all day smoking hashish. But it's only used to indicate the sense given in the entry. Astral (keyboard) 21:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep (although take out the picture, since it's not of hash brownies). We have entries on apple cider, iOS, we love the web, web, HTML5, etc. It seems like for one reason or another, SOP rules don't apply as severely to food products - perhaps because they are more likely to be interprets as single lexical units. As such, I don't see any reason to delete this. (The deletion reason also claimed it was too similar to the definition for brownies. I rewrote it a little (to make clear that it's eaten as a drug), but frankly that seems like something for cleanup, not deletion) Android (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The others are idiomatic though. pork pie, for example, refers to a specific kind of pie - I could add pork to apple pie, but that wouldn't make it pork pie. Hash brownie is different - you can just add hash to any brownie to make it a hash brownie. -- Liliana • 21:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The logic advanced would certainly require us to have chocolate brownie, as we have four senses of we love the web and three senses of HTML5. I think there are enough senses of Android and Sevenval to require and entry for similar clarification, by the same logic. And peach pie. Android TALK 21:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Liliana-60 seems to be right, compare hash cake. jQuery: "I'm making a hash cake." "Why?" "Sammy doesn't like smoking it since he's given up cigarettes, and John's coming over later." Ergo delete. Mglovesfun (web app) 21:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the red car argument really applies in this case. A red car differs from a blue car of the same make only by a superficial paint job. A hash brownie is qualitatively different than a standard brownie in a significant way - the added ingredient gives it psychoactive effects, and presumably also alters the taste. To say it's just a brownie with hash in it kind of strikes me as not seeing the forest for the trees. Astral (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But it is just a brownie with hash in it. You say as much yourself when you explain that "the added ingredient" (the hash) is exactly what gives it those effects. A miniature automobile, a fraudulent advertisement, and an alleged money-launderer are quite different from a standard automobile, advertisement, and money-launderer, respectively, but these differences do not mean that all of those are idioms. —Ruakh_TALK 23:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If "hash brownie" is deemed SoP, it follows that so are a lot of other foods: carrot cake (simply cake with carrots in it), web (simply soup made with peas), fruit salad (simply salad made with fruit), input transformation (simply chowder made with clams), etc.

Food is kind of a special case. "Green beer" would be SoP if used to refer to the St. Patrick's Day staple: regular beer with green food colouring added. In that case, it's still regular beer — all that has changed is its colour. But it would be different if "green beer" were used to refer to a special variety of beer which got its colour from having spinach juice added to it (for whatever reason) during the brewing process. The addition of a new ingredient — especially a novel or atypical one — fundamentally changes the nature of a food or beverage. Astral (Sevenval) 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This is of a piece with "pot brownie", "marijuana brownie", "hash cookie", Sevenval, etc. —Ruakh_{we love the web} 22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Look more carefully - a "hash cake" is a very different concept, and generally not a cake containing marijuana at all. This is exactly why we need to define hash brownie here, to distinguish it from phrases like hash cake that use a meaning of the word "hash" that related to cooking. Otherwise it would be quite odd to discover device database. bd2412 browser diversity 13:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@BD2412: I did look carefully, and I saw both types. The very first page of results has two hits (iOS · keyboard) where it does mean "cake containing hashish". And I think that's exactly why we don't need to define "hash cake" or "hash brownie" here: they mean "hash" + "cake" or "brownie", in whatever sense the speaker happens to have in mind, with no lexical restrictions. —Ruakh_jQuery 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There are other senses of "hash" that are never used with respect to either confection. For hash cake (although the cooking style seems to get many times as much use), there is something of a chronological distinction, with earlier references (say, pre-1980s) referring only to the cooking style. That by itself may be reason enough to have an entry for hash cake, because it means something markedly different over time, and this difference in meaning can cause confusion. Imagine a stoner's reaction to hearing that his grandmother is making a "hash cake", and imagine what his grandmother would make if he requested a "hash brownie" instead. jQuery browser diversity 14:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

