Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

This page is for entries in English as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, see Requests for deletion/Non-English.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ = January 2023 =

adult material
Meaning "pornography", very transparent SOP, also used for other mature content which is not pornography. - TheDaveRoss  15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. Ostensibly the term means "material that is suitable for adults", but because it is really only used to refer to pornography (perhaps euphemistically) and not, say, movies and novels where the characters are adults, points to the fact that it is idiomatic. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are looking at the wrong definition of "adult," this is the sense "intended for use only by adults" e.g. "adult content", "adult movie", "adult magazine", "adult website", "adult language" etc. - TheDaveRoss  16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say keep. It's from sense 3 of the adjective, and sense 2 of the noun material. It may be "material suitable for adults" but it's also "material unsuitable for children". DonnanZ (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We also have, of which this is a perfect synonym. I think these should be kept because of their function as euphemisms; only one sense of is ever meant, even though all senses of the adjective could potentially apply. This, that and the other (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how far should we extend this? We could also create entries for, , , , , , and , among others. Definition 3 of could theoretically be applied to any media-related noun.
 * I suppose the fact that these terms are euphemistic could make them less SOP, but I'm not entirely convinced. Binarystep (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all but adult bookstore, which Ive just now created.  I think it's good that we're taking these on a case-by-case basis.  Another good example is adult beverage, because there's no other context where the word  adult  means "containing alcohol".
 * As for this discussion,   I can see both sides .... I'd even say the nominator undercut his argument by stating that it's not just for porn .... that makes it less sum-of-parts and means we might just need to clarify the definition instead of deleting the page.  Yet, I could apply the same logic to adult and say we should rework definition #3 to clarify that it doesn't just mean porn.  For now I abstain. — Soap — 13:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Side note: I found "adult drink", "adult root beer float", etc. prominently on Google. On this basis, I'm going to add another sense to the adjective at adult. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all, unless any of them pass the jiffy test. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per TheDaveRoss and Binarystep. Old Man Consequences (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked, but should cover this, even if it doesn't yet. Equinox ◑ 00:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone is said to be "noted for creating adult fingmippets" and we know that a "fingmippet" is a work in some creative medium, it will be obvious which sense of adult applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: OK, I’m convinced so I’m changing my vote. I agree it is sufficient if the relevant meaning of adult is in that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Note that we also have, , , and several more equally SOP entries in which adult means “related to pornography”.
 * The reason I felt the need to create a page for adult bookstore is that it's not sum-of-parts ... knowing what adult and bookstore mean would not tell you what an adult bookstore is. An adult bookstore, so far as I know, sells primarily sex toys, with video  and   books being less profitable.    I worded the definition conservatively out of caution.  I don't think adult movie is sum-of-parts either because, while less common, there are movies with no sex but such graphic violence that they are also restricted to adult viewers in theaters, and adult movie as presently defined does not encompass that (and I believe the current definition is correct).  As for adult star .... well, few native English speakers will misunderstand the meaning, but I always think of English language learners first .... for someone with an incomplete grasp of the language, it's very easy to misunderstand this as simply meaning someone who is both an adult and a star.  I still don't have a strong opinion on what to do with adult material, and I promise I wont just vote keep just because Im in favor of keeping the other three .... I'd say all four of these phrases are different from each other, really, and should be treated as such. — Soap — 22:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per This, That and the other. AllenY99 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is less contoured than the examples, , proferred by Soap; I am not convinced it must mean pornography, more like an SOP hypernym used as a totum pro parte. Fay Freak (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Inqilābī 18:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

adult diaper
We recently deleted as a sum-of-parts, likely influenced by this ongoing RFD. At first that made sense to me, but while I don't doubt it's the sum of its parts, there are other reasons why we list two-word entries. In this case, deleting adult diaper could lead the reader to believe that the little-heard incontinence diaper is actually the most common term for what adults wear, when this to me sounds like not just a medical euphemism but one that might not be understood by a listener (what other kind of diaper could there be?) Someone might recommend listing adult diaper as a collocation under adult or diaper or both, but this doesnt solve the problem .... a person on the adult page probably already knows what theyre looking for, and a person on the diaper page is still liable to think incontinence diaper is the term they want, as it's the only one we deem worthy of a separate entry. Moreover, there is still no policy regarding collocations and so anyone can delete them at any time; reducing an entry to a collocation seems to me little different than deletion. Lastly, there's a possibility of unexpected dialectal agreement here ... do people in Commonwealth countries who say for the baby's garment always call adult diapers nappies as well? I wouldnt be surprised if people thought nappy sounded too cute to refer to what grownups wear, but perhaps Im wrong. In any case, I would like to restore the page. One more thing I could add: it's possible I'm the one who created the adult diaper entry, as I was the one who added it to diaper; but if that's the case, I've forgotten about it. Best regards, — Soap — 11:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

= February 2023 =

786
“ a lucky or holy number”. Tagged by Sinonquoi on 10 February (“Nonsensical entry.”), not listed. Created by Kashmiri language on 9 February. J3133 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Abstain Keep.(see below for new rationale) The numerology sense is mentioned on Wikipedia at w:786 (number) and I think it is best kept there, since to explain the significance of the number to a naive reader in a dictionary would require so much background information that it would become an encyclopedic entry. — Soap — 16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Im sitting this out for the time being, as the recent improvements to the page and the comments below have convinced me that this is a valid entry in and of itself. But I'm still reluctant to vote keep because numerology could also provide us with definitions for numbers like 19 (also significant in Islam), 616 (a variant of 666), 777 (used in Christianity), and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. That we haven't added entries for these already makes me wonder whether we've just never gotten around to it in all this time, or whether it's best considered outside our project's scope.  — Soap — 12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Im changing my vote to Keep as this is more wordlike than 19, 616, and 777. — Soap — 14:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete for the above reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * it's ridiculous i think there was a subject here or maybe on wikipedia about how many numbers -- as numbers and not years -- should have separate entries ... delete it immediately this is just absurd ... Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that this has an idiomatic meaning justifies its inclusion per Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals, which is further supported by our recent decision to keep . Binarystep (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "A lucky or holy number" isn't a sense, idiomatic or otherwise. We don't have "an unlucky number" at 4 and 13. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment above. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the entry has been rewritten and per the evidence below. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as defined. It doesn't have a meaning: it doesn't explain what it would mean if you spoke or wrote this in a sentence. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This book suggests it could be found in Indian Islamic books or letters as a shortening of the basmala, in which case we should definitely include it, but I don't know where to look for attestation. However, this book indicates that it is used in "truck art or other mediums vulnerable to the dirt and defilement of the outside world", in which case it may be difficult to find durably archived quotations. 70.172.194.25 00:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers—I found an example in diplomatic correspondence (in translation) here: though worth noting that the original (scan given on previous page) uses Eastern Arabic numerals. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is another example, in English and using Western Arabic numerals: (it occurs in the front matter, definitely not a page number). This might be a similar example in Urdu:  (I can't see the whole page, but it seems to be at the top of page 2, so it wouldn't be a page number, and I'm not sure what else it could mean). Accordingly, keep. 70.172.194.25 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (Change meaning to area code 786) because for example: 305, named after the 305 area code. So if you clicked on the Wikipedia link it would bring you to "Area codes 305, 786, and 645". So 786 would have a meaning. But change the "lucky number" definition because any number can be "lucky". Heyandwhoa (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You can't say "keep and change meaning". This RFD is for the sense given. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

= March 2023 =

nasal vowel
SOP: "this vowel is nasal". PUC – 08:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete' Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

oral vowel
SOP: “a vowel which resonates through the mouth (because the velum closes the passage of air through the nose)”. (Auxiliary request if the outcome of the motion to delete “nasal vowel” is successful.) Fay Freak (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Ultimateria (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

nasal consonant
Might as well add this too. lattermint (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

= April 2023 =

fuck it up
fuck up + it. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 19:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there is a similar entry for . Though it's not my kind of language, they seem to have (slightly) different senses. DonnanZ (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily understand SoP, but fuck up is very similar to fuck it up. it could be normal to express this on the pages, as on the page there is already a link to fuck up. i only made the page because it was requested entry, but at the same time i believe the definitions are unique (in a sense).
 * i'm very new to this, so i may be wrong, but i think this definition should stay :] | 24.227.101.130 14:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for the second sense. We don't have a sense at fuck up corresponding to the quotes on the citations page. (I'm not sure the second sense is defined correctly, but that's another issue)--Simplificationalizer (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, separable verbs can have objects, in this case an expletive, in between. Fay Freak (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination does not specify a sense of the two provided, and the second sense, "To go at something competently, usually in an aggressive or quick manner", is basically the opposite of the first, to make a mess of things. Since fuck up is usually not used to indicate competence, this is not SOP to an infix of that phrase. bd2412 T 00:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete The usage note claims "The "it" in "fuck it up" can be swapped out for direct objects, or removed entirely (see fuck up). ". If that's true then the problem is missing senses at fuck up, not a reason for a separate entry. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Compare : there is no specific thing you can substitute for "it". This is an idiom. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

= June 2023 =

smackers
Rfd-sense: "(humorous slang) Money."

It's just the plural of smacker ("dollar"). Money is uncountable in this sense; smackers is not. DCDuring (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I almost agree with that but we should rewrite the definition of smacker along the lines of the one already in Collins dictionary, namely 'a pound or a dollar' (or 'a dollar or a pound' if you like) as it can certainly refer to pounds. I remember a parody song on the radio about the divorce between Liam Gallagher and Patsy Kensit where the lyrics parodied the Oasis song 'Don't Look Back in Anger' - it went:- "Oh Patsy can wait, she wants it all on a plate and there's just no way (can't remember the next line). She wants 5 million smackers, I heard her say". Of course she did then go on to win 5 mil in the divorce settlement, I can't find that online but I'm sure I could dig up some cites with this meaning. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've found and added some cites where 'smackers' and 'smackeroonies' is used to mean pounds to Citations:smacker and Citations:smackeroonies but this word and all its variants doesn't mean money in an uncountable sense. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Rfd-sense No, I often hear and call money "smackers".
 * Moved from a new section. J3133 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's used for dollars too, not just pounds, and probably could be used for any other unit of currency being casually discussed in English—if we're not accustomed to hearing about lira or rubles being called "smackers", it's probably because most English-language sources will be from countries that use dollars or pounds, or go out of their way to use the actual name of the currency instead, as a means of exoticizing the locale.  But that doesn't mean that it couldn't be used.  Alternatively, split the definition of smacker that attempts to cover both lips and money, and then you could delete the plural, since it links back to the singular.  Really that definition should be split anyway.  Just because both uses are slang doesn't mean that they're the same definition!  P Aculeius (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

elder
One who is older than another.

This sense was removed by Mechanical Keyboarder on 28 April, with the edit summary “redundant”. We still have the translation table. J3133 (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where it was, diff. It might have been considered redundant to sense 1, "An older person". DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is difficult. I strongly support keeping the deleted sense ... it's definitely not redundant ... but Im having a hard time explaining why.  Maybe it would've been more clear if we hadnt used the word older in the deleted sense with its literal meaning and in sense 1 with its idiomatic meaning of someone who is advanced in age ("elderly").  Further complicating things is that I think elder can also be used both ways, e.g. an elder child can be six years old, but the elders of the community cannot.  — Soap — 09:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * [:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mechanical_Keyboarder] shows only 53 edits. Hardly an experienced user. DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My Oxford Dictionary of English has:
 * (one's elders) people who are older than one: schoolchildren were no less fascinated than their elders.
 * (one's elder) a person who is older than one by a specified length of time: she was two years his elder.
 * Turning to Collins, my copy says, "an older person, one's senior", before covering tribal and religious elders. Online. Collins says: "A person's elder is someone who is older than them, especially someone quite a lot older: The young have no respect for their elders.
 * On this basis, I recommend that the deleted sense is reinstated. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge senses? The definition of the first sense, “An older person”, is problematic. We give two senses for : 1. “, elder, senior” and 2. “elderly”. A user who is not proficient in English cannot know that in “An older person” the comparative is meant; used as a noun, elder – whether “an elder” or ”someone’s elder”, does not mean “an elderly person”. (The person referred to may of course happen to be elderly, but this is not conveyed by the term.) That said, like the deleting editor, I suspect that the intention of this definition is the same as that of the deleted sense, so instead of simply reinstating it, I think they should be merged into something unambiguous, such as “Someone who is older .” --Lambiam 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to merging with the first sense. I can't imagine saying, of an older person, "see that elder across the way?"  it has to be relative [someone's elder, my / your elder]. +sj + 20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is really an RFV question, isn't it? I think of the YouTube series "Elders React", where the participants were referred to as in a non-relative sense, in the same way as the word  is used. Here and here are some uses of elders in a non-relative sense. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. My first reaction was that these could be merged with sense 1 as ~"An older person ". But could they, really? Maybe the difference in what "older" means in one vs the other, as Lambiam points out, suggests it's better to keep the senses separate like this (though I would move them next to each other for clarity and redefine this one more like "(in particular) A person who is older than someone else, in relation to that person"). - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Colon Street
Another street that fails our CFI for place names because it lacks figurative senses. (Previously nominated as a member of Category:en:Roads but not discussed directly.) &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 03:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as policy requires unless a figurative meaning can be established. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I decided to not add a street entry I discovered today to the category in question, due to the category's toxicity. DonnanZ (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, I refrained from adding the category to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to solicit other people's input about this, and the previous discussion at Talk:Avus: if a user is trying to add/hide edits they know are policy-noncompliant, are we in the position of needing to remove the user from the Autopatroller user group so their edits show up in the patrol log again...? (The street in question above may've been Broadmead or Dundas.) - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah,, I don't know what you are trying to achieve by deliberately flouting policy. Either accept the current policy, or propose a change in policy through the proper channels and abide by the result, whichever way it goes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If, which I didn't create, never had the category in the first place (you can check the entry's history), I can't be accused of deleting it and flouting policy. DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for historical interest, which wasn't taken into account. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

mathematical function program
SoP. Also barely attested, but probably keepable at RFV. This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, transparent (although it is unusual to refer to a subroutine as "program"). I doubt this would survive RFV; I see a use of the term mathematical function program library, but this is a program library of mathematical functions, where a program library is a collection of subroutines. --Lambiam 13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

=July 2023=

instance dungeon
Redundant to instance senses 9-10. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The word instance has other meanings in video gaming, though admittedly Im thinking more about game design than game playing. (If I search Google for instance of an enemy I see people using six different game engines asking similar questions.)  It does seem at least that not every instance is a dungeon in games such as STALCRAFT, so it's possible that some games prefer the longer form instance dungeon to make it clear what  they mean. This is just a comment, though.    — Soap — 09:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a video-game sense of instance (which we have), but I don't think "instance of an enemy" is using that sense. In programming if you have a type of object (e.g. defined by an OOP class) then any object of that type is an "instance". Equinox ◑ 13:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. It sounds I picked up a programming term and thought it was related to video games specifically. As for the existing senses we have at instance, yes, I saw those, and at first I thought they were too specific, but I suppose "dungeon or other area" is broad enough to cover the uses in non-RPG games like STALCRAFT. — Soap — 15:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, gaming is dumb and we have been decadent enough to give space to a pertinent videogaming meaning at instance even. Programming creativity always gives wiggle-room to variation. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

take its toll
To me this is NISoP, as the quotations seem to me to show. DCDuring (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree this in principle could be SoP, but the relevant sense of toll is worded poorly (loss or damage incurred through a disaster), whereas the definition here does not reference a disaster per se. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that the "take ... toll" pattern is in itself idiomatic enough to keep, but there are the usual doubts and problems about how to lemmatise it, given the variations possible. Mihia (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * keep. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This sense of "toll" seems to be usable for any figurative "cost" in the form of negative effects. Phrases like "exact a heavy toll" come to mind, not to mention "pay a price". "Take" is fairly strongly collocated because it alliterates and works well prosodically with "toll", in the same way the "pay" and "price" go together. Whatever comes in between is prosodically unimportant, so it can be almost anything that makes sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Either delete take its toll or take a toll. Maybe it would be better if both are deleted and instead consolidated to something like take toll, mentioning the reflexive/impersonal sense? Besides, take its toll is basically just take a toll with a preposition.
 * Furthermore, petition for speedy deletion of take a heavy toll. That's like creating separate entries for e.g. taking a long break, taking a short break, etc. JimiY ☽ ru 06:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Kube
Rfd-sense "(computing) An individual container of the Kubernetes orchestration system." Jargon specific to a particular system, not particularly relevant for a general dictionary. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 18:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Jberkel 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure why we shouldn't have jargon. The real question is whether it's attestable. cf (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

= August 2023=

stem mutation
Originally this entry claimed it was a synonym of apophony / ablaut, meaning an internal vowel change like get vs. got. That's trivially false: of the first 5 relevant results I found on Google Books, 3 of them were talking about consonant changes (e.g. "nominal morphology of conservative Adamawa Fula is characterised by ... nominal stem mutation based on a system of initial consonant alternation" ). That leaves it just defined as a change in the stem, which looks SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Since nobody's bitten on this so far, I'd also point out that "stem mutation" is attested in other contexts like biology for genetic mutations in a plant stem or in stem cells, so it doesn't seem to restrict the meaning of "stem". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 04:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

abstinence
Two strange senses here. We've got: These are cited to the Shorter OED, which I don't have, but don't seem to correspond to anything in the full OED, which just distinguishes self-restraint (+ subsenses) and the practice of abstaining from a specific thing. I don't see what the distinction between our senses is meant to be, nor how the third one could be obsolete. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) (not being RFD'd): The act or practice of abstaining, refraining from indulging a desire or appetite. (with a bunch of subsenses)
 * 2) ? The practice of self-denial; self-restraint; forebearance from anything.
 * 3) ? (obsolete) Self-denial; abstaining; or forebearance of anything.


 * I agree that senses 2 and 3 seem redundant to sense 1. Perhaps the terms “forbearance”, “self-denial”, etc., can be worked into sense 1. As for the difference between senses 2 and 3, perhaps the editor was trying to distinguish between uncountable and countable senses. The better way to do this is as follows: “(uncountable) Abstaining, forbearance, or self-denial; (countable) an instance of this.” But if the senses are merged into sense 1 this is unnecessary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

py chiminey
Do vee vant schpellinz like zees? Also py chiminy Pinch88 (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we need to consult . DonnanZ (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is useful, because I originally couldn't make out what it meant when I was reading a book that had that phrase in it. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep if it passes CFI. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm against including phrases like this, as I've intimated elsewhere, since in the vast majority of cases, these phrases are just eye dialect spellings of existing phrases, with no independent meaning. pasghetti is one of the few exceptions, a phrase that is used by adults to sound cute, and therefore can't be reduced to merely being a child's word for spaghetti.   So I ask ... is py chiminey used by people without an accent in order to make fun of German immigrants?  Perhaps it once was.
 * We could flood the site with hundreds more words and phrases like this so long as we can turn up three cites across the whole corpus of English literature for each one. But I'm reluctant to vote delete based on what might happen, so I want time to think some more about this. Whichever way this vote goes, it will help me firm up my opinions on the wider category of eye dialect spellings.
 * One more comment ... archive.org is impressing me with how powerful its search is in comparison to that of Google Books. py chiminey isnt cited now, and searching Google Books turns up mostly results about chimneys (forget about using plus signs and quote marks, as they dont seem to do much), but the new archive.org text search turns up plenty of hits for this exact phrase, so this would easily pass CFI if kept at RFD. Thanks, — Soap — 11:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , this is useful to know. What specific search function are you using on archive.org? Searching books in general just returns an error for me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * this link goes directly to the search results i was looking at. from the front page, use the main search tool (not the Wayback Machine) with "search text contents" selected and with the phrase in quotes. If that's what you've been doing and it returns an error, I can't help, but I notice the site is slow for me especially with large PDF's, so maybe their server resources arent as powerful as Google's and they sometimes fail to complete a search. — Soap — 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A problem with Internet Archive is that older books are often badly OCR'd and the search function won't work there because the scanned text is garbled. That might be the problem Andrew's having. In those cases you often need to view the full scanned text, ctrl+F for plausible strings in the mess, and then plug in what you find to the search function in the main view to get the actual location. I imagine they also won't turn up in full-site searches. Google's OCR is generally better, errors are usually limited to the normal stuff like reading long s as "f" etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but what's going on with the →  here, it does seem weird (expected in word-final position, final obstruent devoicing). Or is it simulating aspiration, ? Jberkel 12:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * English stereotypes of how a German accent shifts English sounds often seem perplexingly backwards to me; a similar case is the English use of mid to signal a German pronunciation of the (German!) word mit. It's like a cross between eye dialect and Mockney: changing words to signal "this speaker has an accent" even if that means changing the words in diametrically the opposite way to what the speaker's accent does.- -sche (discuss) 09:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and one of those cites has pisness for "business", so the /b/ > /p/ thing seems like part of a pattern. There are some dialects in the Alps where all stops are devoiced, which could have theoretically provided a sound basis for the stereotype, but I think in some cases writers need to "make it wrong on purpose" because subtleties of speech don't carry over as well in writing.  The fact that pisness and mid appear in the same cite suggests accuracy isnt always a priority with writing.  Makes me think also of a stereotypical pan-Asian accent where L and R are always switched, meaning the speaker somehow gets them both wrong instead of merging them both into one sound. — Soap — 10:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning keep if it's attested (RFV), on the grounds that we keep all kinds of dialectally- / pronunciation- motivated respellings, and these are not predictable (indeed, as Jberkel's and my comments above indicate, it's unexpected). This is on a spectrum, IMO: on one end of the spectrum are things like Winterpeg (changing the spelling to highlight Winnipeg's coldness) that are clearly includable, on the other end is baaaaaaad (changing spelling to mark intensity / drawn-out pronunciation), which we explicitly decided to make redirects. I think this and e.g. dwagon are pretty low-importance, but still includable (and I think py... is slightly more includable than dwagon since dwagon is theowetically a systematic change, weplace all rs with w, wheweas py... doesn't seem to follow a consistent pattern). - -sche (discuss) 09:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that baaad exists as an independent page, among many others in Category:English elongated forms. I didn't look into the history behind the category, but I figured they'd be treated as ordinary words, meaning anything with three cites passes, and that because the spelling is flexible it's not required that they all have the exact same number of extra letters. — Soap — 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * According to, baaaaaaad would be a redirect to baaad (three repeating letters). J3133 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read the prior discussion just now for more context ... to be honest, that could have been deleted, but I won't poke the dragon ... and I won't worry about the elongated forms getting deleted since it seems we decided that they belong so long as they're cited, just like I'd assumed. I just misinterpreted the comment above to mean that they were supposed to be redirects to the standard spelling.  This also gives me more material to add to an essay ... as I implied at the beginning of the discussion, I'm actually against including py chiminey and similar phrases, but I didnt place a vote because my objection is to the policy rather than to this individual entry, and we presumably won't be changing the policy without a long drawn-out vote in which at least two thirds of the community vote for a stricter policy.  — Soap — 11:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it actually is systematic: voicing is switched, so that b>p and f>v, etc. It's just that it's only sprinkled in for effect so it won't obscure the meaning too much, and it's in addition to the changes that the average reader of the period who didn't know German would already be aware of. This convention is used even by writers such as Mark Twain, who had studied German and knew better. In this case, by jiminy is a phrase that has never been used much in real life but was often substituted in written reported speech for tabooed oaths. It's unintelligible to modern readers because it's the intersection of two artificial conventions that are no longer used. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While searching for evidence to support the now-failed triste, I came across this strange passage by Walter Scott that supposedly represents the speech of a Highlander: “Put what would his honour pe axing for the peasts pe the head, if she was to tak the park for twa or three days?” Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is rubbish, but keep per above. It can probably be attested. But I am not convinced that this bizarre ethnic stereotype can be sensibly called a pronunciation spelling. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is merely attempting to reproduce the idiosyncratic pronunciation of a specific speaker. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. - TheDaveRoss  14:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

renewable resource
SOP? KLFThe Moomoo (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not match the current definition at : "sustainable; able to be regrown or renewed; having an ongoing or continuous source of supply" versus "replenished by natural processes at a rate comparable to its rate of consumption by humans or other users". The latter is much better albeit too verbose. Fossil fuels could even be "renewable" per the middle part of the definition at renewable, while solar energy and its derivative wind energy could arguably fall that part. It can be deleted once the definition there is acceptable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * RFD failed Newfiles (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

non-Italian etc.
Not sure if we are prepared to have a plethora of lemmas of “non-X language”. We definitely haven’t finished creating entries of every language and lect names yet, and I can’t imagine the vast number of attested SoP entries that we will potentially bring forth by affixing non- to them all, a number that might be at the least as high as half of the aforesaid language/lect names; and I would strongly suggest including such terms in quotations/usexes in the relevant entry instead, as a decent way of representing such terms rather than have them as lemmas. I personally vote delete, but thoughts? We currently seem to be tolerant towards similar ethnic and national lemma like, etc., but the language ones feel more weird and unnecessary. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  18:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of these non + proper adjective entries (though not "non-Arabic", a recent creation) seem to be Polanskyisms reflecting his personal interest in matters of hyphenation and capitalisation, and I agree they probably don't contribute much. There is an argument, though, that non- can be affixed productively to basically any adjective, and it's not clear that the orthographic convention that it always takes a hyphen before a capitalised one should determine whether the product counts as an eligible word. There are other things that can generate arbitrary and less controversial words (like verb + -er). So I don't have strong feelings about it at first glance.
 * I'm not sure the "etc." in the proposal is helpful: we should define the scope of the RFD clearly and of the four you list only "non-Arabic" is specifically glossed in terms of language. Are you proposing to delete all non- + nationality entries? Does for example non-Asian count? What about other proper adjectives like non-Bayesian? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I nominated only the language entries / senses here. "Etc." indicates an exhaustive list of all “non-X language” constructions. And well, in my opinion productivity alone shouldn’t necessarily determine whether a term is suitable to have its own entry, and probably other criteria such as dating of a term may be considered as well: ”non-X language” terms are probably a rather recent coinage, whereas terms affixed with or  tend to date back to the formative period of the language itself, making the latter more legitimate as lemmas. (un- and dis- are still productive in contemporary English of course but newer coinages with un- and dis- for specific domains could always be challenged in RFD.)  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  22:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, these are the correct spelling forms, and should be kept for that reason. IMO, nothing else will do. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, non-Portuguese, non-Italian, and non-Spanish are currently defined in terms of the adjectives "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", not in terms of languages like non-Arabic is. Google Books shows they're not used primarily in reference to languages either (e.g., "non-Italian immigrants", "non-Portuguese European merchants"). If definition in terms of language is the reason for nominating them then it seems to be spurious in those cases. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up. Since the definitions aren’t precise, I assumed they were defined in the sense of the language. Now I am confused myself, and will leave other people to interpret the definitions while still sticking to my nomination for deleting ”non-X language” terms LOL. So per your analysis, only the nomination of  is valid now. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  17:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can try googling "Arabic * non-Arabic". You might be surprised by the results. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well my personal take is that the number of citations doesn’t necessarily reinforce the legitimacy of a term that feels very SoP. Phrases as non-Arabic speakers and the like could be easily added as citations to or even  without any loss of valuable lexicographical information from Wiktionary.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: we don't seem to be entirely consistent as far as whether we keep things like this, although we often do. Various similar discussions are Talk:non-French (deleted), Talk:non-Japanese (kept), Talk:ex-chancellor (kept), Talk:ex-pilot (deleted), Talk:ex-stepfather (kept), Talk:ex-alumna (Spanish, kept). - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Confusing things further, at non-English it seems the discussion and decision were about deleting the general sense and the specific language sense was left alone, whereas this discussion seems to be taking the opposite angle. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right… This time, I wanted to nominate the specific language sense instead of focusing on random senses, because the language senses feel more SoP than ethnic/national senses. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete non-Arabic (the others have been struck so I suppose they are no longer being considered right now). But I would prefer something like a BP discussion about whether to have such things in general, rather than piecemeal RfDs that go different ways for different non-glossonyms. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @-sche Just such a BP discussion happened in Sep 2022 (initiated by Polansky). The result was 3 in favour of keeping them (including Polansky and myself, for transparency) and 1 in favour of deleting. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 20:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Limitless and utterly predictable SoP pattern. As I mentioned somewhere else, having a definition for "non-" as a prefix conveniently means that we do not need to individually list the almost literally limitless number of combinations that mean exactly what it says at "non-". Mihia (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete all four as SoP. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

= September 2023 =

history book
SOP; compare, , etc. There may be an idiomatic sense out there (compare ) but this is not it. PUC – 18:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands, although there may be a possibility for a better entry about what future generations will see in "the history books" etc.: often it's just a metaphor for history. Equinox ◑ 18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a quote only yesterday, so there's something about "history books" that's idiomatic. You can't say it's plural only though. And I think you have butchered the def - it was better before. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP, man should know from his linguistics books. Actually one should know from primary school 😱 – does this mean “primary school” has an “idiomatic” sense of “primary education“? No. This is what Equinox means with “metaphor”. There are figurative senses we must not include. Somewhere the relations are too close and the margins are fuzzy, vagueness. Separate senses must be contoured. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve the definition, and withal add a sense.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  08:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There is for the history books, essentially for the book(s), but I don't think that should be handled at history book (singular), and generally less fixed metaphors involving history books are probably going to be sum-of-parts. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the definition provided is wrong based on the citations provided. There are history textbooks for school (which the definition suggests) and then there are general-readership books on history. I don't think that when someone refers to a sports performance as entering the history books, they mean that it will be included in school textbooks. bd2412 T 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could be treated as an antonym of /, and we could base our definition off of that: "A notional place where …"? PUC – 09:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That particular figurative sense only works in the plural. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with moving the entry to if necessary. PUC – 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can also find the singular,, albeit mostly in low-quality self-published books and/or books by non-native speakers. I would delete the entry as it stands ("history book" just defined as a book about history), but "history books" defined as "a notional place...[etc]" as discussed above, with "history book" as the singular of that, seems more inclusible. - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As it stands, Delete, because the whole thing could be replaced by "maths book = textbook on maths", "physics book = textbook on physics", etc. If it means something more then please let's actually see this in the definition. Mihia (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

dynamics
Rfd-sense: "Forces that stimulate growth, change, or development. The changing dynamics in international politics led to such an outcome."