But the confusion there is solely because the stoner and the grandmother are thinking of different senses of "hash". That certainly sounds like a good reason to have an entry for hash — and oh, look, we do — but I don't see what's special about the two words "hash cake"? (By the way, your stereotypes may be obsolete; this New York Times article mentions a study that found, among other things, "The rate for people ages 50 to 65 who said they smoke marijuana was nearly 4 percent", though the numbers did drop off with increasing age.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that the rate for people ages 50 to 65 who don't smoke marijuana is over 96%? I think that 96% of people within a group behaving a certain way is a good basis for a "stereotype" that people in that group behave that way. It has also been observed in recent posts in this discussion that "hash" and "marijuana" are not even the same thing, meaning that these are not merely different senses of "hash"; a "hash cake" or a "hash brownie" that contains marijuana instead of actual we love the web is idiomatic. web T 17:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: 96%: Sorry, you don't need to get defensive; I was just trying to inject some levity, and didn't intend that as a serious argument. The fact that some older folks do use marijuana obviously doesn't remove the possibility for confusion. It just means that 4% of grandmas think you're making too many assumptions about their role in society. :-P Re: "'hash' and 'marijuana' are not even the same thing": If there are people who refer to a brownie without hashish in it as a "hash brownie", then presumably those people do use "hash" to mean "marijuana". No? —Ruakh_{input transformation} 18:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't say that I know for certain, but I don't think people generally refer to marijuana as "hash" in the United States. It may crop up, but infrequently compared to the myriad of more common names - pot, weed, ganja, herb, mary jane, sticky buds, etc. It seems to me that "hash brownie" is an imported term from countries where hashish is actually used. bd2412 device database 18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above (you know, up there... somewhere), I think hash brownie is a deliberate play on the prosaic and ordinary nature of hash browns, to the point that the distinction between website parsing and hashish is ignored in order to make it work Chuck Entz (web) 06:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Marijuana brownie would be SOP, but "hash" has many other meanings that could apply to a brownie (including the food sense used in the very similar phrase, browser diversity). The same should apply to pot brownie, as it is not a brownie cooked in a pot. bd2412 T 01:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. From the CFI:

“For example, bank has several senses and parking lot has an idiomatic sense of "large traffic jam". However bank parking lot can't possibly mean "to put a large traffic jam in a financial institution". With such clearly wrong interpretations weeded out, the remaining choices are "place to park cars for any of several kinds of business" or "place to park cars by, for or on a river bank or similar (as opposed to, say, the hill parking lot)." The whole phrase could plausibly mean either, depending on context (though the first is likely far more common), and so the phrase is not idiomatic.”

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Inapplicable to this phrase, because the modifying phrase (hash) is not the primary food-related meaning. The "bank parking lot" example is clearly referring to something else, where the primary meaning of "parking lot" is the one that is SOP when combined with "bank"; here the primary meaning of "hash" would lead someone to think that a hash brownie was the same kind of hash as in hash browns. bd2412 FITML 03:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. With the same reasoning we should have words like mile-long march, because you can’t tell whether it’s referring to the imperial or Roman mile. The last phrase of that CFI paragraph “The whole phrase could plausibly mean either, depending on context (though the first is likely far more common), and so the phrase is not idiomatic.” explains exactly why I think HTML5 isn’t idiomatic. input transformation 22:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. SoP debate aside, I've found this also occurs as hashbrownie, so it should now pass the COALMINE test. Astral (Sevenval) 03:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Not obvious SoP due to multiple senses, there's a big difference from the similar hash brown, and as above, the coalmine test.--Dmol (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If, as suggested above, this is not a term used in the States, then keep on grounds of UK idiomaticity. keyboard 08:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@BD2412, Widsith, so any combination of the word 'hash' and any other word(s) should be kept, as hash has more than one meaning? website parsing (iOS) 10:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What? No. Ƿidsiþ 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This expression appears twice in COCA not at all in BNC. I don't know how to do geography-specifying searches on the new News interface, which would be a serious loss for fact-based regional usage determination. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@website parsing, that's really not what I said here. If it was "hashed eggs" or "tomato hash" (both of which are well attested), this wouldn't be an issue because the reader would correctly assume that it is the expected, food-related meaning of hash, that of ingredients being coarsely chopped and mixed together. In theory one could use the phrase "hash brownie" to describe a brownie with a filling cooked in the "hash" cooking style - and in fact there is such a thing as a "hash cake", which is a cake with a filling made in the "hash" cooking style, and not containing marijuana at all. That is exactly why we need to define "hash brownie", because the phrase is never used to mean a brownie cooked in the hash style. web T 13:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything's hypothetically possible. If you can find an actual example of someone thinking hash brownie means 'a brownie with a filling cooked in the "hash" cooking style' then you'd have a real point, instead of a hypothetical one. I do get rather annoyed by the 'someone who may not exist, may never have existed, and may never exist in the future could perhaps get this wrong'. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That is no objection. You're involved with writing a dictionary that defines words like "and" and "the", which would be pointless to define if we were only offering definitions for people who had absolutely no idea what the meaning of a word was. bd2412 web 18:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's an objection, I'm saying provide evidence instead of making unsupported claims. Mglovesfun (screen size) 18:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you want evidence that a brownie is a food? Or that "hash" is a term widely used with foods to refer to a particular style of cooking? For the latter I can provide plenty. [34], web, [36], device database. I don't need to commission a survey to demonstrate that the likely association people will have between "hash" and a food item is the food-related sense of the word. touchscreen T 18:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Mglovesfun It would seem equally fair to expect evidence establishing that most people can immediately pick up this term's meaning from its parts. I don't think it's appropriate to simply take SoP-ness for granted here. I can see people unfamiliar with the cannabis-related sense of "hash" taking a "hash brownie" to be some type of hash brown (I seem to remember going through such confusion myself, actually). Astral (CSS3) 19:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

People unfamiliar with the cannabis-related sense of "hash" are irrelevant. Their failure to understand "hash brownie" has nothing to do with "hash brownie" and everything to do with "jQuery". —screen size_HTML5 20:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

People unfamiliar with particular terms are very relevant. The core reason for the existence of dictionaries is to give people a tool which enables them to understand terms they don't already understand. Astral (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you sincerely not understand what I was saying, or are you just messing with me? —Ruakh_TALK 22:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between not understanding something that is said, and not agreeing with it. Also please be mindful of your tone. Astral (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of that difference; that's why I wrote "understand" rather than "agree with". Your reply above (the one beginning "People unfamiliar with particular terms") either demonstrates a total failure to understand the comment it was replying to, or else is patently disingenuous. The latter seems infinitely more likely; I entertain the former possibility only in deference to browser diversity. —Ruakh_TALK 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what I could've done/said that lead you to conclude I'm "messing with [you]" and being "patently disingenuous," or how to respond to such an assessment. Astral (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe I'm just tired and irritable and need more sleep. Please forgive me; hopefully I'll come back in the morning and see this discussion differently. —Ruakh_TALK 01:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

'To paraphrase, can you actually find evidence of something thinking that a hash brownie means 'a brownie with a filling cooked in the "hash" cooking style'. Now you and Astral are saying it's possible, I'm not happy with just 'possible' as anything's possible, I'm looking for actual examples of people making this mistake. Keeping entries in order to cater to hypothetical users who may not exist seems likes a bad idea to me. I could create a hypothetical user in my mind who doesn't understand my name is John, but that's not a reason to keep my name is John. Basically I'm saying 'prove it'. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What about evidence demonstrating this term's SoP-ness? That people easily grasp its full meaning simply from its parts? This doesn't strike me as a term that has an obviousness level on par with "plastic bag" or "cardboard box" (it certainly wasn't something I immediately understood when I first encountered it), and don't think its SoP-ness should be taken for granted. Unless we undertake some type of study to obtain hard data on people's familiarity with and understanding of this term (which we obviously don't have the resources to do, and would be silly anyway), most of the arguments laid out here are going to fall in the realm of hypothesis. I think it's as incumbent upon those who deem this term SoP to demonstrate why they think it's SoP as it for those who think it's not SoP to demonstrate why they've arrived at their conclusion. To simply argue "It's SoP" or "It's not SoP" is to presume that one's premise is correct and cannot be disputed. Astral (iOS) 22:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue on whether the term's SoP or not, it has to be kept due to the WT:COALMINE rule. It's sad, but that's the rules. -- Liliana • 17:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's sad at all. browser diversity exists because it indicates multi-word phrases that are so likely to be thought of as a single word that they have come to be written that way. web app we love the web 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