I don't think this sense is plural-only—you can say for example "the dynamic of China–US relations"—dynamic just maybe needs a better gloss. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe—but definitely not unless any revision made to the plural-form entry is carefully coordinated with revisions to the singular-form entry, where several senses are arguably plural-only and have sample sentences where the entryword is used in the plural. — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

ex-senator
And ex-minister. Like ex-king Jewle V (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete both as SoP. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 19:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete both as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See also non-Arabic above. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Prefixes aren't separate words, and I disagree with the idea that a single word can somehow be SOP. This interpretation of WT:SOP has actually harmed our coverage of this prefix, as is almost always followed by a hyphen in English. Looking at Category:English terms prefixed with ex-, you'd be led to think that  was one of the least productive prefixes in English, even though this couldn't be further from the truth. Binarystep (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) (edited)
 * If we're worried about people being led to that conclusion, the solution is to delete Category:English terms prefixed with ex- entirely, not to start filling it up with crap? PUC – 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete all "ex-X" that mean no more than "former X". Limitless SoP pattern. Mihia (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inqilābī 22:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

be at
SOP. Compare "be on", "be in", etc. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

lavalier microphone
Is this SOP? You can also just call it a lavalier... we also have "lavaliere microphone" as a usex of lavaliere (note the spelling variation). - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WT:JIFFY? The earliest attestation for "lavalier microphone" I can find is 1946 (in Sales Management vol. 56), "lavalier" by itself seems to be a later development (OED has 1972, I can see some in the 60s). In early sources "lavalier-type microphone" seems to be common. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as WT:JIFFY. I also edited the def here and at . This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

supply-side
I think it's just one of these "noun being used adjectivally" things Jewle V (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, don't think it's a particularly useful entry but there are cases of it being used in a way that's solidly adjectival and not just an attributive noun (which is what I guess you mean), see the cites I added. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hypatia
I thought WT:CFI did not permit names of individual persons. This certainly seems like a "name of a specific entity". But the wording seems to allow inclusion of a person with a one-part name. At the very least, the definition is encyclopedic, not a dictionary definition. Probably a definition like "A female given name of Greek origin". Maybe also it is a surname. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The name has been given to a few women, such as . Hypatia Tarleton is a character in GBS's play . The name is derived from . --Lambiam 11:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've added an ordinary given name sense and converted this to rfd-sense. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * CFI only 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 [like] Walter Elias Disney". In practice, we so far seem to also exclude modern mononymic people, like the millions of truly mononymic Indonesians (Suharto, Sukarno, etc, who literally do not have any other parts to their names) and people who have but don't use last names like Madonna. However, we include a lot of old mononymic people (including the ancient equivalents of Madonna, people who did have full names but are just best known by mononyms), like Cicero and Virgil and Confucius... - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So, in the absence of any further input from anyone else, I say weak keep unless we're going to start getting rid of ancient mononymic people like that (see also: non-mononymic people, like Gengis Khan) more systematically. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as passing CFI and in keeping with existing practice. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

in conclave
SOP. PUC – 14:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The omission of the article is surprising, no? Isn't this part of a closed class of phrases like, , , ...? (Note that, unlike , , ..., this one is not Latin. That would be in .) This, that and the other (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn’t it a predictable construction when an uncountable noun is involved? I’m thinking of examples like in amazement, in horror and in joy. The main thing to make clear would be that conclave can be used in this uncountable sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it uncountable in any other situation though? "Conclave is ..." for example. This, that and the other (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think this construction needs an explanation, any more than "in school" or "in church" (although I note we do have "in hospital").  Still, it's just in + conclave, and it should be understandable by anyone who knows (or looks up) the meaning of "conclave"  P Aculeius (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

leonine share
As I mentioned at Talk:lion's share some time ago, we're missing a figurative sense at, but I believe this is SOP: compare ,. PUC – 14:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as this is not currently SoP because it is not adequately explained by . You should have added your new sense there first. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to be literary rather than figurative, and not very common in any case. Keep, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If actually cited, I suppose it could be included as . Ƿidsiþ 08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming this actually exists, which it seems it does, and that it actually is a variant (perhaps humorous??) of "lion's share", rather than a separate or independent coinage, which may be harder to establish, I would be inclined to keep, even if the relevant sense of leonine is added. I think it can "inherit" enough idiomaticity. Mihia (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

= October 2023 =

square root of fuck all
Tagged for speedy deletion but I feel like it should be discussed hence I've opened this discussion. User: The Ice Mage talk to meh 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a few hits for things like "square root of nada/nothing/zilch", etc. Not enough to easily justify entries for them individually, but enough to show some productivity. Then there's "nothing squared" and "twice nothing"... Chuck Entz (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see any need for what is a long-winded sum of parts, one of which is potentially offensive. DonnanZ (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)                                                    sum


 * Er, it's not a sum of parts because there is no sense at that applies here. Neither is offensiveness a reason for us to exclude things. You're just making stuff up. Equinox ◑ 14:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I didn't add "vulgar" to, which means "absolutely nothing" anyway. You will probably get away with this with the quotes you have dredged up. DonnanZ (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You're throwing ad-hominems whereas I proved you wrong with logic. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It'll be the heat death of the universe before @Donnanz reads WT:CFI. Theknightwho (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's how CFI works?????????????????? CitationsFreak (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: not SoP (it doesn't mean "mathematical zero", and only has mathematical definitions). Send to RFV if we must verify it. Equinox ◑ 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * is also attested, as are and  (though I only see one good GB hit). Are there others? If yes, I think the SOP argument could hold water, though I'm not sure (maybe all of these deserve entries? Or is it a snowclone?) PUC – 14:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say add something to the square root entry on this. Not sure how to word it, tho. CitationsFreak (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also the square root of sod all, but it doesn't deserve an entry. DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not a set phrase; "square root of" (or maybe "square root") is. CitationsFreak (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to something, but I'm not sure whether "square root" or "square root of" is a better location to host the definition. The problem is that grammatically "square root" is a noun, but it is used solely as an adverbial/adjectival intensifier for a noun meaning "nothing" (i.e. square root of fuck all is a set phrase except that one of the components is flexible). So I don't know how to define "square root" as a noun. We could define "square root of" as "basically; essentially" but that would mess with the parse tree. Perhaps we could move to square root of nothing and be clear that nothing is being used as a pronoun rather than an idiomatic component of the set phrase (similar to our use of one and someone in proverbs), and explain the situation in the usage notes. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you say "square root of absolutely nothing"? "square root of jack squat"? "square root of fucking nothing"? Google says yes to all three. I say delete, add something to "". MedK1 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you propose as a valid gloss definition for square root? -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 21:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps exactly what's at square root of fuck all but preceded by " {{lb|with a term meaning nothing| "? I actually think it might be best for it to be added at the usage notes section instead, something along the lines of "May be used with a term meaning 'nothing' for an emphatic synonym of {{m|en|nothing}}." MedK1 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

statically-typed language, dynamically-typed language
Another Sae1962 SOP creation. Jberkel 10:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that has been a redirect to  since it was RFDed in 2017. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hard redirect to  (as the former is SoP). &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 03:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

adoptive mother
SOP. All translations appear SOP too. Compare Talk:madre adoptiva (Spanish). This, that and the other (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep because the Japanese translation doesn't appear SOP. 養 doesn't show up by itself as a word in the dictionaries I have with me. MedK1 (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * is given as the Japanese translation of . Perhaps the Japanese entry simply needs expansion. This, that and the other (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete if someone can confirm the East Asian translations are SOP. PUC – 14:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

pro-Hamas and anti-Hamas
SOP Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. We must draw the line somewhere. Otherwise there is no end to it:, , , , ..., all are easily attested, with exactly the meaning one would expect. --Lambiam 16:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lambiam. PUC – 17:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These should easily be Speedied. AG202 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Created them in good faith! We have pro-Israel and anti-Israel so we probably should be consistent, or invoke the dumb WT:COALMINE rule. P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody doubts your good faith. The canary-in-a-coalmine rule would apply if and  were acceptable orthographic variants, but they are not.  --Lambiam 11:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * is the dirty word here. IMO, where there is no practical alternative, Lambiam's assertion is flawed. I can sympathise with WF in this particular case. DonnanZ (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What does this even mean? Theknightwho (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Prefixes aren't words. A single word should not be considered SOP. No one would argue that a term like is SOP; the only difference is the presence of a hyphen, which is grammatically required before a capital letter to prevent camelCase. See Talk:anti-Putinism and . Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "antifascist" is quite obviously SoP. What ought to happen is that someone looking up "antiX", in the case where no non-SoP word (e.g. differently constituted word) exists, should get some kind of an auto-generated "try anti + X" hint, which will eliminate the need for us to anticipate every possible combination and create a million individual SoP entries. The same can apply to all such limitlessly reusable prefixes that may or may not be hyphenated. Mihia (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, since a word like anti-Hamas is SoP. However, if there are enough people who write it like antiHamas, then anti-Hamas must be included (along with antiHamas.) CitationsFreak (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We really do need to somehow move beyond this fixation that a trivial and cosmetic stylistic choice of writing e.g. "antiHamas" vs "anti-Hamas" is actually important to SoP and inclusion arguments. Mihia (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * : While I agree with you in principle, it's difficult to draw up a rule that distinguishes SOP from idiomatic uses of affixes clearly and unambiguously enough to avoid endless argumentation and inconsistency. Even if we had one, it would still be hard to get consensus. As with most of our CFI, it's a compromise. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything of the form e.g. "antiX" or "anti-X" that is deemed to have a meaning not entirely predictable from the components, including any idiomatic cases such as you mention, should of course continue to have its own individual entry. In the case of argumentation or disagreement about whether this is the case, these would have to go to RFD, just as happens now in any other SoP dispute. Mihia (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're just repeating Ioxxere's argument without addressing mine. There's nothing that makes any more SOP than  or . You're treating  and  as separate words, even though  is a prefix and cannot be used on its own. The only difference between  and a word like  is the presence of a hyphen, which is a requirement in English grammar because the alternative spelling of  would look unusual to native speakers. This interpretation of WT:SOP effectively forbids all entries for prefixed words derived from capitalized stems. It's also the reason we have so few entries for words prefixed with, despite it being one of the most common English prefixes – the prefix is almost always followed by a hyphen, which means that any resulting words are likely to be treated as "compounds" of  and the base stem. Binarystep (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like it is the same concept. The reason we can't have "wine-lover" is that any user could just look up both "wine" and "lover" to get the full picture. Same thing with "pro-" and "Hamas". I do not care if the distribution of prefixed words is off, as we should have a note explaining why. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A is a  of . Someone who is  does not feel  about . I think WT:SOP works best if it's strictly applied to compounds rather than transparent single-word entries. Wiktionary purports that its goal is to include "all words in all languages". I don't see why the presence of a hyphen should change that. Sure, the meaning of  is obvious... but so is, and I don't think most users would consider that SOP. Binarystep (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some one who is pro-Hamas is "agreeing with; supporting; favouring" "a militant Palestinianist and Sunni Muslim movement". It is SoP. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone who is is "agreeing with; supporting; favouring" "a right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition". Is  SOP? Binarystep (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a single word, no. If there was only the word "pro-fascist", then it would be indeed SoP. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and are both single words. Prefixes aren't words. Binarystep (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Meant that in the sense of "-ist" and "black hole" being words. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "anti-". in the sense of being opposed to something, can be applied to almost literally ANY noun, with totally predictable meaning. "anti-parking", "anti-landfill", "anti-pumpkin" ... you name it. I completely fail to see the point of creating thousands and thousands of individual entries defining "anti-X" as meaning "opposed to X" for every noun in the dictionary. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, if we can somehow also eliminate the nonsense whereby it supposedly matters that three people somewhere wrote "antipumpkin", then so much the better. Mihia (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Israel and anti-Israel
Nominating these as sum-of-parts as well. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete these and all similar. Limitless, blatantly SoP pattern. Mihia (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Russian and anti-Russian
Also P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * at least as a translation hub. Nyuhn (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you point to 3+ non-compound translations for each? I only see maybe one (Chinese) for pro-Russian though I'm not sure about the Hungarian breakdown for both. AG202 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Others
Also nominating the following entries on the same basis as above. I have left out terms that have non-hyphenated forms, such as and. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

anti-American and pro-American

 * I did notice 🇨🇬 for pro-American. DonnanZ (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep See this . In that diff, I show that the word 'anti-American' is a word according to five dictionaries. I am a deep skeptic of the way Wiktionary's Sum of Parts doctrine is enforced at present and over the past several years. I believe that the enforcement of SOP is biased against hyphenated words, and that the coverage of hyphenated words on Wiktionary is stilted and not conforming to actual usage because of a systemic preference for non-hyphenated words caused by hyper-enforcement of the SOP doctrine. I believe that the current iteration of the enforcement of the SOP doctrine is not academically sound, otherwise, the other dictionaries would exclude this word. I believe that the five dictionaries I cite are normative in including 'anti-American', and that Wiktionary is non-normative, i.e., fringe, if it excludes the word 'anti-American'. If 'anti-American' is removed as an entry as a result of these proceedings, I will attempt to bring a vote on SOP doctrine that adds another limit to the policy: that if mainstream, authoritative dictionaries include a term, that the SOP policy cannot be used to remove an entry from Wiktionary. Fight me, come at me, lol lmao even, I know kung fu, &c. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC) (Modified)
 * That's WT:LEMMING. Which isn't offcial policy yet. But it could be. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Arab

 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

anti-British and pro-British

 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Indonesian

 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

anti-Jew and pro-Jew

 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

anti-Palestinian and pro-Palestinian

 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

anti-Slavism and pro-Slavism

 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-US

 * Personally I would keep all of these (if cited) as single words. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree, per my comment above. DonnanZ (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

META
Is this a noun? Is it even English? Is it capitalised like this? So many questions. I can understand why we have an entry for, but this one is harder to stomach. This, that and the other (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I doubt HTML tags should be regarded as words. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The hypertext markup language is definitely not the English language or any other natural language. It is not a conlan either; HTML has no parts of speech such as nouns, verbs and adjectives, and HTML tags do not carry meaning in the sense that words in natural languages do. HTML tags are case-insensitive; one could write  using camel case.  --Lambiam 17:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but should the "lemma" be capitalised, given that people stopped capitalising HTML tag names about 20 years ago? Thankfully, by your argument that's a moot point. This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Translingual, preferably as lowercase. The English section was added to an existing Finnish acronym entry for no discernible reason.  seems knowledgeable enough on technical subject matter, but not on organizing it for an online dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not natural language. There are literally millions of programming keywords, tags, and API class/method names. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Just for the "keep everything" people (who begin with D): let's just look at "what's obsolete" (a very very short list of things that have been removed from the framework recently): DefineDynamicAssembly, ExecuteAssembly, ExecuteAssemblyByName, AssemblyHash, you may enjoy hundreds more on the page . And this is just what's obsolete, in one specific software framework, at one point in time. And they don't have definitions. You may also want to investigate food colorants. Equinox ◑ 06:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This user beginning with D is abstaining. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a word in any language. --Lambiam 11:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete . Jberkel 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I vote delete. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep iff there are three uses in running text. Otherwise, delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If not appropriate as a mainspace entry, then you need to move all HTML elements to a Wiktionary Appendix and create Wiktionary Appendices for other computer programming and markup languages as well. These are important terms that should be defined somewhere on Wiktionary if not in mainspace. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * We do have a sister project called Wikipedia for such things … — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as not natural language. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 00:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

primiparous
Rfd-sense: "bearing a first offspring; having borne only one previous offspring", same as the senses "pregnant for the first time" and "having given birth to only one child" above. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the first sense also needs to be deleted or at least verified: a woman who just became pregnant for the first time is not a woman who has given birth to only one child. IMO only the second sense is correct, although I think it is better to define this sense as “Having given birth for the first time”. The definition of the third sense is off.  gave birth to only one child, buy it would be ludicrous to write something like “Queen Hatshepsut was a primiparous Pharaoh”. And when  gave birth to the second of her many children, she had borne only one previous offspring but was not primiparous. So I definitely support deletion of the third sense.  --Lambiam 16:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A woman who is pregnant for the first time is primigravid. The first sense should perhaps be "giving birth for the first time" instead. RcAlex36 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought of that, but when I read “At 10–11 months postpartum, primiparous mothers continued to be more attentive”, or “3 months postpartum, when primiparous mothers have become familiar with their infants”, the present participle is too present. In fact, all GBS hits I see for primiparous mother are about postpartum behaviour or offspring survival statistics. --Lambiam 16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

school-age
Attributive form of, not a real adjective. We also don't want alongside. PUC – 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that it excludes university (and probably kindergarten, if people want to split hairs). — Soap — 18:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Merriam-Webster considers it an adjective, unlike other dictionaries I checked. In any case, I've added a noun alt form section since is attestable outside of attributive uses. If the adjective sense is deleted, the translation table should probably be moved to . I also created  (with a noun header), which seems to occur only attributively. Einstein2 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think any purpose would be served by deleting this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the hyphenated attributive sense, following precedent. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

fat lot of good
Noun: of no use or help

Apart from being a definition that doesn’t fit a noun, it’s definitely sum of parts: +  +. Theknightwho (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't be moved to ? As the RFD'd entry shows, it can be used without the article. Yes, it's probably omitted through a process of elision, but it still seems unnecessary to include in the headword. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Put together, the parts form an idiom. DonnanZ (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe redirect to "(a) fat lot". This collocation is extremely common but "fat lot" ought to explain the meaning. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've heard "a lot of good that'll do" with only the context and tone of voice to convey the sarcasm, as well as substitution of things like "help" for "good". Chuck Entz (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A more common collocation is fat lot of use, while fat lot of help is also common, so this is IMO SOP. I think should actually be moved to, to be classified as a determiner (compare ), to which fat lot and a fat lot can redirect.  --Lambiam 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to either fat lot or fat lot of, since other words can replace good. I would lemmatize the form without the a since it can be omitted: Citations:fat lot. - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

blue light
Rfd-sense:"Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum generated by an electronic device." Is this (sense 4) actually different from the &lit sense 5? I'm not sure. Ƿidsiþ 06:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is another sense: “Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum produced by the light of an incandescent light source passing through a blue colour filter”. Also, “Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum emitted by the daytime sky, caused by Rayleigh scattering”. As sense 4 is merely “Visible light having the colour of the clear sky or the deep sea, between green and purple in the visible spectrum”, without specifying the light source, I imagine we can expect many more precisely specified senses. In other words, Delete. --Lambiam 18:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

= November 2023 =

acquired characteristic
SOP: "a characteristic that is acquired (i.e. "Developed after birth; not congenital")". PUC – 17:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to the Wikipedia article, "Applying makeup, nail polish, dying one's hair, applying henna to the skin, and tooth whitening are not examples of acquired traits" (which is a synonym according to the same article). However, if a celebrity does their hair and makeup in a particular way, that can be said to be acquired + a characteristic, but not an acquired characteristic. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 23:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're suggesting this should be kept per WT:FRIED. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 00:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strongly a fixed phrase describing concept in biology / evolutionary science. Mihia (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What makes it more deserving of an entry than ? PUC – 16:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We could have that too, listed as a synonym. Mihia (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (and ),, , , , , are all phrases describing concepts in evolutionary biology. I don't see the point of creating entries for these, since they will be a rehash of what can be found in the entries of the component words. PUC – 16:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Each of those would need to be considered on its own merits. However, one difference between "acquired characteristic" and, let's say, "inherited characteristic", is that it is relatively obvious that "inherited characteristic" has something to do with characteristics passed to offspring, but less obvious that "acquired characteristic" does. If you mentioned the latter phrase to someone not familiar with the subject area, quite possibly they would not understand just from the parts the specific sense that it has in that regard. This is a reason to keep it, in my opinion. More generally speaking, I feel less inclined nowadays to delete phrases purely because the meaning can in theory be obtained by selecting the right combination of senses of the different parts, and more inclined to keep strong set phrases anyway -- within reason, of course, which is a subjective judgement. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free
Feels SOP-y to me, being from the river to the sea plus the rest of the words. It's not a set phrase, either, because there are some uses with "Palestine will be free" at the front. An example of this is in the 2014 essay collection Conversations in Postcolonial Thought, in an essay by Ronit Lentin, in which she writes "This forgetting [of the element of violence that made Israel] ... is precisely what pro-Palestine demonstrators say: Palestine will be free from the river to the sea." However, I will admit that this element seems like it makes up a large chunk of the uses of "from the river to the sea". CitationsFreak (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to from the river to the sea, the minimal idiomatic component, per nom. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 23:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, I think we need to improve the definition of from the river to the sea. The current Al-Jazeera citation does not support the use of the phrase as a slogan, but rather as a literal prepositional phrase (of course, with fried-egg restrictions on which river and sea are being referred to). In fact, can we find any examples of from the river to the sea being used in isolation (without any complement) as a slogan? If so, then we should have two definitions here. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 21:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect. - -sche (discuss) 17:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a synonym- widely used. Inqilābī 22:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera
Encyclopedic. The article was nominated 15 years ago with no consensus. The only arguments seem to be for notability, which disagrees with our policy. brittletheories (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've expanded the entry with three quotes that probably meet WT:BRAND. Einstein2 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how the quotes support any kind of inclusion. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotes don't identify Al Jazeera as a television channel, see the examples at Criteria for inclusion/Brand names. Einstein2 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. Humans are capable of metonymy and irony regardless of ideomaticity. You could substitute Fox News for any one of them, and that was deleted before. brittletheories (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know that I can sell videotapes of beheadings to Fox News. :) --Lambiam 15:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If Al-Jazeera is used as a stand-in for somethimg, it should be explicated. For instance:
 * Any sensationalist media that publishes offensive or shocking content.
 * I'm not aware of such an association. As it stands now, the article doesn't name a single figurative use of the term. brittletheories (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that these cites are in reference to Al Jazeera being seen as a Muslim news source, and therefore must have beheading tapes on their newsfeed. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. PUC – 12:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Brittletheories, any figurative sense ought to be stated explicitly to support inclusion and I don't see an obvious one here. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)
 * Keep, but rework definition to explain quotes. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I'm not convinced by the cites; if a cite says someone could "talk to anybody about what she knew—even the Korean People's Army", does that make Korean People's Army idiomatic or is it still the province of an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary? I am thinking the latter. We have a lot of abbreviations of news media, like DW, BBC, MSNBC, CBS, but we don't have The Times, London Times, New York Times, Washington Post, British Broadcasting Corporation. - -sche (discuss) 17:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any abbreviation for Al Jazeera? Ironically, I tend to use BBC instead of British Broadcasting Corporation, and so do the BBC. DonnanZ (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As it stands, delete per Brittletheories and Al-Muqanna. The present entry does not even attempt to provide a non-encyclopedic definition, and the quotations themselves do not demonstrate dictionary senses, only contextually suggested associations or connotations of a nature that could routinely exist for proper nouns. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: no idiomatic use that satisfies WT:BRAND, as far as I can see. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete- sheerly encyclopedic. Inqilābī 22:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

by what right
This was just added, with a request for definition. But it is so very NISOP that it is hard to define. I notice that the translations added look pretty much like straightforward calques, so I don't think even the translation hub justification holds here. Kiwima (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, SOP. Compare by what criterion, by what entrance, by what feat of logic, by what means, by what mistaken magic &c. &c. --Lambiam 16:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is a transparent question. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Failed Denazz (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should delete the created translation entries as well? As of now they are de quel droit and jakim prawem. --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

accessory after the fact
SOP of +  and  + ? PUC – 16:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, a very set phrase. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

good boy, good girl
Seems to be SOP, just that it can be used sarcastically as in the given usage example. कालमैत्री (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. (And if a good girl is a female child, how can she "stand by her man"? Sounds a bit dodgy!) Equinox ◑ 09:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. I think they are common exclamations. If so, amend and keep. DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is definitely use of both phrases as a sincere term of congratulations for a small child or for a pet, upon which the idiomatic use for adults is based. I think these pages should be expanded, but also support keeping the idiomatic usage, so my support is for adding your sense, not replacing the existing sense. — Soap — 12:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As an aside, why does the nominator use an unreadable name? DonnanZ (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Donnanz Do you think a conspirator shall speak of his ways? कालमैत्री (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a counter-question, not a satisfactory answer. DonnanZ (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the definition reads as "An obedient female child, or someone who behaves like one "; I presume that's the part that applies in this usex. The definition should be split imo, because I was also confused at first. PUC – 20:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I think these are plainly idiomatic. Is it not obvious that the use-example I chose describes a woman who obeys her male partner without question? And that most of us would consider such a woman to be excessively obedient?  This goes far beyond the literal meaning good girl you would use to describe a five-year-old who shares their candy with neighborhood kids even when their parents didn't tell them to.  Likewise, the use-example on good boy describes an adult man who avoids taking on a difficult adult responsibility, something we would never expect a literal child to handle.
 * I created these pages just two days ago, and I intend to add to them a lot more, but I prefer to work at a slow pace, hopping around from page to page, rather than focusing on getting a new entry to completion right out of the gate. I wasn't expecting an RFD so soon after creation.  Nonetheless, the core of the content is there, and I see no reason to consider this a sum-of-parts definition.  The fact that it needs so much explanation is a demonstration on its own that it's idiomatic.  Best regards, — Soap — 12:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the wording of the pages is good as it is, but if I were to break the combined definitions apart so that the idiomatic sense was defined as something such as an excessively obedient (wo)man, would we still consider this to be sum-of-parts? If so, how could a naive reader coming across the phrase good girl in a context like the above use our definitions of good (7 senses just for people) and girl (10 senses) to put together that it means an excessively obedient woman? If this is going to be another one of those "they'll figure it out from context" RFD's, I'll just say as I've said before that the people who look things up in a dictionary are precisely NOT the people who can piece out an unpredictable definition from the context it's in. We don't write for people like us. — Soap — 12:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you realise how pretentious and condescending you're sounding right now. PUC – 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. In fact, I don't think I could be condescending if I tried.  But that's irrelevant ... what matters to me is .... can anyone answer my question?  — Soap — 13:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOAP. What next:, , ? PUC – 13:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you show me idiomatic uses of those phrases? Particularly ones that are as far from a literal meaning as well-behaved child is from excessively obedient adult?  — Soap — 13:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The meaning of words are not idiomatic, as i said of the usage examples you have: they have been used (shallowly) in the context to taunt, to suggest excessiveness. Words like good father etc. can be used similarly. Yes, a kid might not understand the use case, but many a satirical use cases are not always apparent. And lastly i think red-green alliance should have been kept. कालमैत्री (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Re good doggo: note that we have . J3133 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I think the example for "good boy" is really weird and should be changed. Honestly the context for the current example is unclear to me. I think a better example for idiomatic usage (use for an adult) would be something like
 * "I know how to cook dinner, Dave. Now be a good boy and go wait quietly with the kids." Or
 * "Be a good boy and give your mother a call. She's been calling every day for a week!"
 * something like that. AmbiguouslyAnonymous (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think these are used only in cases where it would be natural to use "boy" or "girl." Also, I think a good test for idiomaticity is if a term can be translated literally. Is that the case here? Can you say "bon garçon" to a dog or a child in French? I'm not a native speaker, but I think something like "bravo" would be more likely. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But the senses don't include the use as interjection, while that should be the case only then. Have you read the entries? Your French argument is not correct, a particular phrase can be used in one language, but might sound awkward in other even with literal senses. कालमैत्री (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify my vote: Delete noun but keep as an interjection. My translation-based argument doesn't prove anything, it's true, but it is still evidence, or at least an argument for making it a translation hub. But you're right, I neglected to read the entry and based on some of the above comments, thought we were talking about an interjection sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding this: keep as an interjection. Theknightwho (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If kept, can we add an example for a pet, most esp. dog, which, at least where I live, is a very common usage. Two policeman at a police station, one says to the other "We've been interrogating this dog all morning, and he still won't tell us who's a good boy." Mihia (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Undeletion of ancient Greek
Deleted in 2014 with the rationale “This is a mistake not an alternative form. Hardly worth creating entries for wrong capitalization.” Since then, there have been two sections on the talk page:

Not a mistaken form

Pace the editors above, lower-case ancient is more (not less) common when dealing with the people and adjective, with an established meaning very much more restrictive than simply the SOP of "anything very old related to Greece". Ancient Greek may be written either way, albeit it's increasingly common (as we learn ancient Greek less often) to give the name "Greek" to the modern form and instead describe ancient Greek as an all-capped thing-unto-itself.

Further, Ancient Greek is properly restricted to the Greek of antiquity. The phrase however is sometimes used (as in ISO 639) as inclusive of all Greek up to 1453, a sense where it should be lower-case (but still not SOP). — Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II  22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ancient Greek

ancient Greek is definitely more common than Ancient Greek for adjectival use, which is actually the commonest use as well. See this ngram, and compare ancient Near Eastern, ancient Roman... which are also more common than Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Roman.

A core principle of the Wiktionary is Descriptivism.