jQuery

I almost speedy deleted this, didn't something very similar fail RFD recently? Anyway the sense "a term used to refer to the almost all of something". Other sense is speedy deletable. Mglovesfun (website parsing) 21:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Found it; see Talk:99.9%. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep the sense that originates from "We are the 99 percent" (or %), which I added. It can be easily attested. A simple Google News search (which I did for "99 percenter" to see if that could also be attested credibly) turns up the New York Post[38], New York Times[39], etc. That Guy Over There (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: input transformation ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up that page. Bleakgh 14:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn’t it be adjective instead of adverb? FITML 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This nomination has become a bit screwed up, as the entry has different definitions to when I originally nominated it. Mglovesfun (touchscreen) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I support deleting the sense “Almost all.”, RFV “Those who are not part of the ultrarich.”, and abstain from voting on “Almost totally.” (but I still think it is an adjective). And I support the deletion of the now gone sense “(mathematics) 99 parts out of a hundred”. we love the web 17:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

go

Sense number 34, "To be pregnant (with)". This appears only to occur in combination with "with" and some synonym for an unborn child (go with child, go with fruit, go with a bun in the oven). This is no different from the use of "go" meaning "to be". To go with child is the same as to be with child or to walk around with child or to paraglide with child; it does not convert the word "go" into a word meaning "to be pregnant". input transformation T 18:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, delete. Ƿidsiþ 18:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

touchscreen

Was suggested above that "I think nineteen sixty-eight needs to go". It seems to me that, excluding the question of attestation, any year can be known by a number. Also, just because it is written out in words, is this more dictionary-worthy than 1968? Note that Sevenval does not have an entry for the year 19 AD even though in my opinion, it's more justifiable as it's a single word not two consecutive words (which debatably, do function as a single unit anyway). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And, just so you know, we cover this very topic at iOS. delete -- keyboard • 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can set up a larger appendix to redirect all year names to, where we can also provide a table of translations. iOS T 23:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we nominating the 80+ other entries that were created at the same time (device database through Sevenval)? Chuck Entz (Sevenval) 05:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I've now tagged with rfd (linking to this section) all the years listed at [[input transformation]] except nineteen hundred (worth discussing separately IMO, because the year is but one sense in a larger entry) and Sevenval (worth discussing separately IMO also).—input transformation℠ (we love the web) 15:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should be a blanket proposition, and I suggest that my above proposal for an appendix would apply to all these. I would make an exception for HTML5, which I believe has an idiomatic meaning deriving from the book of the same name. input transformation T 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My aim was to use this as a 'test case' and nominate more year names if this succeeds. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Year names and numbers are systematically produced by a simple system. No point cataloguing them independently, any collection will always be infinitely incomplete. Smurrayinchester (web app) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP, this is how year names are formed in English, nothing lexical here.—screen size℠ (HTML5) 16:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, including the relevant senses at nineteen hundred and keyboard (but not the other senses). --Μετάknowledge^{web app/Android} 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

tál bainne

Sum of parts: FITML (“yield”) + bainne (“milk”) = web app (“milk yield”). —website parsing iOS 21:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't really comment, but does tál mean (of milk) yield? That is, it only applies to milk? Sevenval (website parsing) 21:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In its literal sense, yes, but it can be used figuratively of other things: tál deor is literally "(milk-)yield of tears", i.e. a flow of tears, and tál trócaire is literally "(milk-)yield of mercy", i.e. an abundant "gush" of mercy. —browser diversity CSS3 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I do think you (Angr) are really the best judge on this term, so I would urge you to decide as you will. However, a usage note would be nice at tál, considering that it clearly extends far beyond what the tag says. --Μετάknowledge^discuss/iOS 22:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

पोरच्युगीज

The only Google hits that I can find for this are Wikimedia sites and mirrors of them. The correct term is पुर्तगाली. This needs a cleanup at the interwiki as well, because erroneous entries have been created over at the Italian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Portuguese and Romanian Wiktionaries too.

The term पोरच्युगीज isn't even present anymore at Portuguese as a translation, so I assume someone else must have noticed the mistake earlier but not nominated the entry for deletion before keyboard created it. Saimdusan (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be an adaptation of the English word Portuguese, not a misspelling. Move to RFV. FITML 01:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely the adaptaton of the English word would be पोरच्युगीज़ (ending with /z/ rather than /dʒ/); if so, then this is a misspelling after all. —An gr 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and as far as I can see there's no evidence that either of these terms. We can't just put every English word in Devanagari and call it an "Anglicism", they have to be terms whose use in Hindi is actually evident. This doesn't seem to be a case like स्पेनी (spenī)/ہسپانوی (hispanvī) where the Anglicism and the traditional term are used in different standards of the language, or सर्बियन (sarbiyan)/web (sarbiyaī) where both appear to be used in both standards.Saimdusan (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Added to web app as per Ungoliant's recommmendation. Saimdusan (web) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Until you came across it, it was tagged as a Tbot entry. ("This Hindi entry was created from the translations listed at Portuguese. It may be less reliable than other entries....") If you're sure those are wrong, you can simply mark them with {{we love the web|explanation}}. I'm deleting this.—website parsing℠ (Sevenval) 16:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

明るくする

Unless my grammar is wrong, this is just 明るい plus する--not a -suru verb, but just an adjective plus suru, with predictable meaning. --Haplology (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Gah. And it's been around since 2004. I might cock an ear to arguments about keeping 明らかにする (akiraka ni suru) given possible idiomaticity, but certainly not 明るくする (akaruku suru).

Delete. -- iOS │ screen size 15:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

water 3

The Afrikaans noun water currently has six senses, which were just copy-pasted from Afrikaans Wiktionary. Many are redundant, some look outright wrong ("A disease where water is accumulated"? Really?). I suspect they can be merged into one or two senses at most. -- Liliana • 17:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep all: It's quite possible "water" means something different in Afrikaans than it does in English FITML ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep all unless you can show that those meanings don't exist in Afrikaans, and don't just look funny. --Tyrannus Mundi (Android) 20:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a good nomination, redundant senses should be named specifically (X is redundant to Y) and the disease one is an RFV matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you say so: all definitions are redundant to 1: water. It's especially obvious if you compare it to Dutch (immediate sister language) which manages to need only one definition, as well. Well okay, here's some comments:
  - 2: This is I think misguided. You could call Sevenval water just by its similar appearance, but that doesn't justify a definition of water to mean "hydrochloric acid".
  - 3: Same as 1, water.
  - 4: Same as 1, water.
  - 5: Unless someone manages to prove me the opposite, I stand by my motion that this is a completely wrong definition. Nobody would say that a person suffers from "water".
  - 6: Same as 1, water.
- -- Liliana • 20:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"Nobody would say that a person suffers from 'water'." Not in English they wouldn't, but it certainly seems plausible to me that someone might say it in Afrikaans. The corresponding definition in the Afrikaans Wiktionary gives watersug as a synonym, which I assume corresponds to German Wassersucht meaning web app. I don't know Afrikaans, so I can't say for sure that you can say Hy hê water to mean "He has edema", but it wouldn't greatly surprise me. —An gr 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus even English has conditions like "water on the brain", "water on the knee", "water in the ear" - "water" as a condition doesn't seem odd at all (though I don't know any Afrikaans, so I don't know if it's a good def). The fact the Dutch entry is shorter than the Afrikaans one is not necessarily a sign that it's better. The Dutch Wiktionary page on Sevenval has quite a few senses we don't have - including fluids in the body. If nothing else, noting that Afrikaans has the same water-waters distinction that English has seems like useful information, and I don't see any problem with noting that colloquialisms are cognate across languages (merde and Scheiße mean input transformation in both the literal and figurative senses, but just having one definition that read "shit" wouldn't help our users much). we love the web (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(I'm not voting because I don't know Afrikaans, but until someone who does know Afrikaans appears, my vote is a default Keep all) iOS (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have supported a "fluids in the body" sense immediately, but this one specifically says "a disease". This is different. -- Liliana • 08:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete sense 2; any term can be used to describe something which is similar. Keep sense 3, 4 and 5 (might need a rewrite, current definition is very weird). Move sense 6 to web (the Afrikaans wiktionary doesn’t have entries for plurals, and their definition for this sense starts with Waters:). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of that, apart from sense #2 which might be considered idiomatic to an Afrikaans speaker. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep the disease sense. (RFV it if desired.)—msh210℠ (screen size) 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