92.184.116.35 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The entry has a usage note for the noun, which correctly states, “Usually, ancient is not capitalized in this sense”, with a hidden comment linking to the Google Ngram Viewer. Both the adjective and the noun are more commonly ancient Greek. Further, MLA style states in its page “Does MLA style capitalize ancient when it precedes Greece or Greek?”, “No. We follow Merriam-Webster, which indicates that the terms ancient and classical are not capitalized when they are attached to names of languages or periods.” It is clear that this is not a “mistake”, as was stated in the RfD, and also, as mentioned above, inconsistent with having the entries (more common form of ) and  (which is the form, e.g., Wikipedia uses) or. J3133 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Undelete per nom. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Undelete. Binarystep (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Undelete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Undelete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Cites are for Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg and not Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg not asserted to be independent of Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Delete an entry that is not a term, but is merely a part of another term. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This should be an RFV then. Equinox ◑ 09:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried looking up some other placenames that only occur as the names of lakes and rivers, and have to admit it was more difficult than I expected. It seems that we typically just don't list these either in their bare form or with "lake" and "river" attached. The ones I did find were all used in more than one placename, e.g. Sligo, Cam, Magog, Champlain.  If we move this to RFV I suppose the question would be about whether people can say Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg to mean the lake, since that is the only placename there is.  I would expect that they do, though it seems at least some of the Google search results for the long name without the word "lake" are simply pages in other languages. — Soap — 11:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My intent was not to search for three cites but to delete the entry without a search for three cites on policy grounds. If I brought this at RFV and wrote what I wrote above, I guarantee it would be said "take it to RFD, you bitch ass punk". I have now opened an RFV too, copy-pasting the above grounds but as a different petition. I want to run an RFD and an RFV on this term simultaneously. I would suggest closing this one and recommending RFV and closing that one and recommending RFD. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. You are saying that "Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg" alone (minus "Lake") does not exist. The way to disprove this is to find 3 cites for it. Thus RFV is the correct venue per policy. Equinox ◑ 11:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I see the error of my petitions, but I am just totally unexperienced with the process. I wash my hands of both petitions and retract them insofar as I can. Please do not contact me about this. I have no ill will toward you Equinox. And what I realize is that I have never had a successful RFD before- though I have had about 5 to 10 successful RFVs. That's the page where I can have a more interesting and useful role; I really have no opinions about policy-related questions that will come up in an RFD. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) (Modified)


 * I never saw your response at the time. However: these RFVs and RFDs are not tribunals where we seek to punish people: they are (hopefully) a way to improve the dictionary by removing low-quality material, or merging, or whatever. We have probably fought a lot, Mr Geography, but only because of disagreements on inclusion, nothing strictly personal. I hope we will continue to fight on those grounds :) Equinox ◑ 06:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

subbranch
Rfd-sense "part of a branch". How is this different from sense 1 ("branch that is itself an offshoot of a branch of something")? PUC – 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If a part of a branch isn't an entire branch in its own right, it wouldn't meet the definition of sense 1. I suppose there might be a way to combine the two, but it would have to be worded differently than the current sense 1. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether such “non-branches” would be called subbranches, and even if they would, is there a way to differentiate them from actual smaller branches? In any case, I think one definition line is sufficient (maybe after a bit of rewording). Einstein2 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Lulu
Rfd-sense. We shouldn't list given names as being from Chinese, they would either be anglicised (in which case indistinguishable from the other one listed above on the page) or transliterations (which we don't include for Chinese given names). – wpi (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Unlike the situation in European languages, I've been told that you can use more or less any combination of characters to form a Chinese given name. Therefore just about any combination of two Pinyin syllables would be attestable as a given name. That's a theoretical 400 + 400*400 = 160,400 Chinese given name entries. Plus some people have three-syllable names. I don't think this is worth our time. However, I'm not sure how I feel about excluding one particular language's (&rArr; ethnicity's?) names from inclusion. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

-un-
From :
 * (E.g., as in .) We have both and, both defined as standing for the digit 1, but , which would be the infix, is a redirect to , the prefix. , , , , , , ,  are also redirects to the prefixes. See the RfD for -oct-, per which I suppose , the only infix, should also be redirected. J3133 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

J3133 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support deletion; it should redirect to . 2804:1B0:1901:5FD7:6060:15B5:AFC5:BD81 13:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

DKC2
Donkey Kong sequels. Per Talk:HP1 for Harry Potter. Equinox ◑ 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support deletion for both terms. MedK1 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Inqilābī 23:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

DKC3
Per DKC2 above. Equinox ◑ 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Undelete hurry-furry merger
I brought this up in the Discord and in User talk:DTLHS but it didn't get too far. seemed to agree with me though! I was able to find it in a few spots and I've both seen it used and actually used it in conversations (see the talk page message for more). So yeah, I think the deletion was clearly unfair. There's no reason to think it was coined by Wikipedia or whatever. MedK1 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Undelete - the reasons given for DTLHS's out-of-process deletion were "I bet it came from some dumb Wikipedia list" and "sounds like bullshit". Theknightwho (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Recreate and send to RFV? I see plenty on the Web, not much in GBooks (though their search sucks these days). Equinox ◑ 09:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The deleting administrator seemed to be in a bad mood on the day they were questioned about it and is no longer active, so I dont expect them to share an opinion here, but I agree with those above there's no reason this page should be omitted when cot-caught merger and similar pages are listed. — Soap — 12:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted it. RFV it if needed, but as long as it's attested there doesn't seem to be any RFD-reason to exclude it. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the name of a specific entity, just like the names, , , , and so on. When should we consider such names to have become lexicalized? We are lacking a criterion. --Lambiam 20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

= December 2023 =

mean time
Redundant to mean and time. A westman (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I assume sense 2 applies here. It doesn't seem to match the definition in my Oxford and Collins, where both refer to it being the short form of mean solar time, as referred to in the entry for . DonnanZ (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's an alt form of "meantime" ("The time spent waiting for another event; time in between") which uses no sense of mean that is obvious to a modern speaker. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @A westman Did you mean to nominate both senses? &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep sense 1 (the alt form). Delete sense 2 as SoP to etymology 3, adjective sense 1 ("average"), which is far from being obscure or obsolete. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sense 2 could be kept as . J3133 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, good point. Let's do that. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's actually a third sense that I added recently. It is the synonym of "solar time". newfiles (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

zinc-bearing
SOP? Synonym is probably zinciferous, if we have translationsDenazz (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete bear, etymology 2, sense 8 is a close fit for this use. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 03:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. Inqilābī 20:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

foregoing
Rfd-sense

Etymology 1, the adjective. This seems redundant to Etymology 2, which is the present participle and gerund of forego. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is a recognised adjective in Oxford and Collins, and probably others. The verb is apparently archaic, but it is also a variant of forgo. DonnanZ (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Currently the structure is unclear.
 * Et1 of foregoing is empty, but based on the definition, seems to correspond to Et1 of forego.
 * Et2 of foregoing points vaguely to forego which contains two et's.
 * Presumably User:Chuck_Entz reads Et2 of foregoing as a reference to Et1 of forego, otherwise why suggest the deletion of Et1 of foregoing? So then we would have two et's under foregoing that are both based on et1 of forego ...and nothing for et2 of forego.
 * I am strongly in favour of making the etymologies explicit in the foregoing entry, rather than missing or implicit.
 * I am neutral on the grammatical recognition of the adjectival form.
 * However, I thought a noun form should be added, per Talk:foregoing (sorry if that's off-topic). Or is that already covered by the gerund label?
 * —DIV (1.145.214.72 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC))

unrequited love
SOP: "love that is unrequited". I don't believe "even though reciprocation is desired" should be part of the definition. PUC – 09:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Love here is specifically romantic love (etymology 1, noun sense 2.3). If a mother loves her daughter but the daughter does not love her in return that would not be called unrequited love. Could WT:FRIED apply here? &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did find a couple of counterexamples (unrequited love of a mother for their child: ) but they were picked out from a sea of examples that related to romantic love. I don't know what to make of it from a SOP point of view though. I'd lean keep but not strongly. In the event the term is deleted, translations should be moved to . This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Many of the translations are similarly SOP (imo) and not worth entries. PUC – 20:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring specifically to the translations of the word unrequited in the SOP translations at, which are not all present in the  entry. This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

please restore adult diaper
I believe the adult diaper page should be restored, per the argument I made in August here. More succinctly, if our deletion policy is leading us to delete well-established terms as sum of parts, while continuing to list scarcely-used synonyms for those terms simply because they're not sum of parts, I think the policy needs to be reformed. — Soap — 17:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You created this: entire definition was "Any diaper sized to be worn by adults". I deleted it as "Non-idiomatic sum-of-parts term: please see WT:SOP: adult Adjective: Intended for or restricted to adults rather than children due to size". I think that deletion was sound. Equinox ◑ 09:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A synonym of, I suspect. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep due to it being synonymous and more used than "incontinence diaper". (Maybe make it a THUB?) CitationsFreak (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Saying "Keep" is misleading when you want to change the definition. Maybe "Recreate and rewrite"! Equinox ◑ 14:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think we should give "adult diaper" its definition, and replace "incontinence diaper" with "synonym of adult diaper". CitationsFreak (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as a synonym of . Theknightwho (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Saying "Keep" is misleading when you want to change the definition. Maybe "Recreate and rewrite"! Equinox ◑ 14:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * restoration as a synonym. DonnanZ (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see any difference between and  from a SOP standpoint. "A diaper for adults" vs "a diaper for incontinence". There's no other sense at  that could realistically apply. This, that and the other (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No other sense? Just google "age play" and "adult diaper". <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 This is a good argument for adult diaper's SOPness. Incontinence diapers and role play diapers are both "diapers for adults". The term adult diaper doesn't convey anything about the reason the diapers are worn. It is sense 2 (2.0, if you will) of that is used in both cases. You've convinced me that adult diaper and incontinence diaper should both be deleted, honestly. This, that and the other (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't particularly making an argument to keep. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * restoration as synonym per what This, that and the other's words. MedK1 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. Even though it may be a synonym of incontinence diaper, that doesn’t justify it being an entry in its own right. The words adult and diaper can be linked separately. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 20:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Soap makes a really strong point; nobody ever says incontinence diaper, usually just adult diaper or something euphemistic like protection, adult brief, continence aid or whatever, and Wikt does tend to be more sympathetic towards SOP entries that are widely-accepted specialist or technical terms. But, that said, it does unfortunately fit within WT:SoP; regarding said policy's stated exception "a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers," I cannot confidently say that our readers will not know what adult diaper means and find any use in an entry for it. Compare disposable diaper, which is probably the second-most popular childcare-related term after diaper itself, which noticeably does not have an entry because it is also SoP despite its commonness. Instead we have synonyms like sposie. While I would actually like an entry for this simply because it is the 'correct' (most common) term, Wiktionary's rules simply do not allow for it and IMO I cannot justify a strong enough argument to confidently say that it needs one.. maybe this is ultimately a problem with Wiktionary's rules, IDK 🤷 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. If anything, should be deleted since it's less of a set phrase. Binarystep (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Restore: commonly used, and would be useful to keep (as a synonym). Inqilābī 21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

El Camino Real
WT:NSE requires figurative senses for individual roads, but we do not have any for this one. Previously nominated as a member of cat:en:Named roads. I'm making a separate request for the Spanish term. See also above. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 23:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for background: this was a route in California during the Spanish period connecting the missions in the region. It no longer exists in its old form, but it's symbolic of that period, and roads/highways that cover parts of the same route are often officially designated as part of it to empasize their connection to history. I think it's significant that "El" is capitalized, since it just means "the" in Spanish and it shows that the term isn't understood as the sum of its parts (I wonder if it makes any sense to have a Spanish entry at that capitalization). In fact, the term was probably not used for the modern concept during the mission period (any official route was so designated), but civic boosters in the past century or so resurrected it as a way to promote tourism by connecting their communities to what they portrayed as a romantic bygone era. I suppose it might be analogous to the Silk Road or the Royal Road, which we do have entries for, or the, which we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should compare 🇨🇬 (camino construido a expensas del Estado) with . Oxford, for Queen's highway (published before QEII died), a mass noun by the way, says "the public road network, regarded as being under royal protection". Thus not roads owned by the monarch, although they can use them. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 19:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Purplebackpack. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

quarter-
Not grammatically a prefix. Compare above. Equinox ◑ 12:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe you're right, and we should also look at.
 * There is also Category:English terms prefixed with quarter-. Collins and Oxford don't seem to list as an adjective either, just the noun and verb, but Merriam-Webster does make a brief mention of an adjective. Anyway, delete this. DonnanZ (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll have my eye on if this one gets deleted; but, baby steps. It seems clear to me that "quarter-" doesn't morphologically merge into the following item. Equinox ◑ 18:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * An exception to this is, which is a recognised combining form. DonnanZ (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's keep it brief because this thread is about quarter-, but: recognised by whom, as what? Hope it ain't the "it's not in the dictionary!" argument. An interesting counter-argument for cross- might be: if it's morphological, why must I say cross-state and not crosstate? They are separate words. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Crosstate seems to be a commercial invention, found in New Jersey and South Africa. Back to . DonnanZ (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like some of the words in Category:English terms prefixed with half- (e.g. halfter or halfway) seem to be legit examples of this suffix but in most of those words (e.g. half-finished or half-open) the "half" part is not grammatically a suffix. A W estman  talk   stalk  22:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You can't trust the category though. Casual editors will add and remove things to/from categories based on feelings, not necessarily on grammar. You need to use strong arguments to defend or refute the membership. Equinox ◑ 00:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I meant... A W estman  talk   stalk  00:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inqilābī 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

do want and do not want
SOP. A W estman  talk   stalk  20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. They are not grammatical and would not make sense otherwise: compare . Equinox ◑ 22:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the verb inflections given for are rather suspect. DonnanZ (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because "do not want" has an acronym tied to it. I'd absolutely say "delete" otherwise. We don't keep a special sense at am for cutesy slang like "am smol child" (where the subject is ungrammatically omitted), so I don't think 's reasoning to keep these is good reasoning. MedK1 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Both the etymology and the usex for suggest that the term is an interjection. Is this also the case for ? In that case, it is plausibly a back-formation from do not want.  --Lambiam 12:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: elision of certain words (“[I] do want [this]”) doesn’t, in my view, make these lexical terms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. These do not follow normal grammatical rules/patterns, so I'm not sure how they can be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

because reasons
SOP. We could instead put this meaning in reasons. A W estman  talk   stalk  18:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's actually already given as an example at . (Saying "because X", rather than "because of X", seems to be recent net slang.) Equinox ◑ 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that "for reasons" is also used. So this meaning should be moved. A W estman  talk   stalk  22:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, since it refers to reasons that are "tangential, dubious or unknown", so it's not SOP. Perhaps "for reasons" is also used (I've never heard it), but I don't think other collocations are possible. Theknightwho (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well: "for reasons" and "due to reasons" and "owing to reasons" obey traditional grammar. "Because reasons" doesn't. Anyway, your point about the "tangentiality" is something separate. Equinox ◑ 02:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The disobedience of grammar is already documented at because so I don't see the point of this. A W estman  talk   stalk  02:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * time to take a step back and tone down the snappiness, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you pinged the wrong person... CitationsFreak (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Word0151 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think this is simply a special use of because. In my experience, it's usually said with a pause between "because" and "reasons", with the "reasons" meant to be a humorous replacement for actual reasons that one does not want to elaborate on (or that don't actually exist). So instead of telling my friend I didn't go to the party "Because I didn't feel like it", I might say "Because, reasons...", which is perhaps a way of verbalizing "Because [reasons]". Which is not an SOP phrase and not dependent on the grammar of either word involved. I'm just speculating here, but this may also be the original phrase which gave rise to the Internet slang sense of . Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve heard “because, ” (e.g., “because, politicans”) used in conversations. I’m not certain what constitutes Internet slang (Facebook, TAFKAT, neither of which I use?). --Lambiam 12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that's exactly what this is an example of. "Because cozzie livs" is one I've seen/heard a few times recently where it literally just means "because of cost of living pressures". It wouldn't surprise to hear it dropped into conversation but it still originated at net-speak. 49.188.70.132 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, pragmatics with many analogues. In stream-of-conscious-like colloquial language some conventions of grammar are more frequently broken. Fay Freak (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 🐒 Word0151 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don’t think the elision of words (“because [of some] reasons”) makes the phrase lexical. Another instance is “I cannot [stand this]”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare . J3133 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, we should nuke that one too. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I created it. It is listed as an alternative form of I can’t even at Dictionary.com. See, e.g., “What's the meaning of "I can't (emotes)"” (Reddit: “It means something is extremely funny.”), “What does I can’t. mean? I saw ppl saying that below a meme, is it means laughing out of control?” (HiNative: “In the context of laughing because of a funny meme (I can’t 😭) I can’t means “I can’t with this meme/post” or “this meme/post is way too funny””), “What does I can't with you mean?” (HiNative: ““I can’t with you” in slang terms can mean that dealing with you right now is too much! This may be meant seriously or used sarcastically in a funny way depending on context.”), “What’s with “I can’t with”?” (Reddit: “Yeah, it's a slang phrase. It is a shortening of "I can't deal with ... " but it's taken over as a phrase. It is not technically correct usage but it has become very common.”; Grammarphobia: “You won’t find this sense of “I can’t with” in standard references, but it’s definitely out there. And if enough people use it, we may be seeing it in dictionaries someday.”). I believe it is worthy of an entry. J3133 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep but replace with link to "because", it's an example of "because {noun}" which isn't typically grammatical outside internet slang. 49.188.70.132 03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

twelve hundred
sop? similarly, eleven hundred, thirteen hundred etc. Word0151 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, yes, dumb. Equinox ◑ 04:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think WF has chosen the weakest link in the chain. There are entries for every hundred between two hundred and twenty-three hundred, including twenty hundred (for 24-hour clock), but no ten hundred for the 24-hour clock. It's pointless deleting this one without removing the others. DonnanZ (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all the number senses . WT:CFI (established by this formal vote) is clear on this: "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI." The numerical use of eleven hundred, twelve hundred, and so on is already explained in "Appendix:English numerals". However, I think the 24-hour clock sense can stay. I am undecided on the year sense (leaning towards delete) as this is an infinite series—we should discuss this further. It may be better to explain this in a new appendix under "Appendix:Time". — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Convert all but the clock sense to an &lit sense. Or maybe delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Entry for hundred already includes the clock sense. Why do you think these should be kept? Word0151 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought the sense said something different. Delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the. 24-hour clock sense is already explained at hundred, delete the entire entry and all similar entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the lot. DonnanZ (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all, useless. PUC – 20:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

non-English: Undeletion of "not English" sense
Deleted sense:
 * Not English; not from England; not of English ancestry or origin.

Sense in entry:
 * Not in the English language.

Compare, which was kept, as pointed out recently. If not as a full sense, then at least as , indicating that non-English does not only refer to language. J3133 (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You can have non-English food, for example. It was a silly RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * per above. MedK1 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * it means “not” and “English” in all senses of that word, making it SoP. Delete the entire entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus for deletion of the entry itself, I assume you would not oppose adding this sense instead of having the entry incomplete. J3133 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * in that scenario I abstain because I do not support such entries on the whole. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all of these non- entries. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * nonEnglish is a non-runner, in British English at least. DonnanZ (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously both senses should live or die together. I'd rather see them both die; the word is totally transparent. This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Question: how does the idiomacity of this term (or lack thereof) relate to that of un-English? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 23:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Binarystep (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Broadly speaking, I would like to say Delete as limitless SoP pattern all "non-X" that mean "non- + X". This is why we have an entry for the prefix "non", so we don't have to individually list a million different compounds that all mean exactly what it says there. However, a fly in the ointment is that I do feel that we should keep, let's say, "non-runner" (at least in horseracing and vehicle senses) even though strictly this only means "non + runner", but I cannot exactly explain why, at least not at the moment. Mihia (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as SoP, and delete the existing entry on the same grounds. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

December solstice
SoP. The solstice that's in December * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as part of a set. The explanation is good enough; from personal experience a December solstice is more preferable in NZ than in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the rest of the set not SoP too? * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

ex-member
To join the other ex- terms Denazz (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It has two translations. Weak keep. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. German translation, like the English by Dan Polansky, is unidiomatic. “ehemaliges Mitglied” is preferred German. Fay Freak (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: "other ex- terms". Which ones? Are we deleting things like too? MedK1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, ex-wife and ex-slave I reckoned to designate particular status. Proliferation is of concern with the more abstract terms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 13:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inqilābī 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

tacit collusion
SOP: a collusion that is tacit. PUC – 11:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Author purposefully misunderstands CFI. As on PUC’s talk page, I’ve investigated and found that there are no legal peculiarities to the term. Fay Freak (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What shall be your view on the creation of tacit consent Word0151 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: ultimately it’s a form of collusion which is tacit, so it’s SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - specialised term in economics. It refers to cartel-like behaviour where prices are fixed through implicit agreement, as opposed to a formal (hidden) agreement. Theknightwho (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have given this way too much thought, and I think we should keep this as the economic equivalent of, listed as precedent under WT:PRIOR. I was actually going to vote delete: This is clearly a set term of art in economics, but there is no real additional meaning imbued by the phrase beyond the literal meaning of the two terms (other than that it needs to be for the purposes of maximising profit - but to what other ends do businesses collude?). I searched for a plausible synonym, "unspoken collusion", and most of what I found was articles written for the lay reader, written by authors who clearly understand tacit collusion to be the "real" term. But seeing seafloor spreading convinced me we should keep this too. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One cannot gather the meaning of seafloor spreading from either seafloor or spreading, so clearly it is not SoP. But tacit collusion is defined as "A form of collusion in which colluding parties do not explicitly share information with one another, achieving a collusive arrangement by an unspoken understanding". In other words, it is a form of collusion that is tacit. The way I see it, defining the term with many words does not in itself make it less SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean it makes senses to write articles about it. But everything interesting on it is encyclopedic information. This, that and the other’s simile goes beyond what my creativity tolerates. Of course there are specialised terms that are SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't one? I can't imagine what else could refer to other than the expansion ( verb sense 6) of the seafloor. (Admittedly it could refer to spreading the seafloor with some substance as one spreads bread with peanut butter, but that is rather far-fetched from a practical standpoint.) And yet, it is a term of art in geology, so it seems we are keeping it solely on that basis - to allow our readers to benefit from the additional info and context provided in the definition line. This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * oh, I misunderstood you—I thought you meant seafloor spreading was some sort of economic term. If not it may warrant further examination. But it doesn’t change the point that I think tacit collusion is SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
This seems wholly SOP. A W estman  talk   stalk  13:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: and  are already separate phrase book entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I feel about this one, but I just want to point out that there was a previous RFD discussion and I think this one should take the arguments made then into account. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is it is being used as a translation hub. It maybe should be kept for that reason, though most of the translations are red links. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost all the translations are SOP! Word0151 (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, it's SOP but phrasebook entries don't fall under typical SOP rules. AG202 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per Sgconlaw. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 02:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is more than a regular SOP, it's a SOPP (sum of phrasebook parts). This, that and the other (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

apple turnover
SOP imo: compare, , , etc. The Dutch and German translations don't qualify for THUB. PUC – 23:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have only come across (and eaten) apple turnovers, and I haven't heard of other types. DonnanZ (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Isotope names
The naming of nuclides is very systematic (element name + mass number, hyphenated), and there is nothing here but borderline WT:SOP mixed with encyclopedic content. The table of nuclides has over 3000 known entries; for example, the known isotopes of uranium range in mass number from 214 to 242 (cf. Isotopes of uranium). An entry consisting of chemical symbol + mass number is also included. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll need help tagging these. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * While these are formulaic, they are not SoP. means "argon with a mass number of 36", and the "with a mass number of" meaning is not communicated by any of its parts. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 01:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

run
Rfd-sense: " To achieve or perform by running or as if by running." seems at best a specialization of " To compete in a race." If it is supposed to be a figurative sense, then it needs a figurative usex, and with a figurative definition not conflated with a literal one. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

What is probably needed is a cleanup of the entire English verb section with attention to things like the correspondence of trans/intrans labels to usage examples, placement of parentheses around objects in intransitive definitions as well as redundancy. DCDuring (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

queen bee
Rfd-sense: stem cell. Is this really such a stock metaphor that it needs its own sense? This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or send to RFV. If the term really is used this way (outside of explanations of the metaphor), we should have a sense for it. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

neutron radiation
Obvious SOP. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Word0000 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete no reason for keeping given, looks SOP to me too. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 05:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the accepted term for a type of radiation; compare ionizing radiation, alpha radiation, nuclear radiation etc. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

tuna salad
Wonderfool's contribution. Possible trolling. We don't care how WF makes their tuna salad.Denazz (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently the mayonnaise is an essential component, making it non-SOP... This, that and the other (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep on the grounds that a typical leafy green salad with slices of tuna added in would not meet the definition of a "tuna salad". <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 19:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Asking around, mayonnaise and celery sound like they're considered key components in tuna salads. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 14:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is unfortunate that it is called by tuna, giving the impression of possible SOPness, and not something else, which garden salad doesn’t since it is difficult to argue it being but a salad made from the garden. If walk into to a supermarket then it may be that there are only two kinds of generic off-brand salads: garden salad and tuna salads. There is also something peculiar about mayonnaise always being comprehended under the label. Fay Freak (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you know about c:Category:Salads with tuna vs c:Category:Tuna salad? I hardly agree about their categorization however and that tuna salad is “very specific”. This one is a tuna salad, or as I find standardized in the stores. Fay Freak (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay guys. True story, no lie: I made a great salad last night, a delicious one, truly: I put in celery, cucumber, tomatoes, rocket, tuna, sunflower oil, cider vinegar, and various herbs with which I will not bore you. I really made (and ate) that salad. Was it a "tuna salad"? According to the current tuna salad entry, no: and if that entry is correct, then a "salad that has tuna in it" is not a "tuna salad" and thus the entry should be kept as idiomatic and confusing. On the other hand, if my salad I made last night was a tuna salad, then the entry is wrong, and we should correct it, and if the corrected entry then says "any salad with tuna in it" then it fails RFD. I am doing the praxis. Equinox ◑ 08:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the term may have two meanings, a particular salad, directly competing with garden salad as described, and a “very specific” paste of tuna with mayonnaise and stuff, in tins, that’s why image results weird me out: Pasta Thunfisch-Salat it is written. Fay Freak (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the first couple pages of Google News, it seems that tuna salad is what Wonderfool has it as, and not Equinox's salad, yummy as it may be. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See this article for more info. Word0151 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to mix things up a bit: one might make a fruit salad with prickly pears, a.k.a. tunas. Do people call such a thing a "tuna salad"? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do people really call prickly pears "tunas" outside of a dictionary? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep as idiomatic. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 01:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

occasional furniture
Apparently I prematurely archived the RFD of this term. It was resolved as far as it concerned, but not this entry. See Talk:occasional furniture. This, that and the other (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody has voted delete so far, may as well keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

biological parent
SOP: sense 3 +. Compare, , , etc.; cf. also. PUC – 14:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, , and so on. But note (lemming test) that Collins has entries for most of these, e.g. biological parent, and so do Merriam–Webster and several medical dictionaries. --Lambiam 20:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good example of why I'm opposed to making WT:Lemmings a hard-and-fast rule and to giving an automatic pass to entries that meet the criterion. We can redirect the most common collocations to if necessary (or all of them, I don't care). PUC – 21:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I recall hearing "biological parent" used as a put-down by offspring who considered a parent to be distant or uncaring, even if it is the only parent (i.e. the birth parent is also the parenting parent, and there are no adoptive or step-parents involved). <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And that’s more the tone or particular stress and possibly context that puts down, with the same denotation, not like meaning three different things “depending on whether you sneer in a certain way when you use it.” Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

biological mother
Same. PUC – 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

biological father
Same. PUC – 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete, we have good coverage without it. Also it’s wrong – did you know that one can have two biological mothers by ? Only to illustrate the SOP nature. Fay Freak (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete all. Inqilābī 21:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

= January 2024 =

Veda bread
brand of bread. Fond of sanddunes (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don’t see a different, more generic definition, either. Fay Freak (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Word0151 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your rationale? Equinox ◑ 06:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - I suspect this has lexicalised beyond the brand, as I can see websites with recipes (including the BBC): e.g., , . Theknightwho (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That I specifically considered, it as with any kind of brand on recipe sites. Your BBC example is naught as people when learning or having learnt and exerting themselves to cook or bake attempt to imitate industrial products. Say how to make Bounty or Knoppers at home. I admit I haven’t followed the brand criteria exactly to explain why we should or should not have Twix, which we have. But in the present form, with bread added and SOP definition and no suggestives cites I do not respect the entry.
 * I see another problem here, we would create entries for popular fashion items that have trended strongly enough to beget reps, like Off-White belt, Gucci loafers, big red boot, shark hoodie, which naturally in most real-world examples, counting those in Asia too at least, are fake—genericized? Be it that at the same time many of these items deserve encyclopedia entries, even if I think more specific wikis are better suited to catch the heat. Fay Freak (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It obviously has nothing to do with, the brand name appears to be coincidental. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. It may be a brand, but different bakeries also have their own name on the wrapper. Expatriates from Northern Ireland can buy it online. I'm obviously missing something here in Middlesex. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it meets WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It should meet WT:BRAND in Northern Ireland at least, so it could be localised, not universal. Some quotes are needed, something for someone who specialises in digging on the Internet to do. I did find references to "some Veda bread" and "a loaf of Veda bread". DonnanZ (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This page has many occurrences of veda with a lower-case v (“I remember growing up on veda, toasted with cheese”; “have to wait till I go back home to get my veda”; “Someone sent me a recipe for a wee malt loaf but nowhere near like veda.”) --Lambiam 12:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some people are lazy with capital letters, "Veda" and "Veda bread" can also be found in that link. DonnanZ (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD failed Denazz (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reopening; the WT:BRAND argument is persuasive but needs more investigating. Perhaps we could do with an entry at and/or  then delete this as SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

morel
Rfd-redundant: "Any of several edible mushrooms", versus the taxonomically-specific second sense. Tagged by but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely redundant: "the common morel or yellow morel" is . Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a sense to morel to include plants of general Solanum, Atropa, and Aralia. It is probably "archaic", if not obsolete, still occurring in dictionaries, usually in compounds (great morel and petit morel).
 * I don't think there are genera of mushrooms called morels other than the of genus Morchella. I have yet to find recent instances of the sometimes toxic false morels of genus Gyromitra being called morels, except in the collocation "collected as morels", probably an example of the role of evolution in language. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete/combine. Fay Freak (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

number homophone
Sum of parts. It was added to the WT:REE request list, and uhh let's say that a recent user has been loudly begging for creations lately; thus it got created. But it is really nothing more than number + homophone. Equinox ◑ 06:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 01:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Christmassed out, Christmassed-out
A Wonderfool entry, ostensibly an adjective. However, as noted at Tea_room, this is SOP with a common and productive sense of out. The Christmas part seems to be a verb ≈"to subject to Christmas"(?), because you can also be Christmassed to death (rather than out), if things happen which ', and equally you can be meetinged to death if people, or you can be ', turkeyed out, turkeyed to death, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like an entry for turkeyed out... I have an awesome pun waiting for thatDenazz (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To go with chickened out? DonnanZ (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not quite as funny as thaat Denazz (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 17:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

two-move checkmate
SoP. The fact that it's one specific mate is not part of the definition - if a chess variant had a different mating position reachable in two moves you would call it a "two-move checkmate" as well. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between any old two-move checkmate (indefinite article) and the two-move checkmate. PUC – 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not seeing that - if there's only one position in the entire game that is a two-move checkmate then it becomes the two-move checkmate. That still means no more than two-move checkmate IMO. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 05:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

pronoun
Rfd-sense "(LGBT, chiefly in the plural) Any of the pronouns by which a person prefers to be described, typically reflecting gender identity", with the usex "My pronouns are she/her" and cites like "students I interviewed used nonbinary pronouns for themselves". This seems to just be sense 1; you can construct analogous sentences using "name": "My name is River", "some non-binary people use gendered names", etc, but it doesn't mean "name" has a new sense "The name by which a person prefers to be described, typically reflecting gender identity". On the talk page, Equinox notes that '"My pronouns" means "the ones I want others to use about me" and not (say) "ones I have coined" or "ones that I use to describe other people"', but the same can be said of name: "My name" usually means "the one I want others to use for me" and not "the one I invented" or "the one I use to describe someone else", except in the same specific contexts in which pronoun could also mean those things. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Somebody might say "I don't have pronouns" or "I don't need pronouns", meaning the LGBT thing, and not the traditional kind. Equinox ◑ 00:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is true, but IMO if we want a sense to cover things like "I don't use pronouns!", it needs different cites, because IMO the current cites ("my pronouns are she/her" etc) are sense 1. I'm also unsure about considering "I don't use pronouns!"-type use to make a different sense, because such people also say things like "I don't have a gender, I'm a woman", and (especially a decade or two ago) "I don't have an orientation, I'm straight/normal", or think of other people but not themselves as having race, or think they don't have an accent, which seems to me like a grey area between lexical and extralexical. OTOH I concede that we do seem to cover such use of accent as a separate sense, and there may indeed be enough otherwise-perplexing uses to support a "transgender gender(s)" sense at gender (e.g. the surprisingly common phrase "women and the gender community", which otherwise makes piss-all sense), and to support a "nonwhite race(s)" sense at race and racial (as in race music, racial spoils), so meh. I'm not strongly opposed to having a sense like this... I just think it sure seems an awful lot like just sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about entirely deleting the sense, but I don't like the label of "LGBT" on it. It makes it sound like it's solely LGBT folks that use them, when it's far from not. I'm not sure how to rephrase the labeling though. MW currently has "the third person personal pronouns (such as he/him, she/her, and they/them) that a person goes by", which we might want to emulate in our own definition. AG202 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the proposed removal of the LGBT label. Cremastra (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It should have some kind of label. It's overwhelmingly used by LGBT folx and not so much by others. Equinox ◑ 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've heard this terms before in uses like "The Bible doesn't use pronouns, liberal snowflakes!", so it feels weird calling it an LGBTQIA2S+ thing. Maybe it's a different usage, who knows? CitationsFreak (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel like any label is needed? Maybe "originally LGBT", but even that is pushing it, and I can't verify it. And again, it's not an LGBT-only thing, I've seen many many many folks outside of the community use it. We can just follow MW. AG202 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just removed the label. Kept the cat though, as it feels right in this context. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

freak
Senses 2 and 3: "A hippie" and "a drug addict".

These types of people would have been seen as "freaks" (as in "an oddball") in 1969. As such, this is a dupe of sense 4. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Would labelling them "dated" do the trick? DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, as they would have been seen as "freaks" (as in oddballs) in 1969. (The OED lists this term as being coined in 1890, and these two groups were seen as the counterculture in the late '60s.)