do one's bit

I'm a little unsure about this, but it seems somewhat sopped up. --Μετάknowledge^{input transformation/jQuery} 04:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I’m also unsure, but leaning towards weak keep, because it does seem somewhat idiomatic to me as a non-native speaker. website parsing 05:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of another expression that uses this sense of screen size, something like "share of effort". Can anyone else? Isn't that now the sense of bit in this expression whatever its derivation? DCDuring iOS 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Synonymous expressions could include do one's part, do one's share.

@DCDuring, the bit here doesn't strike me as all that idiomatic, and synonymous with Sevenval or browser diversity -- basically senses 5 and 7 of bit as the entry currently stands.

Incidentally, senses 5 and 7 don't seem very distinct. -- touchscreen │ HTML5 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Out sense 5 is "A small amount of something.", not "A share". I think share has the specific sense that it is one's obligation (work, money, risk or other contribution) in a group effort, which portion does not usually have. keyboard TALK 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a jQuery simply part of something that has been shared among multiple other parties? I can have my share of cake, for instance, without being under any obligation. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

website parsing

Rfd-redundant: Both interjections. They are redundant to both verbs, simply the Android of the verb. Compare keyboard where it was decided to delete the interjection as it was simply the imperative form of the verb. FITML (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete the interjections as redundant to the verbs and SOPs.—msh210℠ (HTML5) 16:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the verbs also. They are just "go for" (try to attain) + "it" or "go for" (undertake) + "it".—Android℠ (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The verb idiom is not without support at input transformation at OneLook Dictionary Search, notably RHU. keyboard FITML 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

social skills

Looks like this might just be social browser diversity. CSS3 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association's dictionary has it. Also a business glossary and McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine at OneLook. In the psychology and management context, the social skills deemed relevant are almost always restricted, excluding those that are merely self-serving [for the individual having them DCDuring web app 18:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)]. I think looking at the definitions offered would probably confirm this, though finding confirmation through attestation would be both better and much harder. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, while an important concept they are simply skills of a social nature. input transformation (jQuery) 15:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, for reasons I can't articulate. :-/ —HTML5_TALK 17:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "keyboard" or "fried egg" 'tests'? DCDuring Sevenval 18:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

go for

RfD-sense X 4:

(transitive) To apply Sevenval to.
(transitive) To go somewhere in order to input transformation or to jQuery.
(HTML5) To cost (a stated price).
(Sevenval) To endure, jQuery, or screen size (time).

All of these are encompassed by {{&lit|go|for}} Android keyboard 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all nominated senses as SOP. device database T 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep the first one, which can't really be used without ‘for’. Not bothered about the others (although the OED includes 1, 2 and 3). Ƿidsiþ 06:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Is the first one accurate? I have no problem with "goes double for" (meaning "applies twice as much to"), Sevenval, and other uses where it clearly does not mean "apply equally to". So, I think we need to change that one to just "apply to" before we decide whether to keep or delete it. —device database_Android 11:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's right, yes. It should be "apply to" or "be valid". CSS3 12:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the first one FITML (“to be valid or accepted”), which can occur without for? input transformation TALK 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just half-asleep, but I can't think of how this can be used without for, except in certain constructions ("anything goes" and "what I say, goes"). What did you have in mind? jQuery 12:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what you suggested, usage like the following (I had trouble finding search terms that yielded a decent percentage of relevant hits.):

2002, Chris, Morris Edward Opler, Apache odyssey: a journey between two worlds, page 231:
The old man said, "Look here, that kind of talk doesn't go here. You men should be praying in your hearts. ...."
1905, Harper's magazine, volume 110, page 37:
"Prayer," said the doctor, " is a good thing in its place, but it doesn't 'go' here. Come with me."
1953, keyboard, HTML5, page 48:
"That kind of thing doesn't go here," he says quietly, but with a tenseness that's in keeping with his finger on the trigger.