However, the same source does list the hippie sense as its own thing. So, mayyybe it fits in? Feels a bit iffy to say that, since it is based on the same usage as "freak" as our sense 4, and any reclamation would be the same as reclamation of any insult. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I would put "hippie" and "drug addict" as subsenses under sense 4, or perhaps combined into one subsense, possibly with a label such as "now largely historical", or explicit mention of the 1960s, if it's considered that these senses are largely confined to the 1960s or references to the 1960s. Shocking to think of the 1960s as "historical"! Mihia (talk)
 * Perhaps "especially in reference to 1960s counterculture" would be an appropriate label. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

aerophobia
Rfd-sense: (rare, by extension or possibly from acrophobia) Fear of heights

This might be just a typo. It's wrong anyway. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hekaheka If you're saying this word is not used to mean a fear of heights, wouldn't this fit better at RFV? &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 01:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

= February 2024 =

hobosexual
Sense 2, defined as "Punning on  (as a synonym of hobo).". That is not a real definition. The three citations do not appear to have the same meaning. Equinox ◑ 12:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I have encountered this word, it means a person only engaging in relations with a sexual element in order to avoid homelessness. Which for the first quote “a man who can only get excited by women who are real tramps” could mean that you yourself have to be kind of a tramp to accept such a boyfriend, otherwise too unorderly (sense 3) to care for himself; as with most sexualities the term is then used for the other party too, as by its formation the term implies to contain what one is attracted to. The definitions are unchanged since 2011’s creation by Doremítzwr, about whose reliability I have no information. Fay Freak (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Regarding sense 1: that also seems to be a pun (on "tramp" meaning a slutty woman) and does not refer to "tramp" in the hobo sense. Equinox ◑ 12:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also. Where we see again that one can employ a word in multiple of its assumed meanings simultaneously. But only by the peripheral understanding of it that serial monogamy is promiscuity, assuming our definition of tramp correct.
 * The psychological reality can of course be personality traits of a woman to make her inclined to any described livelihoods but various internalized expectations prevent her. For example if someone is borderliner (almost 2 % of the general population) they seek attachment to other people fast while simultaneously disengaging up to the point of homelessness due to self-devaluation. Or if someone has dependent personality disorder (almost 1 %, especially in women) after a breakup they will enter the next nightclub and anyone hooking up will be the boyfriend henceforth—which should sound ridiculous to sound people; people generally have a vague idea of the prevalent determination of life by irrational behaviours. But punning is of course no clear concept yet and thus the creator likely implemented more ideas in his definitions than users of the word could know or imply about psychological or behavorial reality. Fay Freak (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 👍 Word0151 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

smoke-free zone
SOP SpAway (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it mean the same thing as ? Or is it just a zone where there's no smoke? PUC – 20:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The current definition is An area or environment which is smoke-free., which is obvious SOP. Delete now, and if it can be proven to have a more specific non-SOP meaning it can be recreated. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 05:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD failed Lfellet (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

digital signal processing
The processing of digital signals. I suspect this is not the only SOP derived term at processing. This, that and the other (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 05:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

alt.
Prefix: "Indicates that the following string is a newsgroup." This is a total misunderstanding. 1. It's not an English prefix but a fragment like biz or www in domains. 2. The dot is a separator, so alt.suicide.holiday is not a prefix alt. on top of suicide.holiday, but rather the three components alt, suicide, holiday all separated by dots. 3. It doesn't mean "newsgroup in general" but a specific hierarchy (alternative groups), as opposed to (say) comp for computing groups and rec for recreation/hobbies. All of those are newsgroups; alt is just one subhierarchy of newsgroups; so the etymology is wrong too. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * . Equinox ◑ 11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * . What I was referring to when I wrote that was uses of the separator to refer to fictitious newsgroups. As such "alt.suicide.holiday" would not fall under what the definition was intended to cover, but "post this on alt.stupid.questions!" would. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Understandable misapprehension by Equinox based on the old definition, but as it stands, it seems worth keeping. Similar to or , neither of which we seem to have. This, that and the other (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. It seems similar to how we have and  due to the fact that countries aren't literally limited or incorporated companies. Perhaps we could try to generalise this phenomenon at PLC/plc and Inc/inc? I've seen Warwick PLC used to refer to the University of Warwick, for example. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

telegraph uniform
Like hump someone's brains out above: spotted this in Category:English citations of undefined terms, and it's possible to find more cites, but isn't this SOP, the uniform of one who delivers/operates telegraphs, like a, , ? The fact that you need extra-lexical cultural/historical knowledge to know what items of clothing are part of any "telegraph uniform" or "nursing uniform" or "lieutenant's uniform" etc in a given time and place seems, well, extra-lexical. What am I missing? - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I can understand the lack of will to create telegraph uniform, the term is so 19th century. There are very few derived terms listed at (tango uniform doesn't count). On the other hand, there are plenty of derived terms for, many are red links, but this one never occurred to anybody. The best I can suggest is adding the two citations/quotations to both  and . DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

&#45;faction
We've had this entry since 2005, but I dispute that it is really an English suffix.

Consider the list of derived terms. None of the stems to which -faction is added are English words:

I suppose you could make an argument that it overrides an -id suffix:

But the morphological process took place in Latin, not English.

Also counting in favour of deletion is the fact that Cat:English terms suffixed with -faction is empty, meaning that no-one has found it necessary to write en in an etymology. This, that and the other (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this seems like a relic of the days when we had English entries for this kind of thing just to collect in one place the reflexes of the cases where it was applied in Latin (we used to have sug- as an English prefix, ostensibly used in suggest). If there are not instances of it being applied in English, then delete. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You're right in saying it's not a suffix. The Oxford Dictionary of English calls it a combining form, from 🇨🇬, in nouns of action derived from verbs ending in -fy (such as liquefaction from liquefy). I think it's keepable somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So we could add the likes of "equivalent to en to, to populate the empty category. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out the suffixes, , , and /; all probably derive from . With -fy verbs  becomes  as a noun, so the use of  is by no means universal for -fy verbs. DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Having through about this some more, it seems that the ending -efy consistently gives rise to -efaction rather than *-efication:
 * But my point still stands about this being a grammatical process in Latin, not English. In support of this argument are new formations in -efy:
 * (rather )
 * (rather )
 * This, that and the other (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't we already have entries for affixes (or affix variants) that are (at least mostly) only found in loanwords listed as non-productive? I don't see how this is any different from those. 2601:242:4100:22C0:FDAB:807C:167A:56D 18:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, on the basis of English terms such as, , , etc. which don't exist in Latin Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Ioaxxere, many of these words were coined in English, even if on a Latin model, so it is a productive element and not just a fossil in loan words. kwami (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't we already have entries for affixes (or affix variants) that are (at least mostly) only found in loanwords listed as non-productive? I don't see how this is any different from those. 2601:242:4100:22C0:FDAB:807C:167A:56D 18:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, on the basis of English terms such as, , , etc. which don't exist in Latin Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Ioaxxere, many of these words were coined in English, even if on a Latin model, so it is a productive element and not just a fossil in loan words. kwami (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

hadeocentric orbit
Claimed as THUBs, but all translations are word-for-word, either directly ("heliocentric" + "orbit") or indirectly ("heliocentric" = "with Sun at the center, around the Sun" + "orbit"). &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 15:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete all, SOP. PUC – 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Ultimateria (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Mirinda
a brand of fruit-flavored soft drink

Fails WT:BRAND. Theknightwho (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In English yes, in Spanish and Portuguese meseems not. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WT:BRAND unless someone can find uses meeting its requirements. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (ta&middot;co) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

bank loan
This is SOP.
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I bet bankloan is attestable (I'm not the sucker who's gonna create it...) P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

animal
Rfd-sense adjective: Of or relating to animals.

This seems like a very straightforward attributive use. Theknightwho (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per the etymology, which also accords with older usage I've seen. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the OED, quotations (e.g., “both animal and vegetal remains”; “a form either wholly or partially animal. (who never has human form)”), and derived terms (e.g., ; cf. semihuman). J3133 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : I am not sure if you looked in the OED adjective entry; if not, do you still propose this deletion? J3133 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @J3133 That still seems attributive to me (despite the use of ), but I don't mind if we keep it. The etymology argument is probably more convincing, under WT:JIFFY. Theknightwho (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see how “wholly or partially animal” or “half or partly animal” is attributive, because it does not “modif[y] another noun attributively”. J3133 (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @J3133 That just seems like a noun use: "a form either wholly or partially man" sounds odd but not ungrammatical. Theknightwho (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added two more quotations: “I’m no longer human or animal or vegetal” and “though undoubtedly human, it was very animal in its instincts and ways”. The former uses three adjectives; the latter, with a modifier, clearly shows that this is an adjective. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @J3133 I find the second quotation more convincing, but sure - this does seem to be an adjective in some uses. Theknightwho (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept. Inqilābī 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

time perception
SOP. PUC – 23:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, a redundant circumscription without concept. An actual term is . Fay Freak (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why delete when there is a Wikipedia article with the exact title? newfiles (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also a Wikipedia article with the title ""... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been altered to a synonym, so is there some rule which says that we delete synonyms? DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes: WT:SOP PUC – 11:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it had been treated as a synonym in the first place, perhaps you would have left it alone. DonnanZ (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I suspect some uses of this might pass WT:PRIOR, given it's something that's frequently studied. Theknightwho (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It serves as a useful and convenient synonym and has a wide coverage in the world of philosophy. newfiles (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as a synonym. Inqilābī 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

global caliphate
Seems SoP: merely a caliphate spanning the globe. Equinox ◑ 12:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not so sure. "Caliphate" simply means a state led by a caliph; if this were sum-of-parts, it would simply mean a caliphate encompassing the entire world.  However, I believe the phrase is used to refer to a specific version of an Islamic theocracy, in which a particular version of Islamic law would be imposed on everyone.  This would be more strict than the historical states that called themselves caliphates, and in fact while the title of caliph implies that one is the successor of Mohammed, it doesn't necessarily require theocratic rule, much less the specific vision of a particular, contemporary extremist movement.  After all, the Ottoman sultans claimed the title for several centuries, and didn't operate as a strict theocracy!  This seems to me to be more along the lines of "New World Order", which doesn't mean just "any global order that happens to be new", but which has specific social or cultural meaning that can't be intuited from the words alone.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "American caliphate" exists, meaning something along the lines of "America, but with Sharia law". I suspect that we're missing a def at caliphate. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. Inqilābī 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

boo
This is my first nomination, so I hope I'm doing this right! Sense 2: "Used ironically in a situation where one had the opportunity to scare someone by speaking suddenly." I don't understand how this is a definition of "boo". Do words normally have distinct definitions when used ironically? I'm also having trouble visualizing this use, which seems rather nonsensical to me. Maybe I could just have deleted this as obvious nonsense, but I wasn't sure that would have been appropriate, and I thought I'd better seek feedback first. Also, and I don't know whether this should (or needs to be) discussed here or in a separate nomination, but I'm not sure that sense 1 needs the words "especially a child". Perhaps children are more likely to shout, "boo!" or be shouted "boo!" at than adults, but I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the definition of the word. And could I just have "been bold" and deleted one or both of these things? Most of my contributions on Wiktionary have been new definitions, rewording, or comments on talk pages, so I'm a little unsure of myself. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. “to scare someone by speaking suddenly” seems oddly specific. And every kind of child-directed speech can be used ironically. So this definition in question is at least superfluous in combination with the other questionable definition, the claim of the target of scaring being a child, so something must be deleted.
 * To get the real picture, scaring is not to be taken literal anyway. In after Panksepp we assume rough-and-tumble  as a basic emotional system positive in contrast to, and by saying boo one targets the former primary-process system in order to train or maintain social interaction as a function of the age, i.e. booing is always “ironical”, so one should combine definitions with the line that the interjection is used to playfully introduce a sudden scare. The definition in the words “loud exclamation intended to scare” took itself way too serious. Fay Freak (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have to disagree with that last point. Shouting "boo!" when one jumps out at someone isn't necessarily ironic.  A bit camp, perhaps, but that's only because our notion of what's scary—for adults—has changed, likely due to familiarity with horror movies and similar tropes.  I don't think that playfulness or social interaction theory form any part of the definition of "boo".  The definition is what it means, not what interpersonal dynamics might justify its use.  "A loud exclamation intended to scare" is at least simple, straightforward, and accurate, whether or not grown-ups regard it as childish compared with a jump scare by an axe-wielding maniac.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have witnessed this. For example, someone is (apparently) alone in a room, and you draw attention to your presence by (quietly saying, not shouting) "boo". It's humorous. Equinox ◑ 11:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it can't be used ironically or humorously. I'm asking whether that constitutes a separate definition of it.  It seems to be "the same meaning, but used ironically".  Is it normal to have a separate definition for anything that can be said ironically or humorously?  Perhaps the visualization issue is due to the wording: in your example, the presence of the person saying "boo" is either known, but unannounced until the person speaks, in which case there was no "opportunity to scare someone"; or the person's presence was not known, in which case quietly saying "boo" will still scare (or at least startle) someone, and therefore not be ironic.  But either way, I don't think that ironic use of a word or phrase constitutes a separate definition.  Is it normally treated as one in Wiktionary, or is there something special about this word?  P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * With no further feedback, I've gone ahead and deleted the second sense, and done a little trimming of the other two, as indicated above, and also deleting the words "or many members" as an alternative to "a member" in sense 3; I think readers will assume that what one person in a crowd can do, several can also do. Also slight rewording of the first: it seems a little extreme to refer to someone frightened by a concealed person shouting "boo" as a "victim".  P Aculeius (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

will to power, will-to-power
should not exist Word0151 (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Why? You are challenging a well-known and famous philosophical term. You must provide an excellent reason. Equinox ◑ 04:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * will to power is an SOP actually, just like will to truth, will to stupidity. Nietzsche used this 'will to' in a similar manner as other "will to"s. Do we create the entry- will to truth to show what truth means to Nietzsche? What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. -Nietzsche. What power means here, why create an entry for? Word0151 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and yes, create the others. This term isn't SOP because it doesn't make sense in English. It's a calque of a German expression, which may well have been SOP in the original context, but certainly doesn't retain it's SOPness in English, where the grammatical structure is quite opaque. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does it not make sense in English? To be succinct, will to power just means will to power. All other contemplations, what power means etc., are of no dictionary value, and doesn't add much. Word0151 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If I want to go shopping, that isn't "will to shopping" in English. This phrase is special. Equinox ◑ 06:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * => Do you mean that since the phrase "will to" is not used colloquially, we should include it? Not an impressive refutation. => The phrase is special for sure and has a connotation, but what is its value here? Look at the superficial definitions given there, do they make sense. I have tried changing them. keep if my edit is not reverted 🦇 Word0151 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of shallow idiosyncrasies in philosophy whose presence in any lexicon one may be uneasy about (language game), yet this has caught on enough to require explanation and hence a dictionary entry, though our explanation will stay imperfect. Fay Freak (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not the sum of its parts, because you can't determine the meaning from the words alone. I know what each of those words means, but not what they mean together.  Does it mean "the will to obtain power"?  "Will that becomes power"?  "The will to use power"?  You can't tell what this phrase means simply by understanding the individual words—unlike, say, "go over there" or "five fat turkeys".  Those are the sum of their parts.  Without a definition, and perhaps the quote in context, nobody would know what "will to power" means, which is why it needs an entry in Wiktionary.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. PUC – 19:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to close as keep, but I noticed the nominator drastically changed the definition. I am tempted to just revert the change, but I know nothing of this kind of philosophy so was hoping for a second look. This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @PUC If you don't know what i did, why revert? I can give you reasoning for my edit though: the earlier definitions were really absurd with irrelevant expositions, i used the one which is in many dictionaries and also in the book Antichrist by Nietzsche himself. The definitions should be simple and in a fundamental manner without some opinion pieces. Word0151 (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Magnificat and Nunc dimittis
SOP. Both the terms and  can refer to the canticle itself or to a musical setting of the canticle. While musical settings of the two canticles are frequently published together, as they are performed together in Anglican evensong (or evening prayer) liturgies, that fact doesn't give the term any meaning beyond its component parts. Graham11 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - this refers to a specific musical setting with two parts, in the same way refers to a specific setting in a musical context. What distinguishes it is that they're written as one unit: you can't take a Magnificat from one setting and a Nunc dimittis from another and call them a "Magnificat and Nunc dimittis" with the meaning of "a musical setting of the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis". Theknightwho (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

racial segregation
SOP. PUC – 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep as thub. Jberkel 09:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But which translations? PUC – 10:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, no translations seem to qualify for THUB. This, that and the other (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, to the extent that this references a systemic policy, rather than an incidental occurrence. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

diriment impediment
SOP? Denazz (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Only if we agree that diriment is an adjective. Doesn't sound like one. Merriam-Webster has an entry for "diriment impediment" but no entry for "diriment" alone. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think would pass RFV as an adjective per se. I found some uses of it in a predicative position: affinity is 'diriment ' of marriage" and "The impediment is diriment only if...". This, that and the other (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on whether "diriment impediment" or "diriment" existed first. If the adjective "diriment" is derived from the expression "diriment impediment", then "diriment impediment" should be kept per WT:JIFFY, isn't it? --Saviourofthe (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

polynomial time
Rfd-sense: adjective. Seems just to exist to house the translations Denazz (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * True. The occurrences in question are parts of compounds like the German translation given. So delete. The translation table can be moved to the noun section, for even though we voted to delete attributive-form sections, we did not take the same decision specifically for their translation sections. Some people in the vote opposed (6.: Ketiga123 only formulated it) deletion of the hyphenated-form entries for the translations’ sake. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

= March 2024 =

disease-modifying drug
SOP: disease-modifying + drug. Einstein2 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as we have as a single entry. Examples with "drug" can be added there. Equinox ◑ 01:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Equinox. PUC – 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. Inqilābī 19:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

come to a halt
A halt is a cessation of movement or other activity, so this seems like a sum-of-parts entry. The definition is “come to a standstill,” and standstill provides halt as synonymous. Furthermore, all variations of come/bring/grind/screech to a halt/stop/standstill are used, and they all mean the thing they're expected to mean (grind here in the sense of “to move with much difficulty or friction”). Hythonia (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is certainly a common collocation, but so are "come to a stop" and "make a halt". Equinox ◑ 03:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Inqilābī 19:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

takes (something) to
In this form, we probs don't want it. Other cases including placeholder "something" can be found at Todo/phrases not linked to from components/something. Denazz (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're going to delete it we should also delete taking (something) to, took (something) to, and taken (something) to, no? Vergencescattered (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, part of me supports having "something"s used as placeholders to be in parentheses, as in "drink (something) like lemonade" or "spring to (someone's) defense". CitationsFreak (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

th sound
I feel like allowing this might encourage useless entries like r sound and whatever. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * is SOP too. I wondered whether it could be a defence, but either entry should be deleted.
 * The encouragement is limited by the capabilities of the vocal tract, to which alphabetic writing systems and hence actually used terminology are limited, so one could keep the terms in consideration of incoming search traffic; is their presence good for children learning phonetics? is actually used German and another dictionary has ch-Laut which illustrates how encyclopedic the definition is: if it is both ⟨ç⟩ and ⟨χ⟩ it is on two distinct articulation places, palatal and uvular: there isn’t any definition other than “what, i.e. the phoneme or quasi-phoneme (according to functional load), the graphic sequence typically stands for (in the language we talk), because man doesn’t know language-independent phonetic terminology”.
 * So you are right that the analogy is strong. It is not really reasonable to assume idiomaticity for one such combination, like th sound, only because it more often makes sense than crazier Verlegenheitswörter. One should consider that not everything that language users answer in a questionnaire is a valid designation; elicited terms should have to be separated as invalid vocabulary, to some degree. Fay Freak (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "th" can have different sounds - ð and θ in the IPA. DonnanZ (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

-tive
this doesn't seem to meet criteria for inclusion 2601:242:4100:22C0:AD:D9D8:8F5E:4926 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * More discussion needed. On the surface, it appears that -tive along with -ative, -itive, -utive etc. are just specific types of the -ive suffix. Useful for statistics or other language analyses, e.g. Category:"words ending in 'utive'", but I'm not sure a definition for each is necessary. Facts707 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled by Category:English terms suffixed with -tive - it only contains innovative, which is surely innovate + -ive. If someone can think of an example of this being productive (which as we all know is produc + -tive) I'd say keep, but as it stands, Delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (-ative is different, in that it sometimes suffixes to terms that don't have an -ate ending. go-aheadative or babblative for instance) Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A complete list of English lemmas ending in -tive can be found here. It's a lot to go through, but I have yet to find one that isn't from []t + -ive or the equivalent in Old French or Latin (except the -ative ones you mentioned, and some possible candidates for a -itive ending, such as behabitive). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * there's actually a few that could count like descriptive from describe and absorptive from absorb (absorption is listed as from absorb + -tion after all) Maddylicious (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

mutual aid
This phrase has not four senses. It has a single SOP sense but is used in a variety of contexts. PUC – 23:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Can also describe military pacts, etc. Just means "helping each other" without more context. Facts707 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

blue ribbon jury
SOP: compare blue-ribbon committee, blue-ribbon commission, blue-ribbon panel, blue-ribbon investigation. We're missing a sense at, however. PUC – 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

time gentlemen please
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time_gentleman_please

Please delete. The correct orthography is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time_gentlemen_please newfiles (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems like SOP, either way. See the Interjection section at . I would say the rest of the phrase is just there to be polite. Not that I know a lot about bars and pubs... Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They are the same entry, not two. In any case, it's a time-honoured phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. newfiles (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete both as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete time gentleman please, that's wrong. Keep time gentlemen please, as an idiomatic time-honoured phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete both. "Time please, gentlemen" is just as well attested, suggesting it is not a set phrase. This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete "time gentleman please" as it's a clear mistake: the phrase is "gentlemen". (What if there's only one customer in the pub? Haha. Still doubt it.) Equinox ◑ 07:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RFD-deleted time gentlem a n please, but the jury's still out on the plural form. This, that and the other (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

through
Postposition PoS header (should be Preposition if this is not an Adverb)
 * From beginning to end.
 * The baby cried the whole night through.

The usage seems very close in meaning to the Adverb def:
 * To the end.
 * He said he would see it through.

The adverb usage example would work pretty well:
 * He said he would see the crying through.
 * The adverb usage example, as most usage examples, should probably not use the term it rather than a common noun, it often being arguably part of an idiom or otherwise changing the usage by virtue of its 'lightness'. DCDuring (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete [or "re-POS"] the "Postposition" section IMO, in favor of viewing this as an adverb like long in equivalent phrases: "The baby cried the whole night long." (Prior discussion: Tea_room/2024/January.) - -sche (discuss) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree ... these are tricky, but on balance I think it is best to call it an adverb. Mihia (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Clean
What about this is dictionary material? &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards a redef. Maybe something like "One who resembles a characteristic of Mr. Clean, such as an obsession with cleanliness or being bald"? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I’ve redeffed the term as “Someone seeking cleanliness, especially if to an excessive degree.” The earlier definition agreed with neither the PoS heading (“Noun”) nor the quotation from a Bob Dylan song and was plainly wrong. --Lambiam 10:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep with Lambiam's redefinition; compare Mr. Nice Guy. Lunabunn (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

language resource
Seems SOP, although I am struggling to grasp the precise signification of the term (the WP article didn't really help). This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep as a specific technical term; see WT:PRIOR. Lunabunn (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lunabunn what is it about this sense of language resource that is more than just a "resource pertaining to a language"? Of course, if the term is used in computational linguistics, one expects that it will refer to resources that are relevant to computational linguistics, but that doesn't necessarily give the term more meaning than the sum of its parts. This, that and the other (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

= April 2024 =

if you see something, say something
Not a proverb, but a very modern slogan heard for example in UK rail station announcements! Equinox ◑ 19:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * why do you feel that this oft-heard phrase should be deleted? newfiles (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is not lexicalised. Delete PUC – 19:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I hear it every time I travel by train. Maybe the BTP should trademark it. DonnanZ (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Or for that matter, New York's MTA. --Slgrandson (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Or L[os] A[ngeles] Metro, along with "si ve algo, diga algo" (it sounds more like "dig'algo") Chuck Entz (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to see something, say something . Clearly idiomatic, because we generally see things throughout our waking day. The phrase requires knowledge that the "something" has to be something suspicious, and the "say something" has to be a notification of an authority figure. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 04:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that. But the phrase is like Microsoft's slogan "where do you want to go today?" The "go" is figurative, but this kind of modern-day catchy slogan for promotional purposes is not dictionary material. Equinox ◑ 04:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Equinox. Fay Freak (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Common catchphrases, like advertising slogans, which are not longstanding proverbs and are otherwise SoP and not used outside their original context shouldn’t be entries. For those reasons, I’d argue that the phrase under consideration, and I’m lovin’ it and just do it, shouldn’t be entries. Compare, which is claimed to be used outside its original KFC context. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: How do we know that this is not used outside of its original context as a slogan? If attestation is the issue, this should be moved to RFV. Lunabunn (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the phrase is currently defined in a completely SoP manner. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sgconlaw It clearly isn't, unless your definition of something is limited to "suspicious activity, misconduct, corrupt dealings, or the like" and your definition of say is limited to "report[ing something] to the relevant authority." Lunabunn (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * BTW, another one they use on the trains around here is: "See it, say it, sorted". Equinox ◑ 12:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there may be no one-size-fits-all phrase. I'll be listening next time I travel by train (probably to Norbiton). DonnanZ (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: what if we move this to see something, say something, which appears to be a common enough shortening. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * isn't that still SoP? — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it SOP to the specific concept of "if you see suspicious activity, you should say something to an authority figure? We don't have entries for see something or say something that specify these narrow meanings, and nothing at see or say clearly indicates any such meaning. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keep. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also heard: "If you see something, report it using the LA Metro Transit Watch App". Remember that this is in a very specific context: along with recital of rules regarding rider conduct and tips for not attracting attention of thieves, all introduced as safety information- and often different ways of reporting are also covered. It's very strongly implied that misconduct of fellow riders or threats to safety are what is to be reported, the fact that this is a recording played over the PA system on the bus or train suggests that the authories are involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. A speaker unfamiliar with this phrase would have no idea what it refers to. The definition needs fixing though, as it is somewhat broader. I'll have a go. This, that and the other (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep either as is or moved, whichever is more commonly attested. "[If you] see something, say something" definitely has a connotation beyond the meaning of its constituents (as per bd2412), and I have never set foot in the UK. Lunabunn (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How can a subset of a phrase ever be less common than the phrase itself? Every instance of "if you see something, say something" is an attestation of the component, "see something, say something". <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 19:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 Disagree. "See something, say something" is already a complete phrase, so were what you said to be true, "if you see something, say something" would have had to mean "if you [see something suspicious and report it to the authorities]." However, it instead just means the same thing as "see something, say something," so we can see that the two phrases are rather alternate forms of each other.
 * If you are arguing that the shortest form of any given phrase should always be the one that gets an entry, that seems both arbitrary and inconsistent. By that logic, for instance, we must remove most entries that begin with "the" such as the night is young, the nail that sticks out gets hammered down, et cetera because surely they are also uttered sometimes without the initial article. There are many more similar examples among currently existing (and uncontroversially so, as far as I can tell) idiom entries. Lunabunn (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (Honestly, I feel like we should, but had the actual on-page headword read "the night...", etc.) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would argue that "see something, say something" is a complete phrase in use in a way that "night is young" without the leading "the" is just not. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to see something, say something. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I would honestly delete this. I just don't see that it is dictionary material. It is non-self-explanatory only in the feeblest sense that a modicum of context is needed. We might as well include any other arbitrary slogan, such as it's a lot less bovver than a hover explaining how this refers to hover mowers. Mihia (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

-t
RFD of the sense currently listed as "(African-American Vernacular, slang) An intensifier added to the end of words ending in <d>, representing a change in pronunciation from /d/ to /t/."

The thrust of my argument is that, based on Taylor Jones' article Tweets as Graffiti, (in my opinion, more properly <-dt>) does not carry any semantic meaning that might qualify it under the "conveying meaning" clause of our criteria for inclusion as, say,  does. Instead, I would say <-dt> is a reflection of a sociolinguistically marked orthographic norm that would be better recorded on a page akin to Appendix:Early Modern English spellings. Please Talk:-t for further details of my opinion on the matter as well discussion between me and.

If the consensus is to delete, there will be down stream effects on, , and Category:English terms suffixed with -t (intensifier) which either need updating, rewriting, or similar deletion, with exactly which is needed up to people's opinions. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As possible evidence to the contrary, I pointed out this quote:
 * which seems to imply that -t has some intensifying force. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * which seems to imply that -t has some intensifying force. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, a slang suffix is a suffix still. There are other words that can be found with this addition, e.g. "stupidt", and perhaps "hott". <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your comment doesn't appear to address User:The Editor's Apprentice's argument. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If these were not conveying meaning, then why is there one letter consistently used for this purpose? Why doesn't periodd or periodk carry the same meaning? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 15:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. The argument is just phonocentrist. Clearly even if theoretically not even suprasegmentals distinguish the term then we would have a bespoke meaning conveyed. Keep for consistency with our eye-dialect spellings and what not, not to say this motion is just structurally racist: boy profiles blacks as speech-oriented and making improper sounds whose representations are less deserving of inclusion because they don’t represent actual thoughts (my experience is the opposite). Fay Freak (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Part of my argument is that <t> is not the only letter that is used towards the purpose, as Jones describes it, of indicating secondary glottalization. <k> is also used in this way in connection to words with a standard written ending of <g> (e.g., cf. , ) and similarly with <b> and (e.g. , cf. ). The reason these letter pairs are connected is because the phonemes they usually represent as monographs share the same place of articulation, but differ in that one is voiced and one is unvoiced. That is why the hypothetical  or  don't exist in the same way, those spellings don't involve a digraph of consonant letters corresponding to the same place of articulation in the way  does. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If that's true, it may be closer to "shm" reduplication as in "rules, shmules". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Assuming that your note about the development within AAVE is true, one cannot deny the slang usage of "goodt" and such aren't intensifying as per loaxxere.
 * Thus, keep with or without the AAVE label. If the AAVE label is removed (and honestly even if it isn't), the development should be moved to the Etymology section. Lunabunn (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which "note about the development within AAVE" are you referring too? I'm a little confused. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm on the fence. The song and other examples suggest that spelling good (etc) as goodt ("with a t on the end") has intensifying force, but they are, I suppose, noncommital as to whether -t is an affix, i.e. as to whether goodt is the result of adding a -t to good, or the result of changing d to dt (and the latter, changing d to dt to express a pronunciation feature of AAVE, seems like it may well be how this originated). Compare how (despite my own reservations) people decided to delete -k- as used in to traffic→trafficked, viewing it as a change of c to ck rather than as the insertion of a -k-. Also compare how "colour, with a u in the middle" does not, in my view, imply that -u- is a Britishizing infix. However, it would not surprise me if the singer or other speakers did think of the -t as something that was added like an affix (although a layperson might not be familiar with the word affix); it may have outgrown its origins and become an affix. - -sche (discuss) 16:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The "u" in British colour/labour/neighbour is just a spelling variation, though. No one is suggesting that "goodt" or "periodt" is a legitimate and proper spelling variation of the words. The "t" is only ever added as an intensifier. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 21:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The evidence cited by TEA, and what else I can find when I search for the origins of these spellings (albeit that what I find is also another paper by the same scholar, Taylor Jones), is that dt is a phonetic and spelling variation. That it is from AAVE and not from a "legitimate and proper" dialect seems immaterial. lithp is not a "proper" spelling of lisp, nor sitchuation nor, but does that mean -th- is an English infix meaning "replaces s to represent a lisp", -ch is "added to indicate yod-coalescence", or z- is "indicating a French or German accent"? It would not surprise me if someone could find evidence that goodt, Lordt etc has gone beyond only being a pronunciation and spelling variation (indeed, I suspect it could have!), but it's hard to pin down. (E.g., both the goodt song by Saweetie and Doja Cat and e.g. Ocean x KungFu - Oh Lordt c. 1:25 seem to use an AAVE pronunciation of the relevant word, so it's easy to view them as just using the corresponding AAVE spelling of that pronunciation.) - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is accurate to characterize goodt and periodt as vernacular spellings, though. I see no evidence that there is a general tendency for members of a particular group to spell the words that way in common parlance, as opposed to spelling it that way only in intensified circumstances. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

-farm and rage-
These suffixes seem to just be the terms and  used in compounds. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd delete, yes. Equinox ◑ 21:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I must note that the sense in question is missing from farm. It should be moved there. Lunabunn (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - they cannot be used with these senses outside of compounds, and they have very specific semantic connotations. For in particular, there's also the fact it's used in unhyphenated compounds like, so you may as well nominate  if you're going down this route. Theknightwho (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, it doesn't make sense to state that is  + . The hyphen is supposed to indicate that we're dealing with a bound morpheme, which  clearly isn't. PUC – 17:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete (or move?) -farm because all the examples given are of [x] farm; even if someone adds examples unspaced compounds (foofarm), it might be more parsimonious to view those as still using the noun farm, whether in one of the currently existing senses or in a sense that needs to be added (in the same way that "doghouse" does not make us add -house).- -sche (discuss) 19:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed, they're just compounds. Nicodene (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

that day is not today
SOP. PUC – 07:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perhaps as a translation hub? Much like what do you mean and other phrases, it's a common phrase, and while most of Google's results for "that day is not today" (in quotation marks) are from LeBron James' quote from July 2023, there are plenty of results in which the phrase is used in a completely different context. I see and hear it a lot, usually in the construction, "Someday, ..., but that day is not today." I encountered a variant of it ("that day will not be today") five years back in news articles about a 23-year-old man claiming to be the missing boy Timmothy Pitzen (missing for 8 years) even though he wasn't. This instance of the phrase, of course, elaborates on a "one day" from the preceding sentence. I think it's a common enough phrase that, even if this RFD closes with a decision not to keep the definition, we can at least keep a translation hub. Inner Focus (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your entry doesn't even have a translation table right now. Do you have anything specific to provide, or is this just handwaving? PUC – 21:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now added the translation table. Inner Focus (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have, and there's nothing useful in there. PUC – 21:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete The translations also seem to be SOP. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I feel like today is not that day is far more commonly used (and a Google search seems to reflect that, taken with the usual grain of salt). <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. We won't find any kind of nuance in any of the translations. <b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b><b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y ☽ ru</b> 06:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Inqilābī 19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Îdinism
Îdinist as well. The entries speak for themselves. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV I don't see any RfD matters here. If the question is whether the term is citable, then WT:RFV is the correct venue. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 23:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is someone’s pet protologism born in a Discord server not a convincing enough candidate for deletion? There’s nothing to verify. I should’ve nominated it for speedy deletion, now that I think of it. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's not clear why a word "derived from the native name of the Romanian letter î (“î din i”), combined with the suffix -ism" should describe "a movement to promote the removal of the letter ⟨â⟩". Our entry seems to be missing the important piece of information that (according to example in linked UD entry) letter 'â' would be removed "in favour of the letter 'î'", I suppose meaning that â would be replaced by î? Anyway, if this entry is kept it would be useful to clarify this point. Mihia (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To provide some context: The Romanian alphabet comprises two letters ('â' and 'î') that produce the same sound, without exception. The sole difference between the letters (speaking in absolute terms) is manifested in spelling. The orthographic rule pertaining to these two mandates that the sound these letters produces (IPA [ɨ]) is represented by 'î' when found at the front (first letter) or back (last letter) of the word: 'înger', 'încă', 'a urî'; and by 'â' when found 'inside' the word: 'mână', 'lângă', 'a sâsâi'.
 * The concept the term 'Îdinism' seeks to describe would be the movement, effort or otherwise an orthographic preference to remove the redundancy of having two letters describing the same sound in favour of a single letter, which in this case would be 'î', as opposed to 'î' and 'â'.
 * To give further context: What 'Îdinism' captures has historic precedent in Romanian orthography, though I'm personally not aware of any particular formal term that was historically used to describe this variant of the orthography. The informal term I am familiar with for this practice is what's called the 'Communist orthography', source of which being the fact that this orthography was once official in Romania in the years 1953-1993, during the Communist period.
 * For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_alphabet#%C3%8E_versus_%C3%82 Vxern (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Abh. Berl. Akad.
I dispute the English section. Would a cite like mean Kants Theorie der Erfahrung and Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule were now not only the German but also the English titles of those works? I think not! I do not think that citing, effectively quoting, the German abbreviated form of a title makes it English, either. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this was the solution insisted upon by . See Talk:Abh. Berl. Akad. / Talk:Abh.Berl.Akad. and Citations:Abh.Berl.Akad.. What should be done about if  is deleted? 0DF (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect it, if we want to keep it, or even better (now that I think about it), delete it. We don't include full work titles like Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule. We include "ASPCA"-type abbreviations, but for things like "Am. Soc. for Pharmacology", "Am. Soc. for Exp. Path.", "Assoc. of Am. Phys.", "Soc. for Exp. Biol. and Med.", "Am. Soc. for Steel Treating", I think the proper approach is entries for the individual components, not entries like or . - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the fact that is unspaced (in a language that uses spaces) mean that it warrants inclusion? Then  would warrant inclusion on the basis of the coal mine test. 0DF (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Whether parts of a term are delimited by a period/full stop or by a period/full stop + a space is not as important as whether they're delimited at all- it's almost like the difference between one space and two spaces. The coal mine test seems to be more about whether something is delimited at all. I'm also not so sure it's applicable at all to abbreviations. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. With hyphens, too: something like "I'm-going-to-make-you-want-me-until-you-ask-me-home" (or shorter and more common, "let's-do-this") is technically "unspaced", but it'd never survive RFD; the hyphens clarify what the parts to look up individually are as well as spaces would. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see Citations:AbhBerlAkad for English, German, and Italian citations sans delimiting periods. FWIW, I wasn't the one who created an English entry for and having an English entry for that and/or  distinct from a German entry for it/them was not my preference. We have citations of various spellings of this abbreviation in English, German, Italian, and Spanish. In how many languages must there be evidence of use for a term to be considered translingual? 0DF (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : The coalmine test applies only to English terms that are sometimes written as separate words and sometimes written as a single English word. "AbhBerlAkad" is definitely not a single English word. Even without the dots or spaces, it's still an abbreviation, and I would also contend that it's not English. It's an abbreviation of the German title of a German publication. If it were an abbreviation of something like "Papers of the Berlin Academy", that would be different. As to whether it's translingual: there are are two ways that terms can exist in the text of various languages without being part of those languages: they can be completely independant of any one language, or they can belong to a single language and be mentioned or quoted by others. H2O or Homo sapiens sapiens are translingual. They may be borrowed into a language for some senses, but for the core meaning they're not part of any one language. "Abhandlungen der Berliner Academie" is German, and remains German regardless of the surroundng text. That's the other way: mentions and verbatim quotes in the original language. If I say "We read an excerpt from Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu in French class", that doesn't make "À la recherche du temps perdu" translingual (nor is it English- even though it was mentioned in a Monty Python sketch). I'm sorry if the IP editor from Paderborn gave you a hard time- they're quite knowledgable, but they're also idiosyncratic, opinionated and stubborn. That doesn't mean we should rewrite CFI to suit them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I share the same view as Chuck Entz expressed, and I think we all have the same conviction. Maintaining bibliographic abbreviations is not completely useless. Sometimes an abbreviation is used in a field without it being transparent for outsiders how to resolve it, so the general dictionary can help; also the encyclopedia does but they have often insurmountable relevancy criteria not tailored for mere purposes of merely understanding a denotate. But of all things in a publication, the references are the most likely not to be in the language the publication is written in. IP applied fallacious logics throughout, and attempted to achieve minority domination by sneaking them into new cognitive conflicts we were not provided against because falsehoods are innumerous, that’s how there are always some that stick: →, →.
 * What is the point of the names of some academic series of books being translated? Like after less than ten clicks on De Gruyter I find “Koloniale und Postkoloniale Linguistik / Colonial and Postcolonial Linguistics (KPL/CPL)”? Because obviously they are in one language otherwise, whether abbreviated or not. But according to IP logics if in a reference in a German opus as well as in an English opus we have this whole string then this whole string, I linked, can have both a German and an English section, and so on for occurrences in French, Persian, Italian, and other texts. Fay Freak (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we have a German entry for with redirects to it from <tt>Abh.Berl.Akad.</tt> and <tt>AbhBerlAkad</tt>, with a usage note in that entry stating that the abbreviation is also used in other languages, in which cases the Paderborner's asserted proscription in German against spaceless abbreviations like <tt>Abh.Berl.Akad.</tt> is sometimes not observed. Would you all be happy with that resolution? It would, in my opinion, be the most accurate way of describing actual usage. 0DF (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I hope that none of you will object to my presumption in interpretting the foregoing deafening silence as a mark of your enthusiastic and unanimous assent. I have made the changes I described; now the entry looks like this. Please let me know if you are unhappy with it in its present form. 0DF (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm (still) inclined to delete this, and the German entry as well. We seem to generally not have modern book, journal, magazine, etc titles, nor their short forms; we don't have Philosopher's Stone as a common short form of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, we specifically RFD-deleted HP1 (we also deleted Liber AL vel Legis) ... and I would not, personally, consider a few people typoing or ineptly writing Philosopher'sStone to abruptly make Philosopher's Stone includable. So it's still a delete from me. Other people may reach different conclusions (as WT:NSE says, there's no overarching agreement on things like this, so it comes down to case-by-case RFDs). - -sche (discuss) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, in favour of keeping this, I'll say that it was quite difficult to work out what exactly this abbreviation refers to, and that I'm sure others will be puzzled by it and will want to know what it means; our entry could well save others the trouble I had. With a view to preserving that usefulness somewhere, I've spruced up the German entries for Abh., Berl., und Akad. If the entry for is indeed deleted, I'll triplicate the quotations in Citations:Abh. Berl. Akad. at Citations:Abh., Citations:Berl., and Citations:Akad. and add some to their respective entries, in the hope that this will catch searches for the various forms. The etymological note (“Strictly speaking, an  of the informal shorthand form  [‘Treatises of the Berlin Academy’]. There is considerable historical variation in the way writers referred to the Academy and to its periodical.”) and usage note (“German orthography prescribes that, in an abbreviated phrase, spacing be retained between each abbreviated word and the next; that regulation is almost universally observed wherever  occurs in German texts. Other languages are less observant of this rule, however, with divergent forms such as  [Italian] and  [English and Spanish] occasionally occurring.”) will be lost if  is deleted, perhaps to the anonymous Paderborner's chagrin, but hell, at least I tried to accommodate his/her concerns. 0DF (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

galaxy, sense #4
This is a poorly-contrived sense/definition:

Any print or pattern reminiscent of a galaxy, generally consisting of blending, semiopaque patches of vibrant color on a dark background.

With such quotes as:
 * "Her walls and ceiling were covered with galaxy wallpaper; it was like stepping into space."
 * "Her nerdy glasses sat perched on her face, and she wore a May the Force Be With You T-shirt with a black lace skirt, galaxy leggings, and a pair of white Star Wars Vans."
 * "She hurriedly said that she found an [sic] faded galaxy blanket. She loved galaxy patterned things."

In the quotes that are given, "galaxy-patterned" is an adjective, and in the three of "galaxy leggings", "galaxy wallpaper", and "galaxy blanket", the actual nouns (this sense/definition is under the heading of "noun") are "leggings", "wallpaper", and "blanket", "galaxy" is not functioning in any other sense or with any other definition other than #2 and #3 above it in the entry. You can replace "galaxy" in any of the quotes with almost any other noun, e.g. "flower leggings", "racecar blanket", "slinky wallpaper"—"galaxy" isn’t novel in this sense.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If "galaxy" really is a generic name in the fashion or design industries for a type of pattern "blending, semiopaque patches of vibrant color on a dark background", then I believe we should keep this definition, but it isn't very clear that the present examples are meant in this sense, rather than just the "literally pictures of galaxies" sense. I thought that "galaxy leggings" looked most promising, but Google image search does seem to show a lot of examples that seem to literally be patterned with galaxies. Who knew? Mihia (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ... and following on from that, I meant to say that perhaps this should be moved to RFV to see if anyone can find uses that unambiguously do not refer to literal galaxies ... BUT ... another point has occurred to me also. Presumably a (whole) galaxy should be a discrete thing, yet some of the "galaxy leggings" patterns on Google image search, while "astronomical" in appearance, apparently do not depict entire galaxies, but rather nebulae, as far as I can tell. Can this be dismissed as a non-lexicographical terminological mix-up, or could it be seen as evidence of the queried "not literally galaxies" sense? Mihia (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about this, but I would not, at least for my own part, regard some leggings only depicting nebulae as relevant, because that seems to be a general phenomenon true of this class of things: a "tomato" is a whole fruit/plant, but some "tomato leggings" I see (in a quick Google Images search) only depict slices of tomatoes, ditto "onion leggings", "Danny Devito" is a whole person but most "Danny Devito leggings" I can find only depict his head, an "oak" is a whole tree but many paintings of oaks only depict the above-ground part and not the root structure, etc. Depicting a recognizable part of something and not getting overly fine-grained in your terminology when selling it seems like a general phenomenon. On a balance, I'm leaning delete because it does seem, as HTG says, like "x leggings" being leggings that depict an approximation of (some recognizable portion of) x, and likewise for "x wallpaper", etc, is a general phenomenon. - -sche (discuss) 15:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Galaxy print" was a huge trend in fashion about six years ago. It isn't just NASA photos slapped onto consumer goods – although cheaper examples on Amazon often will be. Higher-quality examples typically feature watercolourish clouds in aesthetically-pleasing purples and blues. They aren't "literal pictures of galaxies" but rather stylised artistic representations meant to evoke galaxies (or more likely nebulae). There might be stars, but there won't be a discernible spiral shape, the muddy yellow-black of real galaxy photos, etc. It's a prettified and abstract idea of space. We have a pattern-related sense of ("portraying flowers, especially in a stylized way") that's a lot more literal than this. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Korea
Rfd-sense: "a dependency of Japan". Now covered under the reworked main sense "a nation and peninsula in East Asia".--Saranamd (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I deny the premise directly and squarely. The administrative division of the Japanese empire that was the dependency of Korea was not the nation of Korea, nor was it the peninsula of Korea, hence it is not covered under the reworked main sense "a nation and peninsula in East Asia". See also Ireland, which has a sense for the island and the nation-state, which includes islands that are not the Island of Ireland proper. Similar treatment for Korea would call for this "reworked main sense" be split between nation and peninsula. Does the peninsula sense include Jeju island? No, it doesn't. Does the nation sense include Jeju island? Yes, it does. A scientific geography can distinguish between a political entity concept and a physical geography concept. Are we just gonna bowdlerize everything, or are we going to do an actual dictionary? Similarly, Taiwan is an island, and has a history as various political entities that extend beyond the island proper, or only cover part of the island. I would just say that the various political entities for Korea, Ireland and Taiwan ought to be considered separately in Wiktionary's ultimate form. You might retort that: "That's too confusing for a reader my bro, not workable." I don't know, to me, I see a clear dividing line that's easy to explain to a 5th grader. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) (Modified)


 * I am leaning towards deletion. In general, I don't agree with the tendency of some of our entries to (in effect) put changes of government as a separate sense line; we do not, for example, have separate senses at France for France as a monarchy that also governed colonies overseas, vs a republic that also governs colonies / 'constituent parts' overseas, etc (even though the scope of the first France and the second France are different), or for the times Poland was ruled by others vs itself. - -sche (discuss) 15:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Same here. Keeping track of all the countries, provinces, client states, entities at various levels in various feudal hierarchies, etc. in Europe would be very, very messy. Is Serbia a kingdom, a principality, a republic, a despotate, a part of Yugoslavia (which Yugoslavia?), of Serbia and Montenegro, of Austro-Hungary, of the Ottoman Empire, of the Byzantine Empire, or of Bulgaria? All of the above, in various permutations, and I'm sure I'm missing some. Likewise, Korea has been a kingdom, a single state, a divided state, any number of collections of kingdoms, etc. This seems like the purview of an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also tend to agree. To me, "dependency of Japan" seems more like an episode in the history of the entity "Korea" rather than a separate entity. As others have mentioned, this could explode if our policy was to give all similar historical episodes in various parts of the world separate definition lines. Mihia (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's scope for listing multiple polities when they are connected but in a discontinuous way, or we risk confusing readers (e.g. refers to a historical Welsh kingdom and a modern county in Wales, both being roughly in the same location, but neither is a helpful definition if you're reading something that's talking about the other one). However, it's silly to list all the different permutations that a continuous polity has taken over time. Theknightwho (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * So, to make my position (see my comment above) explicit, I'm thinking delete this sense. Regarding Geographyinitiative's point about the scope of the nation and the scope of the peninsula being different (which is a separate question from whether 'the nation' and 'the nation as a dependency of Japan' are separate), we might want to have a general discussion about whether to split polity vs geography senses in general. Australia also lumps together the most common 'an island' and 'a country' senses (it only has a separate geographic sense for the plate-tectonic sense, 'the island of Australia, plus New Guinea'), whereas Philippines splits the archipelago vs the country (and also has a dependency sense I'm going to add to this RFD). - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t know about policy, since it can get complicated, so even making a policy fails. Entries just need to look good, this one doesn’t. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the Australia definition seems wrong - Australia the island does not include Tasmania; Australia the country does. I'm going to split those senses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Philippines
Rfd-sense: "(historical) A dependency of the United States (1898–1946)." (See preceding discussion about the "dependency" sense of Korea.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

green line
SO GUYS N GIRLS I was looking into Cypriot history (as you do) and I saw this sense 2 here: "An indicator of grammar errors in some word processing applications. I am getting a green line. Where have I gone wrong?" Now I don't dispute that "some word processing applications" show a green line for grammar errors (actually I think it's just Microsoft Word — and perhaps the slavish clone LibreOffice); usually it's a red line for spelling errors (we don't have a sense for that). But the fact that a red line means a thing doesn't make it a sense of the term "red line". In the same way that, while a yellow triangle is a common warning icon, we don't create an entry for "yellow triangle". Right? Delete? I would. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Send to RfV to see if this is even attested first. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * IMO seems a waste of time if there is a fair chance of a majority delete here. Equinox ◑ 02:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the "majority delete" is based on the premise that this is not a real phrase, then this just isn't the best process. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, not lexicalised. This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete SOP. A green line here is a literal green line displayed by the app. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not buying the nom's argument, sorry <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 20:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, not lexicalised. PUC – 16:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, probably schizo entry by 2008 IP editor with seemingly no other entries. Fay Freak (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. Inqilābī 19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Starship
How are these dictionary material? They are basically just product names. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 11:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. We've had at least a couple of keen astronautical users who add such things. No better than the "list of potions in Harry Potter" really. Equinox ◑ 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to delete all, but I am just thinking out loud that there might be some merit to keeping Starship in anticipation of enduring use as a signifier, and as an alternative capitalization of the existing starship. Probably not at this time, though. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 18:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Fish bowl (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Deeleeht. (just created to fill the even more useless categories, it seems). Jberkel 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, apparently we don’t create ship, aircraft or auto models. We can create  from, such as we have , but not , and for further illustration GMLRS, ATACMS, AK-47 as a whole series. Someone interested should know where the general dictionary coverage ends. Fay Freak (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. Inqilābī 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

when one least expects it
SOP. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, collocation. Fay Freak (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete; meaning is too obvious. That said, it would be a good example for . —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added as a collocation at . — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. Inqilābī 19:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

federal official
SOP, an who is. Analogously, there are also state officials, county officials, etc., ad nauseam. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think that the author submitted this because it sounds country‐specific, which I find hard to believe, and I was surprised to see that Wikipedia does not even use it as a redirection. It would be okay as an example of, though. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. Inqilābī 19:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Army of the Republic of Vietnam
Clear SoP of Army + of + the + Republic of Vietnam. Also refer to the comments on Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Consequent terms proposed for deletion:
 * Army of the Republic of Viet Nam
 * Army of the Republic of Viet-Nam.
 * 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Saviourofthe (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

People's Army of Vietnam
SoP of People's + Army + of + Vietnam, and just like we won't create other similar terms like or. Also refer to the comments on Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Its synonym Vietnam People's Army is also a SoP. --Saviourofthe (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Vietnam People's Army
SoP of Vietnam + People's + Army, cf. comments by .廣九直通車 (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

= May 2024 =

araneomorph funnel-web spider
Transparent SoP: araneomorph + funnel-web spider. DCDuring (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If it's SOP, how does +  give us ? Doesn't seem SOP at all. Theknightwho (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If WP is to be believed (Funnel-web spider), we appear to have a simple a set-intersection type scenario here. The funnel-web spiders that are araneomorphs happen to be the Agelenidae. That makes it SOP if you know your taxonomy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

GSK
Failed RFD in 2008. That was a long time ago, so I'm bringing it back to make sure it still fails in 2024. Note that "GSK" isn't actually the company name, so WT:COMPANY does not necessarily apply. This, that and the other (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just looked, and apparently they did rename themselves "GSK" at some stage. I guess this is a clear-cut WT:COMPANY delete then? This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't see the deletion notice, if there was one. Right now it's no longer an abbreviation, but at some point it was. Shouldn't that be recorded? Jberkel 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if the name was officially changed from GlaxoSmithKline to GSK, there are are plenty of hits for the full form of the name. I think a deletion would be premature, if it should be deleted at all. Abbreviated forms often prove to be useful. DonnanZ (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm pretty certain the change of name postdates (and was in part caused by) the use of the abbreviation, which means WT:COMPANY doesn't apply. Theknightwho (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: even if it isn't technically an abbreviation now, it was one in the past. We record past as well as present usage. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * For better or worse, we keep a lot of acronyms for companies and organizations and similar entities that we would never keep the spelled-out forms of, e.g. BBC, most of ABC, PLAN (where we specifically deleted People's Liberation Army Navy; we could probably also have PLANAF, but probably wouldn't add People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force). - -sche (discuss) 23:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * which is the way it should be, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. So I'm thinking weak keep. We do also have other healthcare company-or-organization initialisms that came to mind to check, like NHS and BCBS. - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RFD-kept This, that and the other (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I just realised that I have no idea how this entry should be formatted. It needs to reflect the fact that the current name of the company is "GSK" (even though this sense probably doesn't pass CFI) as well as showing that "GlaxoSmithKline" is an old name (maybe with en?) Any thoughts? This, that and the other (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @This, that and the other I strongly suspect this is one of those situations where the only practical change from GlaxoSmithKline to GSK was in formal situations where the company was actively involved, and it likely had little-to-no impact on the linguistic situation outside of that. Theknightwho (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

two-legged beast
It's descriptive, but not idiomatic. Compare Talk:whirling void. Additionally, the citations don't match the definition; in particular, the second citation isn't derogatory, and should actually be read as +, not  +  as the page suggests. Binarystep (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. As you say, one citation is no good, and the other seems doubtful. Equinox ◑ 21:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

good deal
Sum of parts. I suggest adding a separate section in deal as interjection. <b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 17px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b><b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 17px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y ☽ ru</b> 06:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I am not familiar with this expression, as far as I can tell I would lean towards keep, if only because of such similarity with the better-known or more widespread expression a good deal, or indeed literal sense such as "I got a good deal on my new car", which could confuse people as to the intended meaning of this "good deal". I don't think the present example makes the greatest sense ever relative to the definition, however. "You got everything packed? Good deal!" How does this "affirm, indicate agreement, or consent"? Can we find a clearer example? Mihia (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * People who use this phrase in this way intend it to mean approval or affirmation. "You finished the job? All right!"is exactly synonymous. 2600:1702:2C18:5F00:4956:14C5:17EC:D2CE 16:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed that, while great deal covers noun uses without "a", such as The audience is generally unaware of the great deal of work that goes into its creation (and in fact a great deal is missing (redirect only), and needs to be added if only for the adverb sense), the corresponding uses of good deal without the indefinite article, which could be directly substituted into e.g. The audience is generally unaware of the good deal of work that goes into its creation, are missing. Most probably the organisation of "(a) good deal" should be changed to mirror that of "(a) great deal", in which case the entry for "good deal" would be kept anyway, for the "ordinary" idiomatic uses. Mihia (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NOW DONE

autokinetic illusion
Sum of parts. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * : Delete. Quite right, mea culpa, the entry seems self-explanatory. Saviourofthe (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Binarystep (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

eternity collar
this is a brand name. https://www.eternitycollars.com/ --Simplificationalizer (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have added 3 cites that do not mention the brand, and are lower-cased. Equinox ◑ 14:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Saviourofthe (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Eternally keep. Binarystep (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Based on the cites suggesting it's become a generic noun, keep. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

channel coal
Please see my talk page:. By the way, I might delete this later, so if anyone wants to archive and copy it here, feel free, just let me know.

My understanding is that this is a (possibly legitimate) variant of, but we have an academic, or at least a pedant, who wants it destroyed, even if there is a bunch of evidence for the term in use. So: what say ye, Wiktionarians? Equinox ◑ 00:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be in RFV? Binarystep (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ... move it all if you want. I wasn't inclined, after this guy's behaviour. Equinox ◑ 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Binarystep why did you want this brought to RFV? It always had three cites. The question seems to be whether the term fails CFI in some other way, perhaps as a rare misspelling - which is a subjective criterion best dealt with at RFD. This, that and the other (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I must've missed that. I'll move it back. Binarystep (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

incontinence diaper
SOP, and not very common. Compare, which was deleted for being SOP despite being far more common. Binarystep (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this here, I was going to do it myself for exactly this reason. Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP, the same would go for versions with 'adult' instead of 'incontinent' and 'nappy' instead of 'diaper' if they existed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 15:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What about incontinence pad? Inqilābī 18:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Achilles tendon reflex time
Speedied as SOP by but recreated by. This, that and the other (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Kiwima actually deleted it because the original author provided a very unclear and unambiguous definition, not because it was SOP. newfiles (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * N.B. Kiwima's note in the logs --- rfdef|en|OK, so that's what the test is used for, but the definition says nothing about what the test actually is. newfiles (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thus, I recreated the term after finding the correct and accurate definition in the field of medicine. It wasn't an easy task to locate it. newfiles (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you care to respond to any of my points? newfiles (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, there was some discussion about this on my talk page. This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for the information. newfiles (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

box ears
Entry created for a user's convenience (see history), but the cites are really for, , and even (noun, not verb). Not how Wiktionary works. Equinox ◑ 09:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to . On one hand, I can see how this entry would be useful to someone (and be more obvious than the correct page title), but on the other hand, we don't have entries for or  either. Binarystep (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that the original reason for drafting the entry was that speaking as a user I had struggled to find the topic in Wkt, so box someone's ears patently is not an adequate headword: Wkt is not supposed to be limited to users who already know the content. I did eventually, shamefacedly, find it via Google in MW, then just for laughs looked in Wkt and there box someone's ears was. But it seems to me a confession of inadequacy when we have to go to MW for information before going back to Wkt...!
 * Such an item could be worded in various ways, so I created "box ears", those being the key words (and you can check the Wkt index to see that the entry does work). Note that blow mind and lose temper are not perfect analogies, because it is hard to provide examples of natural use of them as terms, whereas a construction such as: "If this happens again I'll have to come down and box ears till they begin to listen!" is perfectly natural.
 * If there is a natural Redirect facility in Wkt, (is there?) then it would be adequate to have just one entry plus as many redirects as anyone pleases. But in that case, or if box ears is to be deleted, then because the entry box someone's ears as it stands, is inadequate, then the content of the central entry should be replaced with the current current of box ears. I added that content because it told me what I had wanted to know, and had had to research, whereas the existing article had not. JonRichfield (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading this brings to mind... DonnanZ (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect for nominator's reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete If you search for "box ears", "box someone's ears" is the (now) second result, not sure why this entry was created. Jberkel 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

malding
Rfd-sense adjective:
 * 1) Angry about a game, especially on the part of a man who is a poor loser.
 * 2) Angry or irate.

I'd say both of these are covered as participles of :

To become extremely angry, especially as a result of losing a video game.