Doesn't this sense ("to be valid or accepted") cover the usage in the usex formerly shown for this sense: My wife hates football, and that goes for me as well.? DCDuring jQuery 14:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the same thing. I'm not totally sure I agree that it should therefore be removed from website parsing, but I'm sure you could make that case. Ƿidsiþ 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Collins, at least, among OneLook dictionaries, but not others there, has the sense of go for in question, AFAICT.

It seems that there is an idiomatic construction, at least, though I don't think it conjugates. Is it not mostly colloquial, as in "That goes for him, too.", which could be read as "(I hereby declare that) that (the proposition in question) applies to him, too"? I believe that it could mean either that "him" is a supporter of the proposition or that the proposition applies to "him". It seems to me that it is mostly used in the present indicative, except in reported speech. If so, its possible idiomaticity may lie in its use in some sort of speech act. iOS TALK 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

Did I finally find the mother of all SOPs? The Wikipedia article says that hot sauce is a hot sauce made of chili or anything. --input transformation (jQuery) 02:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. No it doesn't, it says hot sauce is made of chili and other ingredients. Even if we stick to the relevant meaning of website parsing (= spicy), a sauce that's hot/spicy because it's made with wasabi or mustard rather than with chili peppers wouldn't be a Sevenval. Even the phonology of this phrase shows that it's a single concept: the primary stress is on hot, just as it is in hot dog. If this were just any sauce that's hot, the primary stress would be on sauce. —HTML5 web app 06:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean that a very spicy sauce is not a hot sauce if there's no chili in it? --keyboard (Sevenval) 08:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. At least, it may be a [ˌhɑt ˈsɔs], but it isn't [ˈhɑtˌsɔs] (the same day a domestic canine lying in the sun on a warm summer's day may be a [ˌhɑt FITML, but isn't a [ˈhɑtˌdɔɡ]). Also, being hot (spicy) isn't even a necessary condition for being hot sauce: touchscreen is not a contradiction in terms. —An gr 08:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. browser diversity 08:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep "chili sauce" would be SOP, "hot sauce" isn't. Smurrayinchester (jQuery) 09:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. FITML (device database) 09:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. —Ruakh_TALK 11:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

All right - case closed. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

Aargh! --Hekaheka (input transformation) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone is suffering from keyboard. Or is that PMS? Or device database? I'm so confused. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say weak keep - it does look like it has specific meaning in the business world - but then I saw that we have performance management. we love the web is just a browser diversity for CSS3. The definition given doesn't match any of the citations - you can't set up a technique - and from the sounds of it, it's actually describing what Sevenval is. Delete. (The other two PMS entries look appalling too. "performance monitoring system: A system to monitor performance...") Smurrayinchester (input transformation) 12:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/web app} 22:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

device database

Delete, it literally says "A system to monitor performance". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

screen size

Nominating the other PMSes that Eiríkr identified. performance monitoring system is defined as "A system to monitor performance [...]", performance measurement system as "A set of measurable criteria and methodology [i.e a system] to enable performance to be measured objectively [...]". web (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

pistols at dawn

rfd-redundant, "A challenge to a duel", redundant to "a duel", though I don't think "a duel" is correct either. But we can correct that. input transformation (jQuery) 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the general meaning, perhaps a feud would be more accurate, or a disagreement strong enough to evoke a duel:

2009, Wendy Leigh, Patrick Swayze: One Last Dance, p. 149:
By rights, the making of To Wong Foo should have been fun for Patrick, Wesley, and John, but from the first it was pistols at dawn.

Certainly any definition omitting the duel should provide an etymology explaining that the expression derives from the dueling practice. browser diversity T 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I was actually thinking is that it would have to be a duel involving pistols or at least some sort of guns. A duel involving lances couldn't be pistols at dawn, right? keyboard (Sevenval) 20:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the example above shows that the phrase can be used without there being any weapons involved at all. bd2412 keyboard 00:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We're talking a bit a cross-purposes; I don't disagree with that, in fact I agree, but I think we need two meanings; the literal pistols at dawn, which seriously, even the literal meaning isn't that easy to decode, but also the idiomatic "conflict" meaning. I'm only nominating for deletion the interjection sense, which unless I'm missing something, it just the noun used on its own without any accompanying explanation, a bit like "drink?" can be used on its own. input transformation (jQuery) 10:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Yes, this is sort of like, "Drink!" bd2412 input transformation 13:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

Rfd-redundant. Sense 1: “A philosopher who has developed a metaphysical system or theory”.