Theknightwho (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Strictly "being" in a state is not the same as "becoming" that state. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Isn't this just like or ? BigDom 13:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

disem-
Not a prefix. is +,  is  + , etc. PUC – 20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * OED has an entry for this prefix. Still delete?
 * https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=disem- newfiles (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is no instance of a word actually formed with it, then yes, delete. PUC – 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * disem-/disen- would be a derivative of dis-/-em and and dis-/-en. newfiles (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "-em" / "-en" is not right, as these are not suffixes. PUC – 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's (and the lack of a corresponding *), but it failed RFV in 2021 due to being mostly attested online. It could potentially be allowed under our new policy, but it's also clearly based on  and analyzable as  anyway. Binarystep (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The OED entry pointed to by Mynewfiles isn't a real entry, just a little discussion of the use of the prefix with  and . However, it does say this:
 * "Forms in disem- and disen- are found even where no verbs in em- or en- appear, as in, ,."
 * When it comes to attestation requirements for affixes, we generally look for three words formed in the modern stage of the language using the affix. If we can attest those three words (or others like ) I would say this prefix can be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Heh, I see our entry for has for its etymology . OED doesn't have an entry for the latter word, but we do. Equinox created it so it's almost certainly real. However, its absence from OED suggests that disemburden predates emburden, which would make our etymology diachronic. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Anachronic, you mean? PUC – 07:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * anachronistic, you mean? LOL!n newfiles (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly. Anyway I looked into it some more and I think OED's remark is simply a reflection of lacunae in its coverage:
 * can be found in EEBO. OED lemmatises it at . So disemburden is not evidence for the prefix disem-.
 * The participle/adjective is almost attestable: Citations:disenhallowed (even if the verb is not), but  is actually more abundantly attested.
 * The same appears to be the case for / = /.
 * So it looks more and more like PUC is on the money. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the 1933 OED also has this:
 * Disembow·el, v. [f. 6 +  v. (in sense 3); but in sense 1 app. only an  intensive of .]
 * --Lambiam 18:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

make-work job
The definition gives a wrong impression of idiomaticity because its focus is off. It's true that a make-work job is likely to be a "job that has less immediate financial benefit to the economy than it costs to support", but make-work job does not actually mean that; it just means "work assigned or taken on only to keep someone from being idle". In other words it's a plain SOP of +, and is no more entryworthy than , , , etc.  PUC – 22:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

wedding day
Sum of parts. <b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 17px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b><b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 17px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y ☽ ru</b> 06:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would keep this as a set phrase. We don't say "my marriage day", we say "my wedding day". I think we should keep strong set phrases even if technically explicable as SoP. Mihia (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this useful as a translation hub? Of the languages I speak, the translations all look like transparent "wedding + day" compounds, but I can imagine some language might have a unique word for this. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Passes WT:FRIED. It is restricted in meaning in that it is a day where a past wedding is commemorated according to analogous calendary date, if the marriage is intact. judgement day, day of the rope, German Tag X etc. conversely refers to an occurrence and single day expected in the future, rest day an activity in the same day. Keep. Fay Freak (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's right. "Wedding day" can be a past, present, future or entirely hypothetical event (you'll find lots of people fantasising about their future wedding day).
 * Using "wedding day" as a synonym for "anniversary" sounds very wrong to me - if someone said "We're celebrating our wedding day next week" I'd think they were telling me they were getting married, not commemorating a wedding years ago. Interestingly the hits on Google Books for "celebrating our wedding day" (in the anniversary sense) are almost all a hundred years old, so I wonder if that would work as an obsolete sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but don’t they plan it for the future for memory afterwards? Like graduation balls, which deffo should be an entry imho. (Also, people might do both for networking, but I am unsure about the extent of this motivation.) The idiomatic part is the social significance, the constructing social status and personal identity within it, which though lifechanging is imperfectly verbalized until a bunch of loners attempt to define it for their dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Using "wedding day" as a synonym for "anniversary" sounds very wrong to me - if someone said "We're celebrating our wedding day next week" I'd think they were telling me they were getting married, not commemorating a wedding years ago. Interestingly the hits on Google Books for "celebrating our wedding day" (in the anniversary sense) are almost all a hundred years old, so I wonder if that would work as an obsolete sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but don’t they plan it for the future for memory afterwards? Like graduation balls, which deffo should be an entry imho. (Also, people might do both for networking, but I am unsure about the extent of this motivation.) The idiomatic part is the social significance, the constructing social status and personal identity within it, which though lifechanging is imperfectly verbalized until a bunch of loners attempt to define it for their dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but don’t they plan it for the future for memory afterwards? Like graduation balls, which deffo should be an entry imho. (Also, people might do both for networking, but I am unsure about the extent of this motivation.) The idiomatic part is the social significance, the constructing social status and personal identity within it, which though lifechanging is imperfectly verbalized until a bunch of loners attempt to define it for their dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep per Mihia. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mihia. Inqilābī 14:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

absquatulate
Rfd-redundant
 * Comment: RFM is probably a better venue for this discussion. I guess sense 2 can be merged with sense 1 as it isn't significantly different. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

time stands still
I think this is SoP: +. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would keep this somehow, since it has connotations beyond the impossible situation (short of travelling at light-speed) that the words literally describe. There are, however, the problems mentioned earlier of how to list it, since there is no obvious infinitive form. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is correctly classed as a phrase (non-prepositional). DonnanZ (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * time stood still is also a phrase. Mihia (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Most metaphorical phrases denote impossible situations if taken literally (“the impossible happened”; “his eyes were fiery coals”; “my blood turned into ice”). The fact that they have nonliteral connotations is IMO an insufficient argument for considering them to be lexicalized. Lexicalization requires that these connotations are nonobvious, for example because the original meaning of some of its parts has become obsolete, as is the case for the expression . --Lambiam 09:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the connotations are completely obvious. Someone could think that "time stands still" referred to a very boring situation, one in which time dragged to an extreme degree, which is almost opposite to what it does often mean, e.g. in "I saw the car coming straight towards me, and for a moment time stood still". Having said that, the present quotations at the article do not all seem to very clearly illustrate this sense, which is the one I think the definition is referring to (though I don't think it is the greatest definition ever written), so this could need attention. Mihia (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can also have a village where “time stands still” (or “stood still”), which can mean that nothing dramatic happens there so one’s soul can find rest, but also that the local traditions are old, allowing us to have a peep through a telescope back in time. Perhaps it can also mean other things; it is what you expect to see for a sum of parts that by themselves can have several meanings. Alternatively, one can say that “time was frozen”, with a similar range of meanings. --Lambiam 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel that what you said actually supports my views. Why couldn't someone write that a performance was so boring that "time stood still" for her? It wouldn't be obviously wrong. I also agree with 's views above. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They can write that, and, in fact, at least one of the examples that we presently have may refer to this sense. (The examples are mixed up and do not (all) illustrate the sense that the present definition apparently refers to.) However, I doubt that an entry should be disqualified because it has a range of uses. In fact, the contrast between, say, "a village where time stood still" and the "car coming towards me"-type usage is even more reason to keep, I would say. Above all, and different from, let's say, "time drags", "time goes quickly", "time goes slowly", etc. etc., this one to me just feels like a set phrase that has an identity of its own, some quality greater than the sum of its parts. Mihia (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The cites that we have are no good (they are clearly straightforwardly saying that time (sense 1.4) stood still), but I think this can be salvaged. I've added one cite that feels more clearly idiomatic, using the phrase adjectivally to describe travel through a storm as as "a time-stands-still ride", and I'm sure I've seen it as a standalone phrase ("The glasses hit the ground and shatter. Time stands still. What have I done?") but it's hard to search for. I've also added a second sense (used to refer to historic-feeling places such as "a town where time stands still'"), although I'm not sure about the definition. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for adding the additional citations. newfiles (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

language learning
If this isn't SOP, then what is? Ditto for . --Hekaheka (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Is the term used idiomatically for non-human languages, e.g. programming? Equinox ◑ 22:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not idiomatic, it's brachylogy if anything. Programming language is still a language and it doesn't even deserve a mention in either definition. <b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 17px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b><b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 17px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y ☽ ru</b> 04:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What does this even mean? PUC – 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be idiosyncrasy. I am self-aware about it as an autist.
 * But third language acquisition is of greater concern. We rather need to fill the link for language acquisition; note that, I think, language acquisition tends to mean native language amongst children, too, whereas language learning is the more systematic stuff one does when already possessing a language from upbringing and hence tackles one of an othered (sic!) language community. second-language acquisition may stay because it is a customary course in colleges, I know when I studied linguistics BA, they have as well as, and coursebooks and the like on this. Not to speak of statistical language acquisition. The case is lost, I think, thanks to ’s bravado as the author of these entries this year. I mean, we won’t have fifth-language acquisition just because. Though I spy a few uses of . We are limited by attestation either way. Fay Freak (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "language learning" does seem to be much more common than other comparable phrases, e.g. "math/maths/mathematics learning", "speech learning", etc. Is this just because it is a more written-about topic, or does it point to any special quality of the phrase? Having said that, those others, such as "speech learning", "math learning", etc., can of course readily be attested. Mihia (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that one counts languages, in one’s portfolio, achievement unlocked. Like law shopping is achieving an individualized result. Or credit-card churning squeezing it out like butter. People are thrilled by it, and if there is enough money behind it become professors in it, but at least teach it somewhere else with materials. I mean this explains the frequency whereby one talks about a thing, not whether the name for the particular method and application of collecting a particular kind of achievement is idiomatic. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : Never underestimate the influence of alliteration and prosody on commonness. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * True, although some tests I did at Ngrams seemed to show "language learning" a hundred times, or even several hundred times, more common than other apparently comparable phrases with "learning", which did strike me as a lot ... Mihia (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious SOP's. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep for the translations, and because it seems to exclusively mean "foreign language learner" to the exclusion of people who are in the process of learning/acquiring their mother tongue. PUC – 18:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

interbourse
Looks like a proper noun Denazz (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Word0151 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster has it as an adjective, which, though it's rare, can be found. The stockbrokers' annual event probably should be Interbourse. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete (well, change to proper noun), although I've added the adjective sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fortescue
Two businesses and an acronym blithely added by an IP. DonnanZ (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I highly doubt "WT:COMPANY" is satisfied for the businesses, and in any case I don't think we list these types of senses under proper nouns. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete the senses as encyclopedic content. Only the initialism entry (FMG) is lexicographical material. Inqilābī 05:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

sum of its parts
SOP. Nicodene (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Lol, this is a bit surreal. I added Jimbo Wales' quote about the purpose of Wikipedia ("sum of all human knowledge" etc) under sense 1 of ("a quantity obtained by addition or aggregation"), which should take care of this. Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An autological phrase! Mihia (talk)

mobile translation
Supposedly means "Electronic devices or software applications that provides audio translation." Only Wikipedia and our entry restrict this to audio translation (and amusingly, our definition doesn't even require that the translation have any "mobile" characteristic!). In truth the term is SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it mean the devices/apps, or does it actually mean the service/capability? I mean, if you have a device with this capability, do you say of it "I've got a mobile translation"?? Mihia (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

bro&#39;s
SOP - "bro is" Ioaxxere (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is defined as “his” (i.e., with the possessive ; and “Bro's mom wants him home by 6” as a usage example), not “bro is”. J3133 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete It is SOP, alike to that dude's mother. The usage might be slangular though. Word0151 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP: + . — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean (possessive); we have  as “he is”, though. J3133 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - I assume this was made because is a pronoun, and  is the equivalent possessive form (i.e. -,  -), but there's a key difference: possessive forms in English aren't usually applied to nouns individually, but to noun phrases as a whole. This means regular nouns and pronouns don't (have to) take the possessive form when used as part of a noun phrase (e.g. in "John and Jenny's house",  does not (have to) take the possessive form ; it's usually just applied to the whole noun phrase ). The irregular pronouns break this trend (e.g. it's "his and her house", never "he and her house"), which I think is an important difference, as it makes them vestiges of a true possessive case which other nouns and pronouns don't have.  is not one of those exceptional cases.
 * Theknightwho (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - bro is, in this sense, a pronoun, and we tend to keep the possessive form of pronouns even if it is formed with -'s. one's is the clearest example, but we also have y'all's, nobody's, one another's and even which's (kind of a weird nonstandard one). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 15:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Citations:Cultural Revolution
Keep Citations should appear on the Citations page, therefore this page should not be deleted. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason given for deletion and the idea of sending a Citations page to RFD is odd in any case. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Geographyinitiative @Overlordnat1 The original reason given by @Inqilābī was that all the quotes are duplicated in the entry itself. Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that rationale a valid ground for deletion? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Put it this way: I never use the Citations page, and always use quote within the entry. There's no point in duplicating them. DonnanZ (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's discontent about Citations pages, but it's more valuable than you know. They seem silly or wrong somehow to many people. But I love 'em. They're a true "safe space" for the citations and words I work with, and they give me breathing room to explore very very ugly citations like for words found most commonly in propaganda from authoritarian government sources, blogs from evil people, super NSFW, and sources that are very ugly in other ways, stuff that would discredit Wiktionary if it were on the entry proper, but stuff that's consistent with the descriptivist ethic. Where would the 1975 cite on Citations:transgender go on the entry? Are you sure what the author means there? But yet if we want to understand the early history of 'transgender' we don't want to ignore early sources, so it's on the Citations page for now. And what about that 1966 cite? And Citations pages allows categorization by contexts and senses that don't yet or may not appear on the entry page, or citations for specific contexts that a word appears in that wouldn't normally form a separate sense on the entry proper. And its a place for senses that are in a nascent stage or citations of uncertain meaning or categorization. Maybe I'm not sure I'll reach 3 cites, so instead of crazily just making an entry, I put what I got on the Citations page and wait and see if I ever run into a third cite. Citations:intercessionate will be waiting for the discovery of a third author's work long after intercessionate is deleted in the current RFV- and I believe it's out there, and the entry will later be restored! There IS a proper place for Citations pages. It's a really interesting world, an underbelly on the underbelly. If you want the pure product, go there. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Donnanz’s take on the matter, and think Citation pages should be largely deprecated due to the redundance of such duplicated content, except in the cases of uncreated entries and missing senses or (specialized) senses not meeting CFI (as pointed out by GI). I disagree that quotes with controversial (especially political) POVs should be kept outside of the dictionary entry; I once suggested before that Wiktionary could just add a note of disclaimer stating that the project does not identify with any of the views expressed in them. Inqilābī 05:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Concerning the "note of disclaimer", I mean that's an interesting concept, but I would also say that some sources are going to be so controversial that even that note of disclaimer is not going to be enough. Another thing, there are a lot of homonyms/homophones in Mandarin. So sometimes I will use Citations pages to just collect whatever cites I see for the word until I can figure out where the cites go (which senses) rather than just guessing which cites go with which senses on the entry. When I have the space to compare and contrast several citations with authoritative information, then I can properly sort them out. I'm exploring the citations at Citations:Pinghai. I think I know which location this refers to, but I'm kind of mulling it over and checking to make sure I'm right. I may not make an entry on Pinghai, or maybe it will get made. But the cites are real and ready for me or someone else to work with when we move to the next step. This is responsible entry creation. I don't speak Spanish. Should I just create the Spanish section on the entry for Fuling so I can add the Spanish language cite I added at Citations:Fuling? Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m withdrawing my nomination for deletion in light of the fact that the Nixon quote has been removed from the dictionary entry. But, I think the Nixon quote is pertinent seeing that the person he talks about was an important figure of Cultural Revolution till the end– you could have simply kept it in the dictionary entry and applied brackets to the quote to indicate its supposed wavering from the original sense; but I’ll stop nitpicking & leave everything to your discretion. Inqilābī 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

apple blossom, apricot blossom, orange blossom
Blatant SOP’s. ’s mitigating circumstance is its handful of one-word Romance equivalents, which might perhaps insure survival as translation hub.

There’s also and, which have separate meanings, and , which does things right. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep all <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 23:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious SOP's, although I agree that orange blossom could be kept as a translation hub. I note that User:Purplebackpack89 gives no justification for their keep vote other than a statement on their user page that they disagree with the SOP principle (which is nonetheless a cornerstone principle of Wiktionary). Benwing2 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bro, are you following me around to every vote I make #Harassment <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 00:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong to get ‘stalked’ by more experienced editors. This is but part of an effort to make a quality dictionary. You on the other hand are a poor editor for taking everything personally and feeling intimidated by necessary actions of careful editors. Inqilābī 20:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The nominator obviously overlooked . In any event, this is a crazy case of blatant picking and choosing. I am inclined to keep them all. DonnanZ (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blatant cherry picking perhaps? But seriously, there is no necessity for appleblossom to reference a separate entry apple blossom and thus require us to retain the latter, if there is no other reason to do so. appleblossom can simply be defined as "Apple blossom, i.e. the blossom of an apple tree", or something like that. Mihia (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If is attestable, WT:COALMINE demands that we keep ... that's just the way COALMINE works. This, that and the other (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious to me that appleblossom satisfies CFI. It looks very strange to me and only one cite was provided (in the context of Johnny Appleseed, where the name suggests the unusual spelling). Benwing2 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I remember now. You know when your mind blots out something that is just too horrible to face? That must've been what happened to me here. Mihia (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I find capitalised is used by plant nurseries for names of varieties. The real issue here though is the nominator's pickiness - it's either delete 'em all or keep 'em all. I prefer the latter. DonnanZ (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The nominator explained why (in his or her opinion) some should be kept and others deleted, namely that some have other meanings beyond the SoP, or in one case as a translation hub. So it is not mere "pickiness" as you put it. Mihia (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also created . J3133 (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep all as likely set phrases, at least. Does anyone refer in any meaningful proportion to an "orange flower" (other than for a flower that is the color, orange), or an "apple bloom", or an "apricot flower"? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 04:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 Hi. I think you may be misunderstanding the difference between collocation and idiom. The canonical example of "strong tea" is often used in NLP as an example of a collocation that rarely occurs in the synonymous form "powerful tea"; but that does not make "strong tea" an idiom that would pass the SOP test. Same thing here; just because the term "blossom" is used more often with fruits than "flower" doesn't make these terms non-SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not say that these were "idiomatic", I said that these are apparently set phrases. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 13:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But are they really set phrases? If money grew on trees, we would be talking about "money blossoms". Generally any crop with recognizable flowers (no "corn blossoms" or "juniper blossoms", but almost everything else) that bears fruit will be referred to as having "blossoms". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Will they, though? I will say, I have heard "orange blossom" and "apple blossom" all my life, as well as "cherry blossom", which is not nominated here (and would not be surprised in the least if orangeblossom, appleblossom, and cherryblossom exist), but have also heard "pine flower" and "cactus flower". <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that definition 1 of blossom is "A flower, especially one indicating that a fruit tree is fruiting". Given that many types of fruit and fruit blossoms exist, I feel that this might be sufficient, rather than treating every case as a set phrase. Mihia (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 But the SOP criterion (see WT:SOP) is specifically worded in terms of idiomaticity. It says nothing about set phrases per se. It specifically says anything non-idiomatic is an SOP (hence worthy of deletion). Benwing2 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also pear blossom, lemon blossom, lime blossom, pomegranate blossom, quince blossom, japonica blossom, mulberry blossom ... need I go on? The definition at blossom suffices, so Delete any that do not have additional senses beyond "fruit/plant + blossom". Mihia (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

= June 2024 =

dont tread on me
Questionable creation by User:Purplebackpack89. A misspelling tagged as an "alternative form"; not even in Google Ngrams. Do we really want all possible misspellings of every random term out there? Benwing2 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible keep and suggest immediate withdrawal. First off, are you nominated this because I'm the creator, or because you actually think it should be deleted?  Please remember to focus RfDs on content.


 * Also, what background research did you do before this nomination, apart from Google Ngrams? Simple background research would indicate that this is not just some "random misspelling".  The first sentence of the Wikipedia article notes that the phrase is "usually stylized in all caps without an apostrophe".  The Gadsden Flag and First Navy Jack, the most common displays of the phrase, contain it without the apostrophe.  See also dont; that's how "don't" was spelled back then. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 23:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per Purplebackpack89. Not a misspelling. Binarystep (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, but as something like "archaic typographical form" rather than "alternate form." This has value for non-native English speakers searching for the precise flag motto. There's editors who make a point of transcribing quotes from 17th-century books with . I don't see this kind of hyperprecision as much different. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's obsolete form of. Binarystep (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My view expressed above under was "I think the entry should survive if this precise capitalisation and punctuation was a widespread form that was especially worth documenting." This would appear to be one of those cases that is "especially worth documenting" so I say keep. This, that and the other (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is kept, can its historical/conventional significance be explicitly explained at the entry? Yes, there is a picture of a flag, but the present caption does not mention the spelling discrepancy. There is some mention of the apostrophe issue at Gadsden flag -- which, yes, is only a click away, but even so I think some words at don't tread on me to explain why dont tread on me is not any random unimportant spelling error would be very helpful. Mihia (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above. Inqilābī 20:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Feels like it's time to close this as SNOW keep. Only the nominator has expressed deletion and a bunch of people have said keep <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 05:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is time for you to chill out, that's what it is. RFD's normally stay open two weeks or so at a minimum. I don't see why you are so antsy about this. Benwing2 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Leaning Delete. I've searched for citations in good faith, but every hit I can find is directly quoting the flag ("a 'Dont Tread on Me' flag", etc), so I think this fails the "three independent citations" rule. If there were a couple of examples of people using "dont tread on me" as a slogan independent of describing the flag, I'd be happy to say keep, but as it stands, this spelling appears to be a one-off. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Smurrayinchester What you're saying is purely a matter for RFV, not RFD: they're two separate issues. We can still send to WT:RFV if it passes RFD, but it doesn't make sense to vote delete at RFD because you haven't been able to find any cites yourself: that's why we leave terms in RFV for at least a month, to allow people a chance to find them. Theknightwho (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reason given by . — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It was suggested above that there be a a usage note or something like that explaining the context of why there is no apostrophe. I added one earlier today but was undone by .  Can we discuss this?  I think it should be re-added but I'm not willing to edit war to get it back in there. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 16:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * that should be raised at the Tea Room. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete because it is bullshit, and secondly because it is Purple's entry. This time it is personal, and I'm officially joining the "we hate Purpleback" club. Hopefully Purple can attack me, instead of the project. Denazz (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * not helpful, but of course you know that. Dial it down, please. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per Smurrayinchester. Fay Freak (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per WT:JIFFY: "Terms which would have passed at some point in the history of the English language", which would have applied in the past before apostrophes became standardised. Theknightwho (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That test is intended to distinguish idiomatic terms from SoP terms, so it doesn't seem to apply here. Mihia (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why WT:JIFFY shouldn't apply in general. Theknightwho (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. To give a random example, of the numerous phrases that we list incorporating the word "show", most probably one could find "shew" spellings for quite a few. Would we want to list all these separately with "shew", or is it sufficient to simply list "shew" as an old spelling of "show"? My inclination is towards the latter. Mihia (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mihia We wouldn't disqualify any spellings because it's an alternative spelling of, so they'd pass CFI anyway. The key thing here is that a lack of apostrophe is now widely agreed to be a misspelling, and the question is whether it's relevant that that misspelling pre-dates the modern spelling. In my view, it's a clear case of WT:JIFFY, since there was a period of time when it would have been the only form of the term in existence. Theknightwho (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly have an opinion on "dont tread on me" per se, but the "WT:JIFFY" test is intended to distinguish terms that were once non-SoP even though they seem SoP now, so it wouldn't apply here. If we need an explicit rule about terms that were once correct spellings but are now deemed misspellings then I suppose this should be stated in the "Misspellings" section of the CFI. Mihia (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV. AG202 (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address
Encyclopedic. Inqilābī 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reword and keep: Per CFI: "Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept." There are ways to trim this down. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 21:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the term itself is not lexicographical stuff. The name of famous speeches delivered in history is purely encyclopedic material, so we don’t include We shall fight on the beaches and Tryst with destiny. Inqilābī 22:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as inherently unsuitable for Wiktionary, as we do not include the names of works (unless they are key religious texts). That part of the CFI referred to by addresses a different point—a definition (for example, for a scientific concept like ) should not become like a Wikipedia entry in length. (If this isn't clear from the CFI, we should have a vote on this.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that the CFI uncontroversially means what you say, i.e. that there has to be a (dictionary) definition to keep in the first place. I imagine that the wording could be clarified with little possibility of dissent over the principle. Mihia (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as not material suitable for a dictionary. Benwing2 (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As it stands, clearly delete as it is an entirely encyclopedic "definition". Mihia (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nicodene (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 23:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Snowball deleted as abundantly clear its being a blatantly unsuitable entry (ignoring a lone misguided keep vote). Inqilābī 21:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverted that. DonnanZ (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d have preferred you to be an admin to revert a good-faith action thus. Inqilābī 13:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not for want of trying. Anyway I prefer to not be an admin nowadays. DonnanZ (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, not the kind of thing that belongs into a dictionary, otherwise I will create  and all other named speeches of Goebbels and Hitler and you will be offended. Fay Freak (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are so wrong. Both my Oxford Dictionary of English and Collins English Dictionary list, as well as . There is a case for restoring this entry. DonnanZ (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No u. They were blurring the line between dictionary and encyclopedia by including cultural knowledge in order to serve as a bit of a . Fay Freak (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * where do we draw the line, though? Why not also Love's Labour's Lost, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? Wikipedia can deal with these works much better than we can. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here we can draw the line at what hard-copy dictionaries see fit to include. My Oxford says: "a speech delivered on 19 November 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln at the dedication of the national cemetery on the site of the Battle of Gettysburg". There is a separate entry for "Gettysburg, Battle of". I have added the reference from Collins to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary ain’t a hard-copy wordbook; it also has a sister encyclopedic project, Wikipedia— thus allowing us rationally splitting lexicographical and encyclopedic contents. Did you read what Fay Freak explained above? The lexicons you mentioned don’t have the same favorable situation as us, hence they do let encyclopedic information slink into their lexicographic content. Nor are those lexicons ideal, whereas Wiktionary strives to be the best following rational policies.


 * Anyway, if you still want a rudimentary argument: do your dictionaries include the names of Churchill speeches? Nehru speeches? JFK speeches? Where would YOU draw the line? Also a bit off-topic but hard-copy dictionaries also contain lines of acknowledgment to notable contributors, but we don’t. Just another way how Wiktionary is different at every aspect— and as a long-term contributor to Wiktionary you should realize that, instead of pushing your biases to the detriment of this project. Inqilābī 14:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of Wikipedia. I made a couple of edits today, and have written some articles.
 * No to Fay Freak, I find that user hard to understand.
 * No, printed dictionaries don't print speeches. Besides the two I mentioned, I have several others at my disposal; I won't bore you with the details. If you have never seen one, I suggest you visit your local bookshop, and see what they contain. They may include even. You shouldn't bury your head in the sand and deny that these refs exist. Yes, I know you want this one wrapped up, but it was unethical to be both nominator and closer. DonnanZ (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my experience, traditional dictionaries (some anyway) include a small selection of proper nouns and names of specific entities ("small" given how many there are in total), apparently chosen because they are "important" or "famous" or something like that. I don't tremendously agree that we should follow this principle, or simply include those that a.n.other dictionary has somewhat randomly or subjectively seen fit to include. I think we need our own policy, although I appreciate the difficulty in formulating this, short of excluding all of them (that have no true dictionary senses), which some editors might baulk at. Mihia (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of Wikipedia, then just respectfully let it do the job of encyclopedic coverage, because the dictionaries you get from bookshops aren’t as efficient to use them as a model. I can’t really judge how peculiar FF’s style of speaking is as my English should be even funnier since I never had the luxury of good education living in an impoverished country, and I owe much of my level of English to interacting with native speakers in these online forums. And if nobody complained about his language skills then I would have regarded his English to be as ‘normal’ as yours. But for what it’s worth, English itself was under the linguistic tyranny of the Norman invaders who with their flawed non-native English made a great dent on the language and the saga doesn’t end here, for the Englishmen went on to build the biggest empire in the history of mankind; and now that even after decolonization by the original European powers, as the USA (an offspring of the British Empire) rules the world, English is the global lingua franca, meaning that it may be subject to zillion times more Normanization. I bet English as spoken by our future alien invaders would be even more exotic and incomprehensible to some.


 * Coming back to the actual topic, no you misunderstood me a bit- I was talking of other speech names, not speeches in their entirety. Like We shall fight on the beaches, Tryst with destiny, The light has gone out of our lives, Ich bin ein Berliner, I have a dream, etc. For you it must be fun to have such entries spoil our dictionary, but at least it’s good to see you’re vocal about the Lincoln speech name despite it being a US topic. Inqilābī 17:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, no, I would never consider entering such phrases, I would certainly draw the line there. Returning to Wikipedia, it doesn't include everything, I searched in vain for today, so sometimes Wiktionary scores over Wikipedia. Wikipedia can quote Wiktionary (especially on disambiguation pages), and Wiktionary can add links to Wikipedia. Believe it or not, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on every place, especially small ones, so Wiktionary can score there. I have written a couple of place articles on WP from scratch, both for NZ where I have local knowledge, but they are usually quite challenging to do, and can be challenged. I need more practice, it's easier to add to existing articles. DonnanZ (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So you want to keep Gettysburg Address due to its idiomatic nature? That’s an interesting perspective. Since Wikipedia already has this article, how about we transfer such encyclopedic stuffs to an Appendix page on Wiktionary, to stick to a purely lexicographical project and yet preserve any idiomatic formations (we can still have these words in the Derived terms section, but full description ought to be shown in the appendix)? All toponyms (placenames) are allowed here, by the way. Inqilābī 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not going to make a decision about an Appendix. It would seem to be a method of hiding the entry. I suggest you ask on the Beer Parlour.
 * I have plenty of experience with place names, having added thousands. DonnanZ (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Magna Carta is too lexicalized to be deemed encyclopedic- it’s a notable exception. Inqilābī 13:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Having made the utterances above, I suppose I should vote keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. PUC – 09:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that we should keep the titles of speeches, books, movies, etc., if they have any idiomatic component. (As an example, i would support having Citizen Kane in the dictionary, with the meaning of "a good movie" or something like that.) "Gettysburg Address" does, as you can see an idiomatic meaning if you search for "a Gettysburg Address" (meaning something along the lines of "a powerful speech".) CitationsFreak (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Neither of the uses you cite (Citizen Kane, Gettysburg Address) are inherent to the terms in question. Any movie generally considered good could substitute for "Citizen Kane", any speech considered powerful/moving/etc. could substitute for "Gettysburg Address" etc. Do you really want to have us listing all the "generally-considered-good" movies ever produced, defined as "a good movie"? Imagine taking someone's top-500 list of movies and sticking them all into Wiktionary defined as "a good movie". Do you see why this doesn't work? Benwing2 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Citizen Kane" may be a good movie, but it doesn't mean "a good movie". We don't say "I saw a Citizen Kane last night" to mean "I saw a good movie last night". Mihia (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the epitome of a great movie. If one says "it's not exactly Citizen Kane", they're comparing it rather than equating it, so "a great movie" doesn't work- it's "the great movie". Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. A similar case: Talk:I have a dream. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 11:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, not dictionary material. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD failed Denazz (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. We hav the Wiktionary article "Cornerstone Speech" (with no statement that anyone proposed deleting it), so why not "Gettysburg Address"? After all, both terms ar accepted terms for specific speeches, so should qualify as "multi-word terms" (see Category:English multiword terms). And the Gettysburg Address is way more famous that the Cornerstone Speech; so the term "Gettysburg Address", one would expect, is used alot, in both literal and figurativ senses. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that any material that appears in mainstream, authoritative dictionaries should probably be included in Wiktionary. Of course, that's not Wiktionary's limit, but it is a kind of guard rail to keep Wiktionary in its correct genre. This is a rule of thumb to protect Wiktionary. The deletion of this entry today will inevitably be reversed-- of that there can be no doubt. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

demon core
Specific individual objects: do we want these? I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards "no: delete". We do not, for example, have Uluburun shipwreck, Bülach fibula, Moregine bracelet, Liudhard medalet, Sutton Hoo purse-lid, Azelin chandelier. Compare , below. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weirdly, "demon core" brings up a massive amount of (mostly Chinese) fantasy fiction on Google Books. I can't make out from the context whether it has a meaning beyond "the core of a demon". Otherwise I'd tend to say delete . I did wonder if it would be also be a generic term for a plutonium core, particularly one used for tickling the dragon's tail, but I don't think it is. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy with the extended uses. Keep demon core Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In principle these are archaeological sites and scientific artefacts of contemporary history, that have been small enough or recent enough to be moved around and not even recognized as such. Keep. Fay Freak (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep demon core. Being the subject of memes and pop history videos has led to some use of demon core as figure of speech (e.g. "the demon core of ...") Nicerink (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I also mentioned in another thread, we need to be cautious about allowing "the X of Y" as qualifying figurative use because this pattern can be found with all manner of proper names -- even "Gettysburg Address" (e.g. "the Gettysburg Address of Baseball"), which most people have voted to delete. Mihia (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Einang stone
I created this in 2012, at which time I figured it was "no more SOP or encyclopedic than White House", but now I'm not sure (and in the intervening years, we even updated CFI so that buildings like White House are only kept if they have "figurative use"). Count me as an abstain rather than a delete here, but I think enough people might think this should be deleted that I'm bringing it up for discussion. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For now keep because we have Rosetta Stone. Names of such notable historical / archeological things can be exempted, unless we explicitly decide not to do so. Inqilābī 23:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Gettysburg Address, which almost everyone agreed should be deleted, also a notable historical thing? Or is there a difference between physical things and abstract things? Mihia (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In principle you are right, but the name of a book, newspaper, or speech seems (to me) more encyclopedic than that of a monument (Taj Mahal), painting (Mona Lisa), or a stone inscription (as the one discussed here). We need to have more talks to determine if we want to allow the latter ones. Inqilābī 00:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant to mention also that Rosetta Stone is different because it also has the figurative sense. We would want to keep that whatever. I don't really understand on what basis we have Taj Mahal and Mona Lisa, however. Why not any building or any painting? Or do we just allow certain ones because they are very famous and well known? Seems a bit dubious or subjective as to what is deemed "famous enough". Mihia (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think I’d vote keep for Taj Mahal but weak delete for Mona Lisa— my rationale being, renowned landmarks (Angkor Wat, Great Wall of China, Taj Mahal etc. etc.) are rather analogous to toponyms and suchlike geographical forms (as Fay Freak said beneath); personal artwork in all likelihood don’t merit lexicographical coverage, much like speeches. Your concern about subjectivity is a good point however- I guess we can retain or delete contested landmark entries on a case-by-case basis… Inqilābī 14:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speeches like the Gettysburg Address are not the same thing as an erected landmark, e.g. more ephemeral materially, while these buildings are regarded by our toponym votes, and cornerstones (hah!) to weltanschauungen, religions, arts and sciences, and hence linguistic idioms humans develop and espouse. We also create all, which are of interest due to their treatment in diverse languages, don’t we? Keep, Fay Freak (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * CFI says "Most manmade structures, including buildings [etc. etc.] may only be attested through figurative use". That would seem to include, or rather exclude, Taj Mahal. Not sure whether Einang stone counts as a "structure". It might do, or it could be seen as an artefact. Mihia (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We cannot create the local pub, but beyond that the policy decision appears undecided in what the actual criteria area, hence it describes a kind of probability (“most manmade”). Whether man or nature more have shaped a feature only addresses gameability, that’s again why we don’t create digs.
 * Bodies of water in densely settled and developed countries are in about half of cases manmade, channels and reservoirs, delimited by manmade dams; I highly doubt that we can create rivers but not canals, the more so that we can create reservoirs as opposed to canals since they are not in the mostly-not-included list. That part of the CFI was written from the perspective of a more aquatic ape living near a natural lake or river, isn’t it, rather than in a settlement with a reservoir or canal as the largest body of water.
 * I clock that a major question we answer ourselves is the value as a touristic attraction ( yay, Wikipedia nay), or scientific or artistic, and on the other hand the conspicuousness of a term or its translations as an idiomatic factor, perhaps more concretely whether you should look anywhere else than Wiktionary to resolve your place-names in any language; for both reasons Angkor Wat is a good thing to have, while only due to the latter it can hardly be argued away that we should have, as boring as a tram station entry but without which local press and police reports are imperfectly understood.
 * Only recently I have been definitely informed that the construction of what is figurative or literal differs by attention focus, so we all are a bit at loss here. By their very natures, the specific designations of buildings, if they have any at all rather than being mere numbers on a street, then tend to be tongue-in-cheek, hence figures of speech. Case in point,  puns upon the form of the described entrance area, figuratively using the container name: only figurative use exists here, no literal one. Or did you know that is a street in Berlin? Does it make a difference whether the name is informal or official? Then again boozing-kens which we should not create use to have fancy names that come out figurative, not even always clear whether the trader or his customers originally invented the name of the house, the further you go back in history. Fay Freak (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep. Theknightwho (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

see of
Trivial SOP of with the partitive  (unlike hear of which has idiomatic senses). In fact I'm having a hard time even parsing it as a single phrasal verb being as it is only ever used with some kind of quantity (some, a lot, a bit etc.) in between, and the of is dependent on that quantity term. 86.145.57.59 14:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there might be an element of idiomaticity in cases such as "We've seen a lot of Roger and Daisy" (sense 1 example), versus, say, "I've seen a lot of the film", but it is hard to identify that this resides in "see of". The second sense, "to spend time at an attraction or event", seems unconvincing. I can't see how "see of" is in itself a unit of meaning in any dictionary-relevant way, so as it stands, delete. Mihia (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete; I agree with the logic of the IP and User:Mihia. Benwing2 (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Many verbs with a subject could claim such an entry (think of, speak of, dream of, read of, write of, inquire of), but that makes the collocation trivially SOP. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it's SOP, I'd say it's not the right way of treating those "verb + preposition" combinations. We have templates for that ( or ). I would delete (or rather redirect)  for the same reason. PUC – 21:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that hear of is plenty idiomatic enough. Mihia (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not idiomatic, I'm questioning the usefulness of having a separate entry, rather than separate senses at . PUC – 09:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the same issue, isn't it? We have a separate entry for "hear of", as opposed to relying on "hear" + "of", because it is idiomatic enough (both senses, I would say, but the second sense even more so). Mihia (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

samblind
Middle English.

I don’t think it is attested, and the Old English form *samblind is itself unattested according to different sources. Inqilābī 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Inqilābī this should be at RFVE. But I agree, it does seem unattested. This, that and the other (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Mona Lisa
Do we need artworks? Inqilābī 05:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. The entry contains evidence of widespread figurative use. Plus, exceptionally, it meets WT:THUB. This, that and the other (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep for figurative uses and translations - A Mona Lisa smile. In any case, works of art can be used to illustrate senses. I did this with . DonnanZ (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are figurative senses, then these should be made explicit in the definitions. Mihia (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unless/until figurative senses are added. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 07:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unless at least one figurative sense is added. Also, the addition of such a figurative sense does not, in my view, justify the inclusion of any non-figurative sense—that should be mentioned in the etymology. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are figurative senses already included in the quotations, which are probably what User:This, that and the other was referring to. DonnanZ (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Let me say also that allowing the pattern "the Mona Lisa of ~" as a qualifying "figurative" use does seem to open the door to large numbers of proper nouns and names of unique things that can be used in this pattern: "The Citizen Kane of video games", even "The Gettysburg Address of Baseball". Mihia (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, on reflection I may have been a bit generous to call these "figurative" uses. I'll try and add some other uses which justify keeping the sense. This, that and the other (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a few quotes from texts which make an allusion to the Mona Lisa, specifically, the smile (but I am sure there is more out there). A number of them assume the reader knows what the Mona Lisa is and make no sense if you don't, such as:
 * I find the general thrust of WT:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names useful here, even though this is not a brand name. This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to know how and where to draw the line with these. I can find quotations mentioning "like Nelson's Column" that make no sense unless one knows that this is a tall monument. I can find references to "a Gerald Ratner moment" that make no sense unless one knows that he famously denigrated his own company. So should we have entries for Nelson's Column and Gerald Ratner too? Mihia (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like we could have an entry for then, no? Having said that though, I take your point - the line needs to be drawn somewhere - but I believe we ought to figure out where to draw one, rather than just throwing up our hands and deleting potentially useful (and, may I add, very long-standing) content. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, or any number of more and more obviously SOP strings, like if I say some food "made me react like George Bush in Tokyo", you don't know whether this means I reacted with childlike glee and delight, or horrible aversion, or what, unless you know the history of George Bush in Tokyo... but that doesn't mean we need an entry on George Bush in Tokyo. I am sceptical of accepting the citations which have currently been provided, since the number of works which occur in citations of that form seems very large. But perhaps I am being too exclusionary, and we should, in fact, have lots of work names. I can also find "the Harry Potter of the social sciences", "the Harry Potter of shows", "the Harry Potter of Rolling Stone movies", "her Harry Potter glasses" (then again, we do already have an entry on Harry Potter the fictional character and book, which seems like it should be RFDed, based on our tendency to delete both work titles and full names of people, even fictional people); "the Starship Troopers of Democratic Senate campaigns", "the Mein Kampf of the euthanasia movement", ... - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fundamental question is, where do we draw the line between words in the English lexicon and cultural knowledge? The quotes I gave above use the name in interesting and often quite subtle ways that are more like a word - a common noun - than a proper name. I see these as evidence that Mona Lisa - at least our current sense 2 - has "entered the lexicon" (to borrow a phrase from WT:BRAND).
 * @-sche, I'd actually argue for having dictionary entries for many of the names you point to - these are major, culturally significant works of literature that are often used as common points of reference and comparison, and if the use of the names in this way can be backed up by evidence, it would be clear that the names of these works have entered the lexicon. One argument in favour of this is that encyclopedia articles on these works give much more detail than is needed to understand the meaning the author is conveying. (I had never heard of "Starship Troopers" until now, and the opening paragraphs of do nothing to help me understand the pertinent characteristic of the Senate campaign.) We can do much better with succinct dictionary entries. This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, having seen Starship Troopers, I did not understand what the cite was saying about the Senate campaign either — staffers bonded while campaigning, and killed bugs? — until I read the Wikipedia article, from which I infer (based also on the surrounding text in the cite) it's saying the campaign was a flop and was seen as endorsing fascism. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The number and variety of possible cultural references is huge, almost amounting to full encyclopedic knowledge. It seems to me that there is a tendency for people to want to include especially famous or important entities, such as the Mona Lisa, while excluding less known entities, for which, nevertheless, it may be possible to find exactly the same kind of citations. To explain this, it seems to me that some kind of notability criterion is needed, which, as far as I know, does not presently exist anywhere in Wiktionary, beyond the three citations requirement. We include rare and obscure general words, and yet presumably not proper names supported by obscure cultural references? Mihia (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tentatively I would suggest looking for three (or maybe six, if three is not felt to be enough) cites where the entity's name is used metaphorically ("an X moment" etc), not as a straightforward simile ("like X") or comparison ("the X of..."), and with no explanation of the metaphor (so not "her Mona Lisa smile was enigmatic as ever") or immediate contextual clues (use of "Mona Lisa" in a text on art or Italian history would not count). Too low a bar to clear? This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even "an X moment" seems worryingly ubiquitous. I can easily find "a Ronald Reagan moment", "a David Beckham moment", "a Frank Sinatra moment" etc. etc., seemingly for almost any figure that one has heard of. Mihia (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This the accepted name of a famous painting, so "Mona Lisa" counts as a real term. For comparison, there is the Wiktionary article "Stone Mountain", a name which may refer to a carving or, , and . Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that it is "real term". No one would say otherwise. The question here is whether it is a dictionary term or just an encyclopedic term. Mihia (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * also, the comparison with Stone Mountain is not a very good one, because we have a specific policy dealing with place names which permits such entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This the accepted name of a famous painting, so "Mona Lisa" counts as a real term. For comparison, there is the Wiktionary article "Stone Mountain", a name which may refer to a carving or, , and . Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that it is "real term". No one would say otherwise. The question here is whether it is a dictionary term or just an encyclopedic term. Mihia (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * also, the comparison with Stone Mountain is not a very good one, because we have a specific policy dealing with place names which permits such entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Since there are still no actual figurative definitions, Delete. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

12 NN
Tagged by User:Ysrael214, but not listed. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 06:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There are Philippine-related entries for and, but I can't verify these. Maybe they should be in RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donnanz I can attest MN and NN (sometimes mn/m.n. and nn/n.n.), but I'm not sure if the following should be created, 12 MN, 12 NN, 1 PM, 2 PM, 3 PM, 4 PM, 5 PM, 6 PM, etc. 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Though mn and nn are only used in time contexts. You can't say "I'll meet you later this nn.", that's wrong. Just "..later this noon." 𝄽 ysrael214 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ysrael214 Sounds a bit similar to o'clock, which needs a number before it, but expressions like "twelve o'clock" are still SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per SOP. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 11:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the label of the relevant sense of, that abbreviation is only used in this expression. That sense should be changed to en and we should keep 12 MN. Same with 12 NN and . This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If MN and NN are only used in those two collocations, then I would do as TTO says, keep these and define MN, NN as "only used in..." links to the full phrases. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

river dune
Is this idiomatic? You can also have e.g., ,. The definition implies some slight specificity, as if perhaps not just any dune formed in/by a river would be a "river dune", but looking at it seems like any [river] [dune] is a [river dune]. Am I missing something...? - -sche (discuss) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But we do need to tweak the definition of dune, as dunes can be formed by things other than wind, see, . (Done.) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sandy Lane
Rfd-sense A road name in various localities, such as in Richmond upon Thames.

We've previously deleted all road names that don't have figurative or metonymic senses, but insists this is different because that only applied to "specific roads, which this sense isn't meant to be". However, this would effectively set the precedent that any road name used by 2+ roads would pass WT:CFI, which isn't an interpretation I've ever heard before, or something I'd support. Theknightwho (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete this sense per User:Theknightwho. Benwing2 (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: CFI doesn’t provide for the exception suggested by Donnanz. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am personally okay with road names. They are lexically useful content, and we might want to revise CFI. Inqilābī 07:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As the nominator objects to the sense, I would like to replace the sense with a usage note. I tried that, but the nominator reverted it. You can't win with some less-than-helpful users. DonnanZ (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donnanz I did that because usage notes are not for additional senses, which is what definitions are for. I suggest you stop making personal attacks against me, and get on with making entries. Theknightwho (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What the nominator does not realise is the entry would never have been created if it wasn't for the place names. Apparently there are two more which need to be looked at. I don't see any harm in recording that it is also a road name, in fact some places may be named after roads. I can see now that a usage note, or etymology, is the best way of recording that, and not as a sense. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sense is not in line with CFI as it currently stands. If or  wish to start a fresh formal vote to amend the CFI they are welcome to do so, but until then policy should be followed. I am not in favour of attempts to circumvent it, for example, through usage notes. The whole point of having policies is that they should be respected as there is a consensus for them. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The nominator saw red when I reverted his/her edit, and slapped an RFD-sense on it before I had a chance to think of anything else, like a usage note. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. DonnanZ (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * frankly, it is not productive to speculate about any motive an editor may or may not have when they are challenging an entry on the basis that it is potentially not in line with policy, as it is any editor's right to do. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. All I can do is ensure that similar cases in future entries are not treated as senses. There may not be any more, however. DonnanZ (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donnanz If what you mean by this is that you're going to keep mis-using usage notes to sneak in senses that don't pass WT:CFI, I should probably draw this to the attention of the people who are inevitably going to be forced to clean it up: @Benwing2 @Surjection @Chuck Entz @Vininn126 @Thadh @Fenakhay @PUC. Theknightwho (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL. Misuse of usage notes? That was a waste of effort pinging all and sundry. As I said above, there are no more in the pipeline. DonnanZ (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the least that can be done without any breach of policy is to add a quotation for that sense in the Citations mainspace. Until we revise CFI to include road senses which aren’t permitted as of now. Inqilābī 16:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Given the comments above, I think one of the supporters of including more roads should start a BP discussion (not about any user, but) about this policy question, of how much support there is for including more street names (beyond the figuratively-used ones that are included now), and what criteria (beyond figurative use) people could agree on. (Since it's come up, we might as well also ask, if people don't want them as senses, how people feel about including lane names as usage notes.) Perhaps there is appetite to change policy. If there isn't, I remarked in the section above about that if a user is (admittedly) persistently trying to sneak in things they know are policy-noncompliant, I think if we are in the position of needing to remove the user from the Autopatroller user group so their edits show up in the patrol log again. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Theknightwho (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Usage notes are mentioned twice in CFI, but there is nothing banning them from use anywhere, let alone where road names are involved. Re Colon Street, which still survives, and mentioned there, I was never guilty of removing a category, as the entry history proves. I added one for Bristol, but the Named roads category was never there until you added it. DonnanZ (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As an aside, there is no entry for Fifth Avenue in New York. Is it idiomatic enough for inclusion? DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * what is the idiomatic sense asserted? You're well aware of our verification requirements—can you find at least three qualifying quotations? — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not for me to decide or create. I am merely asking if it's idiomatic, any entry would be better coming from, say, a New Yorker. DonnanZ (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * my point is, if you think it may be idiomatic, why don't you try and find the evidence for it? We can all speculate, but at the end of the day someone has to do the grunt work and locate qualifying quotations. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can come up with the idea, and be happy to leave the legwork to another user. As we have a general election around the corner, does that compare with a politician's promise? DonnanZ (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe something to do with luxury? CitationsFreak (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as worse than useless. It's not helpful to any hypothetical user. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Failed according to WT:CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, rather than just acquiesce. There is some unfinished business though. DonnanZ (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

human evolution
animal name + evolution. SoP. Wikiuser815 (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I note a fallacy in this logic: humans have a special position in sciences forasmuch as we ourselves are humans plus humans are different from other animals in most aspects that easily guarantee the inclusion of terms containing ‘human’. We would never treat dog evolution or for that matter dog-kind as lexicalized stuff, but would definitely keep, , , and the like. Hence strong keep as a term used in biology and anthropology. Inqilābī 13:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In biology, humans aren't distinct from other animals. human race and human sacrifice aren't biological terms, but this one is. Wikiuser815 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s why I also mentioned anthropology, in which humans are distinct from other animals. Inqilābī 13:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't talk about "the dog race" etc., and as for "human sacrifice", it probably meets CFI because of sense 2: we say "sacrificial dog", "sacrificial goat" etc., but typically not "a sacrificial human", and we don't say "dog sacrifice" of a dog that's sacrificed and so on. Wikiuser815 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't generally say "dog evolution" or "cat evolution" either, which was Inqilābī's point, but it's not as clear-cut as those two examples. Theknightwho (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For some reason we say  and and  (that is German, literally “general medicine”, the most common of the  specializations necessary to practice independent of another physician after licence, and also  has to be contrasted with a career in  ‘veterinary medicine’) and from there we reach  and a fortiori could keep , like we keep . I admit this argument is a bit contrived, but I am at a loss for now. The argument of it being a biology term, as which it would be SOP, may not hold water if you approach it with a bit of medical training. Fay Freak (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They aren't the main terms for the evolution of dogs or cats (unlike human evolution, for the evolution of humans) if that's the point. "shark evolution" and "ant evolution" were what made me RFD thisWikiuser815 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't say "dog evolution", but there's nothing wrong with "canine evolution", "feline evolution", "equine evolution", "murine evolution", etc. You just have to use an adjective rather than a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC –
 * I see nothing in the definition that is not pretty transparently "human" + "evolution". Delete. Mihia (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

native element
SoP; (sense 7) +  — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 10:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, entry author worded it more complicated than it is. See also Talk:native aluminium and alluminio nativo still running, from the same. Fay Freak (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. Inqilābī 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

NFL
Rfd-sense "National Felon League" and "Negro Felon League"

NFL doesn't stand for either of these things (which after all, don't actually exist). Rather, they are back formations from NFL that people invented as insults. It wouldn't make sense to contract National Felon League back to NFL. People sometimes call the BBC the "Biased Broadcasting Corporation", but that doesn't mean BBC stands for Biased Broadcasting Corporation. If people really insist on having these somewhere, they should be on their own pages. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, yeah. The BBC example is pretty good. We do have a parody listing for PETA, but there was at least an actual organization besides PeTA using that acronym. — Soap — 23:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Move to separate pages, RFV the second one. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete both. AG202 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

steal credit
to claim somebody else's contribution as one's own, often at the expense of that person

SOP: just +.

Note that "steal credit" is generally followed by "for", as in, "X stole credit for Y", so it's just saying they unjustly appropriated recognition, respect and admiration for doing something. Even where it isn't, it's implied by context. It's also not bound: "took credit", "stole undue credit", "stole recognition" etc. Theknightwho (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't it also possible to "steal credit" in the financial sense? E.g., by taking out a loan in another person's name, relying on their good credit history. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 04:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

take credit
Same issue. Theknightwho (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete both, SOP. Abstain on . PUC – 18:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep "take credit". Strongly a set phrase. We virtually never say things like "I'm going to take recognition for that", or "I'm going to take praise for that", or "I'm going to take approval for that", or "I'm going to take acknowledgement for that", etc. Mihia (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mihia Yes, but you can use a variety of verbs with (in fact, pretty much anything that can mean ), which means that's where the sense belongs. The fact that, ,  and  aren't exact synonyms (i.e. can't be used in the precise same way) isn't relevant. Theknightwho (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mihia. Keep "take credit". DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete both as clearly SoP. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

the math ain&#39;t mathing
We already have:. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 20:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: So? <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to be the canonical version of the phrase, with the ‘is’ version being a humourous inversion. I’d keep this and delete the latter (but mention it in the usage notes or something). Nicodene (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to list this as a negative form, because nobody's going to search for the math is mathing. It should be noted that it's not just ain't though; isn't will also do, and perhaps is not. — Soap — 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect. See Category:English negative polarity items for examples of terms being listed in the positive., are you going to RFD and RFV all of them? Ioaxxere (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More likely I'd CREATE the negatives. If a phrase is used mostly in the negative, a definition should exist with the negative phraseology.  That shouldn't be controversial. you can't judge a book by its cover, Rome wasn't built in a day, clothes don't make the man and many other phrases containing not, don't, can't, etc already have entries.  And, for what it's worth, the negative polarity category seems to be a strange mishmash.  Some of the things categorized in it already contain "no", "not", "don't", etc.  Some of them are used in both the positive and negative.  And one more thing: will your vote change if "the math is mathing" fails RfV?  <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 21:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All those examples are proverbs, which have a fixed wording. On the other hand, doesn't have a fixed wording. The quotes show various variations replacing "is" with "appears to be", "started", "just isn't", etc. If "the math is mathing" is never used in a positive context my vote could change although this isn't the case here. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're sure that isn't the case? Are you prepared to back up your statement by adding enough positive citations for it to pass RFV? <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete together with . Both are equally SoP. --Lambiam 09:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an SoP per WT:JIFFY. Math as a verb is primarily used in this idiom. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 21:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

the math is mathing
Phrase is more commonly rendered in the negative (the math ain't mathing or the math is not mathing) than in the positive. I'm not even sure "the math is mathing" without the not or ain't even passes RfV. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect one to the other (I don't care which), and add Category:English negative polarity items. PUC – 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since one can say things like, they didn’t provide enough data for us to say whether the math is mathing, it seems better to use this as the main form. But isn't this SOP, with a verb sense of (“to add up, compute; (by extension) to make sense”). Note that there is also the entirely positive collocation “the math did math”.  --Lambiam 21:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you be a little concerned that that phrase isn't actually cited that way, in the positive? As of now, it doesn't pass RfV. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 23:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When you wrote this, there were many positive quotations, including one in precisely this form. I might be concerned for its safety if no quotations had been found after this term had been listed for a considerable time at RfV . Here at RfD we deal with different concerns, such as whether this is merely a sum of parts. --Lambiam 09:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those quotes were added between when I wrote that and when you responded, FWIW <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Poundland
Rfd-sense A British chain of pound shops. Not notable - should go in the etymology section for the adjective sense. Theknightwho (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. But I hasten to point out, lest newcomers are confused, that WT:CFI has no "notability" criterion and we are not in the habit of using one. WT:COMPANY is unnecessarily terse and conflates the concepts of the entry and the individual sense, so we could definitely tidy up its wording to reflect actual practice. This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right - that was crappy reasoning: the issue is that we don't generally include brands simply because they are brands. Theknightwho (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, WT:BRAND, right. This may actually pass that criterion if people are using "Poundland" as a metaphor for (say) cheapness, where context does not provide sufficient clues to discern the metaphor (see WT:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names). One would need to go cite-hunting. This, that and the other (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @This, that and the other The metaphor sense is really common (to the point I'd argue it's everyday English in the UK), but only attributively, and usually as "Poundland version" or "Poundland-esque" etc etc. However, the literal brand itself should probably be mentioned only in the etymology section. Theknightwho (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, 100% agreed. The entry has also been fixed up a bit since the RFD was opened. I'm back to my original "delete" stance then. This, that and the other (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't often go in Poundland, but I thought it's a trading name, not a brand. DonnanZ (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donnanz It's both, and a trade name is arguably a kind of brand by definition, as it's what the business advertises themselves as (i.e. it's how they brand themselves). Plus, in the narrower sense, they do also sell Poundland-branded products, I guess. Theknightwho (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So if it's both, which name is better known, Poundland or ? (See separate RFD). I imagine it's Boots, which has been around for much longer, and also markets its own products (maybe bog rolls even). DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a person who lives in the freest country on God's green Earth (America), I'd say "Poundland". I think I've heard the term before in British media, but never "Boots". CitationsFreak (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @CitationsFreak For context, Boots is the other half of the, and in the UK it has about the same level of brand recognition that Walgreens does in the US. Theknightwho (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Are we confident that the alleged adjective sense is a true adjective and not an attributive noun? Mihia (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed it to attributive noun. I don't believe it is truly an adjective. Yes, you can probably find examples of "very Poundland" etc., but the same goes for any brand, e.g. "very Tesco", "very Armani" ... virtually anything. This is a feature of English that does not automatically make these words adjectives, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete brand sense, now that we have it as an attributive noun (which we should keep). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

with difficulty
Transparent collocation only justifiable as a translation hub. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we presently have exactly the sense to fit this at with. This may need adding in any case. I am unsure about with difficulty and with ease (if we have one then we should have the other) but leaning keep unless general reusability of this pattern is demonstrated. Are there many/any collocations with "with" that work in exactly the same way? We say "I had difficulty doing it" and equally "I had trouble doing it", yet "I did it with trouble" somewhat surprisingly gets ZERO relevant Google hits that I can see. Mihia (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ... though, actually, we do of course say "I did it with NO trouble", so .... dunno. Mihia (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. One can also say, with considerable difficulty, with no difficulty at all, and so on. And then, one can also use without difficulty. I see no difference in the sense of with as used in, e.g., the offer was accepted with reluctance, I can state with confidence that the quality is not affected and it is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of our father. --Lambiam 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by the "with considerable difficulty" example, or others similar, since it is not unusual for embellishments to be possible to idiomatic phrases that we would presumably wish to keep, e.g. with (very) good grace, with (wide) open arms, with a (sudden) bump etc.. The difference with "with confidence/reluctance/joy/enthusiasm/etc.", as I see it, is that these are internally generated feelings or emotions, that is you can "feel" reluctance/confidence/joy etc., whereas you cannot "feel" difficulty in the same way. For an exact parallel I would be looking more for something like "with trouble/problems/bother/obstacle(s)/obstruction(s)/impediment(s)/setbacks/etc.". Mihia (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Is its being a translation hub not a valid reason to keep it? Nicodene (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deleting this looks like another example of rules for rules' sake, to be honest. This will only mislead people looking to translate between languages. Have you not met English language learners using hardly in the belief that it's the opposite of easily? Or English natives writing things like con mucha dificultidad that even i could see was wrong? THUB is for things like "hind leg of a horse", not set phrases like this. — Soap — 09:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Put another way, as i usually do, what possible benefit will deleting this entry bring to anybody? — Soap — 10:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence, leaning keep. On the one hand it does sound very SOP; on the other it looks like a good translation hub, and I don't see what other entry could replace it ( doesn't do, and the translations there should be removed). PUC – 17:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, about as obvious a WT:THUB as they come. It's telling that words like and  are actually defined as "with difficulty", suggesting this is the most natural way to express the concept in English. This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as translation hub. Voltaigne (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per WT:THUB as there is no common single-word term for the adverbial sense of difficult in English (cf. Anglistics example). -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 22:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We've got, but it's definitely a word I'd only use for effect. Theknightwho (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is kept per WT:THUB, then the definition must be amended to mention that. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 22:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep both as a translation hub and a synonym of the archaic difficultly. Inqilābī 19:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * keep as a translation hub — B ABR ・talk 18:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

hair remover
Sum of parts. Included in Collins but that definition doesn't seem convincing. Einstein2 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as a synonym of and . Inqilābī 19:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how that supports keeping the entry. Are you suggesting we should keep hair remover alongside / per WT:THUB? We only tend to do that when the one-word synonym is rare and the multiword entry has a much higher chance to be entered as a search term (e.g. and ;  and ;  and ). The translation table is currently in depilatory, and it actually seems more frequent than hair remover. Einstein2 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hair remover is a simpler word more likely to be employed in everyday speech, while depilator(y) sounds more technical and inkhorn (and I came to know about the latter term just yesterday). We probably don’t have any such guidelines but I am of opinion that every synonym of a term should be valid entries. Inqilābī 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Great Britain
Rfd-senses: "a national sports team representing the United Kingdom in an international competition"; "the British Olympic Association". I think these are trivial metonyms of sense 3 ("the United Kingdom"). Besides, for some reason, the same two quotes are added to both senses. Einstein2 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete for nominator’s reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete but add "and Sports" to the context label, since at the Olympics "Great Britain" is neither loose nor historical usage but an official name. Although not all "Great Britain" teams do represent the UK - the Great Britain basketball team for instance doesn't represent Northern Ireland. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is "Great Britain" definitely the full official name of any sports teams representing the UK, or is it just an abbreviation? E.g. of the Olympics team, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_GB it says "Officially, the team is the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team". Mihia (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

grasively
We shouldn't be documenting bullshit generated by AI. Not yet, anyhow... Denazz (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, this does raise questions about the future of CFI. I only saw one result from a 2023 book on mental health. I'd say put it into an appendix, since a word that proves a text was written by AI is useful. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i think the appendix would be good if we see these words crop up by the tens and hundreds, but right now we just list three: this one and the redlinked adapitates and elosphite. — Soap — 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep (although I'm not convinced by sense 1 - the quote given also looks like it means "comprehending" - that's an RFV thing). We document non-existent words used by non-native speakers (see Category:Non-native speakers' English) where these are common enough that people might come across them, and we also have words like medireview, which are also computer-generated gibberish. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (In fact, I think the cites at both senses are more suggestive of "in an comprehending way". If the etymology is right, I'd suggest it's an accidental blend of grasp and comprehensively, with the LLM mistakenly interpreting the comprehens part as having something to do with comprehension. That would also explain why it appears to have a secondary sense of "thoroughly") Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Entry revised accordingly. An RFV may still be warranted for the surviving sense. I don't know policy—can the entry go to RFV while this RFD is open to inform the decision here? (I am indifferent to keep or delete as long as we end up with clarity in WT:CFI as to whether and when these LLM coinages should be included.) 166.181.80.177 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The AI is trained to write texts that convey meaning, and it's using this word in an effort to do this, so any uses would be perfectly valid uses for attestation purposes. Compare for another technologically-generated word. If there end up being too many of these "AI-coined" words I would reconsider. This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * RFV, I guess: if texts written or at least edited and published by humans are using the word, as with medireview, then this would be includable on a level with that, with its coinage by AI being etymology. If the only place this occurs are in texts written by AI without human revisions, I am sceptical: texts written by computers/algorithms combining words do not seem to be new, I have come across gibberish books from decades past which were the result of a human feeding a list of words to a computer/algorithm and the computer assembling them, and I am not aware of us previously accepting the resulting gibberish. - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Boots
Not sure that it has a figurative sense (none in the entry at the moment) or that it passes WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say it's a household name in the UK. I was surprised to find recently that Boots manage the pharmacy at Kingston Hospital. DonnanZ (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But does it pass WT:BRAND? Can we find sufficient evidence that one would call, for example, a Lloyds or Superdrug pharmacy a “Boots”? — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i tried searching a few phrases and got hits like "good old Boots" but all that i found refers directly to the chain. — Soap — 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have never heard "Boots" used to mean "pharmacy", except when people are using it as an example where the specific company isn't actually relevant: if someone suggests you "pop down to Boots to get some sun cream", they're just saying you should go and buy some sun cream in town, and are unlikely to think the specifics of exactly where you buy it matter, without some additional establishing context that limits it to Boots in particular. However, you can do the same with any common chain of shops, depending on the product; the implication is that it's an example, not that the term actually carries the broader meaning. Theknightwho (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, has sold off all of their pharmacies in the UK. As for Superdrug, if the shop in my town (which is next door to Boots!) is anything to go by, it doesn't have a pharmacy, concentrating on cosmetics, toiletries and the like. I think  would pass WT:BRAND in the UK, they do sell Boots-branded pharmaceuticals, and the name has been around for a very long time. DonnanZ (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

tht
POS header: "Multiple parts of speech"

Headword:



Please excuse me, I'm going to go pound my head against the wall... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. —Svārtava · 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * lol. We shd do tht more oftn.vwls r 4 lsrs. Denazz (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is also ntrnt slng for, , and .  --Lambiam 18:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Gives me an idea for a new WT game. Make poetry using what I call consonagrams. WT:Consonagrams Denazz (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your limerick's pretty good, Denazz. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see the problem here. We have Category:English text messaging slang. It's a nonstandard format and it should really have a conjunction section, a determiner section, a pronoun section, etc, but these would all say "Abbreviation of that", so I honestly don't know if that would actually be more helpful to users. Most dictionaries would put all those under a single Abbreviation header - do we ever use that? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The “Abbreviation” header is explicitly disallowed: see ; this was the result of Votes/pl-2015-12/Part of speech. J3133 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Same reasoning as Smurray, and also what seems to be the main error (the PoS tagging) is fixed. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously keep. You don’t delete poorly formatted entries unless it’s created by a vandal. Inqilābī 12:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * kpt4obvs rsns P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

capital murder
RFD sense: (under New Hampshire law) The crime of (while over 18) knowingly causing the death.