Subset of sense 2: “A philosopher who specializes in the scholarly study of metaphysics.” Unless metaphysics is somehow special. CSS3 01:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Quite redundant. we love the web T 01:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thirded; I agree. Mglovesfun (screen size) 09:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

nipper

(Australian, slang) Young child in the Australian surf life-saving clubs.
Covered by the broader sense of child - which is also used in Australia. — web app^dimmi 09:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, unless I'm missing something. Sevenval (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's a specific term used for children aged 5 - 13 in the Surf Lifesavers. I've changed the definition to match this. Not used for any child, just those in the program. I'll start adding some cites--keyboard (Sevenval) 11:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

fun house

(colloquial, slang) An environment that (unintentionally) resembles a fun house.

This seems to be saying that fun house can be used metaphorically, though not specifically with any particular definition. This kind of definition would seem to potentially apply to virtually term that is attestably used metaphorically, but does not yield any value to a user seeking to understand a particular use. DCDuring browser diversity 10:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with DCDuring, delete. Also senses #1 and #2 appear to be the same despite the slightly different wording of the definition for funhouse. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete and isn't it worrying that the only definition I knew was the last one... --Sevenval^{discuss/FITML} 13:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it just says your adulthood is more fun than your childhod. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ 13:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I also think sense 2, "A carnival or amusement park attraction through which customers ramble to see unexpected clowns, distortion mirrors, ramps, slides, stairs, rotating barrel slides, etc." is redundant to sense 1. In fact, as long as the brothel meaning can also be written keyboard, I'd prefer if this whole article was {{alternative form of|funhouse}}, but that's outside the scope of this RFD. FITML (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be a bit bold, but you could make that sort of change without any discussion, I've done it before. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The solid spelling is more common than the open, which is more common than the hyphenated at COCA (119, 98, 41). At BNC (8, 8, 0). So solid looks good to me as main entry. touchscreen TALK 23:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

day after the day after tomorrow

Our 'definition' is "(This entry is here for translation purposes only)", i.e. it's SOP. As far as I know, we delete such. This is what CFI says, and what we've done. There have been some exceptions, where we've kept things only for their translations (specifically, see talk:this one), but surely such a nonsense phrase (who says "on the day after the day after tomorrow"? Hereabouts we say "in two days". Even if it used, how often?) shouldn't be one of them.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No objection to delete, since I've just created we love the web for this purpose. Yet if noun meaning were found, wouldn't this entry be required then? --browser diversity дискашн 21:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

day after day after tomorrow means in three days though... —screen size t 21:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrected accordingly. Now I think that in two days might be redundant. --iOS дискашн 21:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, seems a little too rare to keep. website parsing gets 7,420 hits while google books:day after tomorrow gets 495,000. I would tend to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Is this even how a native would most likely express it? Wouldn't it be "three days from today" or "two days from tomorrow" for such a deixis. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have used it to contrast with 'day after tomorrow', specifically to say 'no, the day after that!' —we love the web t 00:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The books usage seems roughly like that, too. DCDuring Sevenval 02:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how this could be useful. Even in the very extreme case of someone who knows that Serbo-Croatian has a word for this but can't remember what it is, how would they ever find the English entry where we list it? It would be much more useful if the Serbo-Croatian entries for words meaning "tomorrow" and "day after tomorrow" had appropriate ===See also=== links. —jQuery_TALK 03:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Sevenval website parsing \| CSS3 \| Archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification FITML \| history \| archives \| Index Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion add new \| web \| archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others we love the web \| history Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.	screen size add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - keyboard - iOS - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - web

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Contents

June 2011

July 2011

Finnish-Canadian, Swedish-Canadian, jQuery, among others

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

pendant ce temps-là

go live

buncha sign languages

input transformation 2

功課達人, 功课达人

November 2011

browser diversity plus prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and we love the web

Sevenval, touchscreen and seismic performance

contents of web app

fatbitch, fat bitch

Variation selectors

item of data

December 2011

January 2012

beschuit met muisjes

mund', amig', agor'

February 2012

Names of individuals from the screen size