As a state-specific definition that does not go outside of the general meaning of capital murder, I believe this is duplicated with the entry's sense 2.

If this sense is kept, should we also add the state definitions to the entry?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it / merged it into sense 2; at the time it was added (by me) people were arguing for having every (time period of every) jurisdiction's legal definition of each thing as a separate sense; I then removed most such things when the prevailing viewpointed shifted to not including every such thing, but evidently I missed this one. (I'll peruse other murder terms to see if I missed any others.) - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RFD deleted Sense deleted by creator.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

get into it
This clearly appears to be SoP: "get into" + "it". Any input is appreciated. mynewfiles (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously redundant, and the en-verb template inflects another entry. <b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b><b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y ☽ ru</b> 06:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems similar to other Category:English terms with placeholder "it", like knock it off. These are (I assume) considered idiomatic because "it" doesn't have to have a referent. That's the same with get into it. You can say something like "I should be doing my taxes but don't want to get into it" or "we have a lot to talk about, but let's not get into it right now", for example. Mazzlebury (talk)
 * Keep in case that wasn't obvious. Mazzlebury (talk)
 * [Edit conflict with Mazzlebury] Is this believed to be the same as sense #10 of get into, "To argue about (something)"? While I readily understand the example there, "Oh let's not get into that again", I wouldn't understand specifically that the "get into it" example, "We're finally going to get into it about the policy", means to fight or argue. This, and the fact that the "get into it" example is labelled "US" (I am from the UK), seems to suggest some point of difference. Perhaps the "it" without referent makes a separately idiomatic phrase. Mihia (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Smarandache function
Requested for deletion for self-promotion. Smarandache is an infamous crank in the mathematical community and there are many other instances of him self-promoting, e.g. on Wikipedia.

If you need further details, see the Talk page of the corresponding wikipedia article "Kempner function"; although "Smarandache function" is a redirect link to it, there clearly should not be a Wiktionary page for the term Smarandache function. Vstephen B (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that the page was made by Equinox, and not a member of Smarandache's crew, as far as I know. I don't think that RFD is appropriate here, given the circumstances. Maybe RFV, to see if people are using the term. (Side note, when I go into Google Books, I see some results. Not sure if every result is just Smarandache, or if it has been rarely used.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Looking on Google Scholar, this has been used in the "Smarandache notions journal"(!!) and in some books by people who appear to be at least close acquaintances of Smarandache (with forewords acclaiming him for being not just a brilliant mathematician but also father of a field of literature, for instance). My suspicion is that this would fail RFV on a close reading (I doubt anyone who writes about Smarandache is truly independent of him) but it would take deep searching to verify and it wouldn't surprise me if three maths students writing doctoral theses stumbled across and cited him. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Citations:timid as a rabbit
Not a valid page. Inqilābī 12:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not formatted properly, but that's no reason to delete. Citations pages are work pages. This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the entry has remained like this for over 6 years, and it is probably a commonly attested term, I thought it was reasonable and totally harmless to delete this. Personally I consider it to be speedy material because I’m not sure we should be keeping a non-standard entry for this duration, and at any rate, this ugly page is more useless than useful. Also tagging original creator . Inqilābī 20:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Kept P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I might have to add some quotes (on the main entry) and then nominate this page for speedy deletion. Inqilābī 14:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

fight city hall
This has been redirected to, but this is clearly a verb that could well do with an entry in its own right. In any event, it's not the kind of hard redirect we usually have in mainspace. Theknightwho (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't delete Either a redirect or an entry is acceptable IMO <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 03:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Make main entry, per TKW. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

busted his neck
Recreated by User:Purplebackpack89 to make some kind of POINT, even though we don't have soft redirects for terms like with other pronouns. - PB89 has been editing for many years and knows we don't do this kind of thing, so this is just intentional disruption in my view. Theknightwho (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy kept Article is not a redirect, it's an inflection, and most of nomination is an attack anyway <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 04:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a soft redirect, as I said. You are being extremely disruptive. Theknightwho (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As are you. You should've just backed away from this for awhile.  You didn't <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 04:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ??? It's an RFD nomination that you explicitly told me to do instead of speedy deleting, even though these kinds of entries are routinely speedy deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong keep First off, this is a conjugation, not a redirect, let's get that straight.  People use this conjugation; it can pass RfV if you want.  I don't see any rationale for deletion here at all.   Also, nom needs to be cautioned against using RfD nominations as personal attacks. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 04:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard redirect or delete. PUC – 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons I stated at "Tea room/2024/May", a discussion which is still ongoing. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that all three of these are currently in Category:English entries with incorrect language header. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say more or less what I said before, namely that we should not be needing individually hand-crafted entries for every combination of tense and pronoun for this and all the numerous other similar phrases. It's ridiculous. If we think people are going to be looking up busted her neck, busting their necks, etc. etc. etc., and not understanding that the lemma form would be bust one's neck, which may not be entirely unreasonable, then this can be handled automatically by the search feature, or some other automation, thus relieving us of the necessity to manually create a millionTM boringly predictable entries. Mihia (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're not willing to do stuff that that, how can we still call ourselves a dictionary? Creating such entries is necessary.  If we're deleting things on the assumption everybody knows what they mean anyway, let's delete the and of while we're at it. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 00:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * : The same way that all the other dictionaries on the planet do, since I'm not aware of any that bothers with such things. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Funny how you accuse others of slippery-slope reasoning, only to go down that road yourself. PUC – 07:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hard redirect. I don't see a need for soft redirects (actual entries with headers and some kind of "form of..." template) but I support hard redirects ( #REDIRECT Target page name ), they're cheap and help anyone who looks up a specific version like "busted my neck" without knowing they need to generalize their lookup to present tense and "one's". - -sche (discuss) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is useful for people who do not know what the lemma form would be, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the manual effort to create however-many-it-is redirects for every phrase of this type is "cheap" -- and also in practice the task would "never" be fully completed. In these days of computers and artificial untelligence, can us humans not be relieved of these monotonous tasks? Mihia (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, no-one has to create such redirects if they don't want to. If someone wants to create a particular redirect, e.g. because they came across that particular form that day and it took them a sec to work out where we lemmatized it, they're easy to make and don't (AFAICT) hurt anyone. The only marginal downside I see is that if anyone sees one of these forms is a blue link, they have to click it to find out whether it has correct content [a redirect] or not, but that applies to all our entries, where vandalism tends to last a long time if it doesn't get noticed right away, like the RFV'd senses of baby massage which I only noticed because I was clicking on and actually opening and looking at the definitions of all the pages in Special:AllPages that started with baby.... - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hard redirect per -sche's reasoning. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Buddhist flag
SoP of Buddhist + flag, in which the meaning (flag designed as universal symbol of Buddhism) is also clearly unidiomatic.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah delete. Inqilābī 13:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is "Buddhist flag" limited to this particular design? Theknightwho (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho No. See the Wikipedia article. Possibly "universal Buddhist flag" would be limited to this design (maybe ...), but "Buddhist flag" by itself can refer to all sorts of things. Benwing2 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Cornerstone Speech
Per (Talk:Gettysburg Address). This, that and the other (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons I listed when voting to keep Gettysburg Address <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 12:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons I stated at the Gettysburg Address nomination. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, delete. Inqilābī 14:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, for the same reasons as Gettysburg Address. - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, not dictionary material. Netizen3102 (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, encyclopedic. Benwing2 (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Are we going to create named court rulings? This is an individual thing belonging into Wikipedia. Fay Freak (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We do have certain shorthand forms of famous US Supreme Court ruling, like Roe. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Encyclopedic, not in our cultural lexicon (unlike Gettysburg Address). CitationsFreak (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy per precedent. —Svārtava · 07:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * RFD failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

leaf lard
Do we need another def that explains what leaf lard needs to have legally? All of sense 2 is included in sense 1, along with an assortment of less-than-apptizing leaf lards. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don’t think so. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete that sense. FYI this is another case where User:Surjection's proposal of having the ability to link a headword to a particular sense (of "leaf") would come in handy. Benwing2 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete sense 2, folding any broadly pan-jurisdictionally applicable elements of it into sense 1. This is an example of what the sense of  discussed above was illustrating (and the many senses of first-degree murder, etc). This was discussed a lot about ten years ago; there are probably other vestiges which need to be sought out and RFDed or folded in to the general senses. (The vote was never run, but see the discussions linked on this 2013 page.) - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Sense 2 is not a lexical definition. If someone has some lard made from the leaf fat of a swine but it's contaminated with a foreign odour, they can't legally sell it as leaf lard, but I cannot imagine anyone - even an inspector - actually saying "That's not leaf lard"; they'd just say "That leaf lard doesn't meet the legal standards" or "That leaf lard smells funny". Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether an inspector would say that or not, the standards of identity establish a legal meaning of the phrase, such that calling it leaf lard as the seller of the product is in fact illegal. I would grant that there are identifiers for which this is less likely to be relevant, but if something is described as, e.g., "low fat" and it does not meet this standard, trouble will follow. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 21:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that those would go under a usage note, but I generally don't think it matters. (If there's evidence of a certain term being used because the standard of intensity doesn't apply, I'd say add it. An example of that would be "partially gelatinated nondairy gum-based beverages" being used over "shakes" in certain contexts due to them not officially meeting the legal requirement for them.) CitationsFreak (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I admit it's a grey area; I agree there can be cases where a legal definition is different enough from the lay definition to be lexical, analogous to chemists having a broad definition of alcohol that includes things like cholesterol that would not be alcohol in a lay context. OTOH... if I go to Russia and call the war in Ukraine a war or война, calling it that is illegal and trouble will follow! and yet I hope no-one thinks we need a new definition for война (and war, to the extent I'd also be prosecuted for saying it in English to reach an international audience), "large-scale armed conflict not including foreign odours the latest one in Ukraine". To me, the fact that people still use война and war the usual way (with or without repercussions), and the fact that people use leaf lard the 'usual' way (and would say that leaf lard is contaminated - you can't sell it), makes me conclude that speakers don't perceive the law as creating a new meaning of leaf lard (we/I don't think leaf lard that doesn't meet the regulations has ceased to be within the scope of the word leaf lard, just that it's unsellable), but instead [correctly, IMO] perceive the laws as just regulating the purity or safety of the thing and how it can be marketed. - -sche (discuss) 16:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, also the other three. They can be used as arguments why something is not SOP, and in usage notes. Fay Freak (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me add three more, representative of the general category of such terms: - -sche (discuss) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

mixed nuts
Rfd-sense "(US standards of identity) A mixture of: shelled peanuts (optional); at least four types of shelled tree nuts (or at least three, if the container for sale contains less than two ounces and is transparent), each in a proportion of at least two percent; and, optionally, other functional ingredients. No one type of nuts may comprise more than eighty percent of the mixture." In line with what Smurray said above, LOL @ the idea that any human would ever say "these aren't mixed nuts, they're in an opaque container!" (pours them into transparent container) "ah, now they're mixed nuts". - -sche (discuss) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

tomato juice
Rfd-sense: "(US standards of identity) A food obtained from the unfermented liquid extracted from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties of Lycopersicum esculentum P. Mill, strained free from peel, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances, containing finely divided insoluble solids from the flesh of the tomato." as distinct from "Juice made from tomatoes" (As Smurray suggested, you serve someone tomato juice with seeds and they're going to think "this tomato juice has seeds in it", not "this is no tomato juice! it's juice-of-tomato-with-seeds-in-it!") - -sche (discuss) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

ground beef
Rfd-sense: (US standards of identity) Chopped fresh or frozen beef without the addition of beef fat as seasoning, with no more than 30 percent fat, and with no added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders." as opposed to "(Canada, US) Beef that has been finely chopped; minced beef." Let these entries represent the general principle that such overspecific senses based on specific laws at specific times should be removed in favor of the general, lexical senses, or else endlessly proliferated to account for the 24% definition in use in one region from 1969-1975 vs the 25% definition in use there from 1975-1987 vs the 20% definition in use the next jurisdiction over vs the one that allowed binders, etc, etc. For other discussions, see the 2013 page I linked above. - -sche (discuss) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete all and salt (refined salt containing about 97 to 99 percent sodium chloride, to which optionally anticaking agents and/or iodide in the form of cuprous iodide or potassium iodide has been added) the earth. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Communist Party of China

 * Delete: not dictionary material. —Svārtava · 07:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Political parties are dictionary material. See Republican Party. CitationsFreak (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have CCP and CPC. The point however is full names of political parties and most organizations aren’t dictionary material; let Wikipedia alone keep those names. Inqilābī 15:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per citations freak. Certain types of proper nouns are acceptable. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 21:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete for nominator’s reason. should be considered for deletion as well. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Sgconlaw that we should reconsider and other similar entries too. Imetsia (talk (<span style="cursor:help;" title="I strongly prefer messages on my talk page instead of article talk pages, Wiktionary discussion pages, or edit summaries. More information on my talk page.">more ) ) 16:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to delete: "Communist Party of China" is exceptionally transparent. For Republican Party, a no entry pointing users to Wikipedia might be helpful, as I suggested during the discussion of it. I admit it's difficult to say exactly where to draw the line. On the IMO-obviously-not-inclusion-worthy side are things like City of London Chess Club, which I hope no-one wants to add, and we also deleted People's Liberation Army Navy. On the IMO-obviously-includable side are things like United Nations. We also don't include just any corporation name (which seems reasonable to me), but we do have religious denominations (which also seems reasonable to me). - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @-sche In many cases I'd agree, but "X Party of Y" names are often a bit different since it doesn't necessarily refer to any political party in China which happens to be communist, so it's not SOP. A better example would be the, as distinct from the or the 9 other parties with (official) names that follow the "Communist Party of Nepal ([more specific ideology])" format, like ,  etc. etc. 22:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Theknightwho (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO Nepal Communist Party or Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) are also transparent, notwithstanding there being multiple, because the names still tell you what they are; equally, there must be cases where "[city name] Chess Club" is not the only chess club in the city. But transparency or "SOP" is only a secondary concern for me here: if there were a "Moscow Chess Club" that was actually the city's discreet gay club, or a Communist Party of China that had become quite capitalist (like this one!), I would feel the same inclination to delete, because I don't see why these things would be considered "words" for a dictionary to define. Communist and Republican as common count nouns (and potentially adjectives), yes, but Communist Party of China or People's Liberation Army Navy? No, IMO. But I admit it's a grey area, and clearly some people draw the line in a different place and would include some or all these. - -sche (discuss) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @-sche Sorry: to be clear, I was arguing specifically that "Communist Party of Nepal" would not be SOP because of the existence of all these niche parties, as I was intending to show how "Communist Party of China" cannot be assumed to be straightforwardly SOP. I'm not arguing we should include all of those parties as separate entries. It's not just any old party that's Chinese and communist; it's one specific party. Theknightwho (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously. Delete all political parties unless they are abbreviated names. Inqilābī 15:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. PUC – 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

gun nut
SOP, compare health nut Zebres rouges (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted per precedent. PUC – 21:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

= July 2024 =

quadratic equation
(edit: also for cubic equation, linear equation, etc. that exist)


 * Delete: SOP. —Svārtava · 14:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting that we also have cubic equation, but none higher as far as I can see, albeit I forget the terminology now after "quintic". Also we have linear equation. Mihia (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I already considered them similar enough to be "speedily deleted per precedent" if this RFD is successful hence I didn't take the pain of finding all of such terms and listing them, but now I have added them to this section only (seems acceptable, as no other votes have been cast). —Svārtava · 02:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 11:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. A user might add this definition for the adjective :        Of a bank, created to specialize in the ownership of defaulted loans and their collection. Another user could then nominate  for deletion as being SOP. But, perhaps, we should not add definitions of adjectives with a meaning for such a specific application; rather, we could list the combination as a derived term.  --Lambiam 20:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quadratic in mathematics is a general term for "2 degree" and used in various such SOP phrases like quadratic expression, quadratic function, quadratic polynomial, quadratic equation, etc. —Svārtava · 03:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably don’t delete- can be kept as translation hub. Inqilābī 14:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Inqilabi: see 🇨🇬. PUC – 09:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Very common set terms in algebra. and  is covered by most major dictionaries (OED, AHD, M-W, Collins etc.). M-W also includes . I have improved the quadratic entry a bit, and added quotes showing it can be used in non-technical contexts as well. Einstein2 (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

hawk tuah
Tagged, originally as a speedy, but not listed. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 06:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 💀 -- 06:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep (for now) and tag as "hot word" - I'm sceptical that this lasts a year, but I definitely imagine it entering the slang lexicon and I'm pretty sure it's citeable in three independent sources: the original coinage (and all the online articles quoting it), plus at least three songs listed on genius.com.
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. This one isn't going anywhere, because it concisely and onomatopœically describes a longstanding but heretofore unnamed popular practice. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep No rationale provided for deletion <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 11:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We keep similar onomatopoeia, so I see no reason to delete this other than if it's unattested, which is an RFV issue. I say hot word it and check back later. I know "hot words" are only exempt from "spanning a year", they still have to have cites—and while songs released on CD / archivable media are archived by libraries, I don't think uploading something to YouTube in song form makes it any more "archived" than anything else online, so it seems like the songs above probably aren't "durable" and would have to be discussed as internet sources—but if anyone thinks cites are unlikely to become available, they can move this to RFV and it'll sit there for at least a month (often longer), probably enough time for cites to come out (or for use of the term to die off enough to make us think it won't actually merit hotwording). - -sche (discuss) 15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a hot word (or hot expression) since it has become pretty popular online. I've heard it used on several Twitter/X spaces as well. mynewfiles (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep It's definitely a hot word (or hot expression) since it has become pretty popular online. I've heard it used on several Twitter/X spaces as well.
 * Keep, its lasting a year is guaranteed by merchandise. It also has international attention slowing it down and hence reinvigorating it. Fay Freak (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Abstain. I don't care how "hot" it is or not, I won't be using it. DonnanZ (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not? PUC – 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not compulsory, and hardly the King's English. DonnanZ (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You gotta move with the times! PUC – 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No way! DonnanZ (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An ancient person is like a living museum, you ought not to destroy antiquated items in a museum. Now anent this rfd, ne goand to nait this term either- but on sunderly grounds: chould strive to brook thorply tongue; however I cast my vote only for words I am personally interested in. Inqilābī 13:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please take this process seriously. You may find the term repugnant or annoying, but that's not a rationale for deletion.  Not being "King's English" isn't either. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 13:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Read it all again. I am abstaining, not voting delete, and yes, you're right, it is repugnant. DonnanZ (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep Several have voted keep, only the nominator has voted delete <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 01:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Purplebackpack89 Please read Snowball clause. This clearly does not apply here, so your speedy keep was in error. Benwing2 (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your undoing of my close is what is in error (and you would not have undone it if it were anyone else). What is the cause for this remaining open?  The editor who added the tag didn't even vote or provide a rationale.  There's no rationale for deleting this at all.  I fundamentally ask you: why should this still be open? <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 12:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked @Purplebackpack89 for three days, as their behaviour is becoming seriously disruptive and their unwavering claims of being victimised are becoming unmanageable. This is far from the first block they have received for disruptive behaviour. Theknightwho (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad and POINTY block by Theknightwho, who I might add has kicked up drama hither and yon defending a clearly bad block. Blocking somebody for criticizing a close, or an undo of a close, is highly inappropriate.  Blocking somebody for feeling victimized is 1984 territory.  Criticism is disruption and criticizing an admin should NOT be a blockable offense.<b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 14:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not the most co-operative user, see RFD for . DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

human death
SOP? PUC – 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It sure looks like it. - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does appear as SOP, but it is an actual, distinct term/definition in the field of law. mynewfiles (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If so, can you add the elements that make it not SOP to the definition?- -sche (discuss) 20:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...because failing that: delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per my take on . Inqilābī 12:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't made a cogent argument there, so I don't know what your rationale is here either. PUC – 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another way to explain my rationale is, I’m in favor of including every compound word containing the word human; and no amount of reverts of etymologies I add is going to make them a mere phrase. This is not the Norman period in English language. Inqilābī 16:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it were a compound of the noun, or  would be attested, don't you think? Or  ~  alongside ? PUC – 16:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, in my opinion. English orthography is inconsistent, so spellings should not be relied on for word origins. Inqilābī 16:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlike human life, this isn't a set phrase. The single quote in the entry states that human death is different from animal death, but uses the phrase in such a way that it's obvious that it's not considered a lexical unit. They could just as easily have said "the death of a human being", though it wouldn't have sounded as nice. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some non-SoP and verifiable sense is added. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

human life
As above PUC – 21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Same as above for human death. It does appear as SOP, but it is an actual, distinct term/definition in the field of law, used in briefs and legal documents. mynewfiles (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Beginning and end of it are debatable, and hinge on the biodiagnostics available at the time of debate. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that every court defines "human life" as starting when the sperm fertilizes the egg. CitationsFreak (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The beginning point is definitely a matter of POV that we shouldn't spell out in such detail. A fertilized ovum is definitely alive, and it's human, but that's also true of skin cells. The question of whether it's a human life in the same way as a newborn infant as opposed to being like an unfertilized ovum is a matter of vehement debate and people are fighting and dying over it. That sure looks like something beyond SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hence my reason for creating it. mynewfiles (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands; the current overspecificity is, well, overspecific; different people/works/etc define the beginning differently, so if we clean that up ("beginning from [one person's ideas]" &rarr; ~"beginning at its beginning", like all things) it's clearer that it's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added cites to both human life and human death to illustrate their unique usages. mynewfiles (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongest delete possible. SOP and seems to exist primarily as a sneaky way to push an anti-abortion POV. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That was not my intention at all. I have no opinion on the matter of abortion. mynewfiles (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One does not inadvertently define "human life" as "beginning from the fertilization of the human egg." This is not objective scientitic fact. It's not even an uncontested philosophical position. It's a religious tenet that only gets invoked in the context of arguments for banning abortion, conctraception, IVF, and stem-cell research. In any case this needs to be nuked from orbit. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That may be your view, but the topic of abortion was emphatically never on my mind when I created this entry. There's no need to be overly aggressive in your incorrect assumptions of others. mynewfiles (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit history includes and . Forgive me for finding it doubtful you lack familiarity with the texture of debate surrounding an issue that's been at the forefront of American politics for 60 years. In any case, this is SOP. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions are once again becoming more and more incorrect and ridiculous with each subsequent reply. I've created hundreds of entries with a multitude of meanings of various political persuasions. mynewfiles (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral to define "human life" as beginning at "fertilization" whether or not it was done so with the intent to forward an ideological position. It's not a neutral definition in and of itself. It's possible for definitions to reference contested ideas (for want of a better term) without presenting said ideas as objective fact. In this entry that could take the form of something like: "a human being and their biological and social development (variously defined in law and ethics as beginning at points from fertilization to birth)." I still think this entry isn't inclusion-worthy for strictly CFI reasons. But it would've been fully possible to construct this definition in a way that didn't set off alarm bells. I'm not the only one to have pointed out the "fertilization" definition is problematic. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we should check on their edits. It all seems too ... weird to not have some bias. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as a term of art, though it needs proper explaining. Nothing to do with abortion, either, and we wouldn’t delete it on that basis if it did. Theknightwho (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a "term of art" (i.e., a technical term) for which there is no corollary Wikipedia article. Just a disambiguation page pointing to some articles on topics readers might connect to the phrase "human life." Wikipedia doesn't seem to want to define this as a concept when it can do so with the scope afforded by an encyclopedia. Why should we, a dictionary, seek to define it in their stead? There is no singular definition. Any definition will inevitably be uselessly vague and overbroad, or forwarding a narrow agenda. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , how would you describe it? CitationsFreak (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per my take on . Inqilābī 12:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But you haven't made a cogent argument there? PUC – 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. Inqilābī 16:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I changed the definition to get rid of the unrealistically narrow scope and added some usexes that show more idiomatic use. It's a set phrase that refers to one or two specific intersections of the senses of its parts- a bit of a gray area. Part of the debate over abortion, etc. hinges on the difference between the fertilized ovum as something human that's alive vs. the same as a human life- whether it's a human being or not. That seems to be the core of what makes this idiomatic. There's also completely non-idomatic usage, which muddies things up a bit. If we keep this, we should probably add &lit. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some non-SoP, verifiable sense is added. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's Wiktionary's definition of death zone in which this term may appear non-SOP:
 * A area of land at sufficiently high altitudes inn which there is not enough oxygen to sustain human life. mynewfiles (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In this example, human life is used in a physiological/biological sense. mynewfiles (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * that’s an SoP sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One can also make a distinction semantically, let's say, between two different types of rights: animal rights vs. human rights. Hence, there could be a distinction between life or any of its derived variants and human life. mynewfiles (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sticks Nix Hick Pix
Encyclopaedic. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 02:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also bad faith entry to make some point about our inclusion criteria, worse than entries before which failed for the same reason, whose usages had at least a bit of fodder for debate. Fay Freak (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong, unproven and a personal attack. User should be blocked for this statement. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 15:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You should be blocked for having suggested to block someone for their good-faith input. Also, what he said is fundamentally right. Inqilābī 17:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Prove what Fay said is right. Does Fay have a camera in my brain? <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, he basically meant you assumed words of this class, namely (famous) headlines, are accepted as legitimate dictionary entries- which is clearly not the case (evidenced by the several inputs below), and that creating such entries can be considered to have been done in bad faith due to violation of our basic CFI guidelines. Inqilābī 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't do Famous Headlines as entries. All the usage I can find is referring to the original headline either directly or indirectly, so it fails the independence criterion and the use vs. mention criterion. It might make a decent quote in an entry for one of the component words, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: we don’t generally have entries for titles of works. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inqilābī 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Nominator and delete rationales are unconvincing and play into a false dichotomy. Am concerned that nomination and delete votes are too focused on creator and not entry. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 15:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * : Your substantive reasons are too sketchy and vague to figure out, and the rest is too focused on the motives of the voters and not on the reasons given for the votes. If stating that you acted in bad faith is a personal attack, then indirectly stating that others acted in bad faith is also a personal attack. Can you accept that people can disagree with you for substantive reasons? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're about the only one who's actually given any substantive reasons. Inqil and Fay gave no reasons at all, Sgconlaw said "we don't have these" but didn't say way, and Fenakhay simply said "encyclopedic" without saying encyclopedic in what respect.  When I talk of a "false dichotomy", what I mean is a false dichotomy between dictionary definition and encyclopedia entry.  The idea that there is some bright, hard-and-fast line between dictionary definition and encyclopedia entry is fantasy.  There are Wikipedia articles about parts of speech and Wiktionary entries about places and occasionally events too.  Furthermore, the term "encyclopedic" has now become a catch-all excuse for deleting or revising almost anything.  One frequent usage I've seen of "encyclopedic" is to claim that an entry is too detailed, but that's clearly NOT the case here. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well it is true that many encyclopedic entries can be lexicographical and vice versa, however when we say that a term is encyclopedic, it means it is purely non-lexicographical and has zero rationale for inclusion— unlike those tons of encyclopedic entries we keep such as toponyms, anthroponyms, and any abbreviations. Inqilābī 17:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * a) If by encyclopedic you meant "non-lexicographical", you should have said "non-lexicographical" at the outset. And "non-lexicographical" isn't much better because it is also an amorphous idea. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * you really shouldn't make assumptions about editors' supposed motivations for voting one way or another. I generally do not—and did not in this case—see who had created the entry (because it is irrelevant), and so had no idea that it was you. Also, I had already expressed the same view in the earlier "Gettysburg Address" discussion which you also participated in that the titles of works are generally not regarded as lexical for the purpose of inclusion in the dictionary, and that it would be difficult to draw a line between including some titles and not including others ("Why not also Love's Labour's Lost, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone?"). Wikipedia can deal with these works much better than we can. I didn't see the need for repeating the whole point again, but I've done so now for your benefit. Anyway, if you disagree with current policy, it is always open to you to start a formal vote to amend WT:CFI and see if two-thirds of the participating editors agree with you. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The comment about making things personal is mostly a reference to Fay's screed above where they accuse me of POV pushing without evidence. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is really getting off topic. I've started a topic at the Beer parlour about the "encyclopedic" deletion reason (Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/July. Please continue that part of the discussion there. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Chuck. Proverbs, we include (at least sometimes). Headlines, no. - -sche (discuss) 15:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Farm-Fresh fire.png<span style="font-size: 120%; text-fill-color: transparent; -moz-text-fill-color: transparent; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; background-clip: text; -moz-background-clip: text; -webkit-background-clip: text; background-color: #FF0000; background-image: linear-gradient(45deg, #FF0000, #FFA500); background-size: 100%;">Hyper-Strong Delete of Fire and Flame Farm-Fresh fire.png. The entry doesn't have a definition on its own, it just explains what the words mean separately. No hard feelings towards the creator. Hythonia (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * delete, per Chuck and Hypthonia. No hard feelings to the creator but it's like a dictionary entry that says "Rural people reject hick films - see rural + people + hick + film + etc." — B ABR ・talk 00:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * delete, SOP Justin the Just (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Theknightwho (talk),
 * No reason given by Theknightwho for deletion; their vote should be discounted. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Purplebackpack89 That isn't how it works; I trust that other users are intelligent enough to realise that I was concurring with the rationales already given, but to spell it out for you: this does not make sense as an entry, because it is plainly SOP, and isn't even used, since any references to it being used as an interesting/notable headline that one time are all mentions, not uses. Theknightwho (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Unambiguous deletion, RFD-deleted This, that and the other (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Failed - needed speedy deletion. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW although I think this has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, let's let it wait till a week has gone by, since I complained about PBP's speedy-keep above after 4 days. Benwing2 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

chemical depilatory
SoP of chemical + depilatory: I don’t see any lexicographic merit in its inclusion, though keeping it as a collocation or a redirect is an option. Inqilābī 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

renewable
Rfd-sense "(of a resource) Sustainable; able to be regrown or renewed; having an ongoing or continuous source of supply." Not distinct from sense 1, as far as I can tell. PUC – 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Both are actually distinct senses— the first one is used more generically, whilst the other one in scientific/environmental contexts. Keep / don’t merge. Inqilābī 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it seems like the noun senses need to be merged. Inqilābī 15:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The second sense is actually the first sense used in environmental contexts. It is not a new sense. PUC – 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is where defdate comes into play. Anyway all dictionaries I saw split them as separate, fullfledged senses. Inqilābī 16:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There are probably three senses. Renewable energy comes from wind farms, solar panels, and hydroelectricity. Then there are renewable forests, also called sustainable forests. These are usually plantations, which are cut down and replanted with about a 30-year cycle. They have been doing this in New Zealand for decades. DonnanZ (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

-zumab
Monoclonal antibodies are assigned names according to a complicated WHO naming sytem. The usual nomenclature is the following: [1] a variable prefix; [2] an infix referring to the medicine's target (target substem"); [3] an infix referring to the source of the antibody ("source substem"; omitted in antibodies named after 2017); [4] a suffix ("stem" = for every antibody named before 2022). (E.g. : .),  and  were created by JoeyChen in 2020 after removing the entries for the standalone ,  and  (I haven't found a relevant discussion prior to the changes). However, these are merely three of the frequently co-occurring combinations of [3] and [4], and semantically are not more closely related to each other than e.g. [2] and [4]. Guidelines also treat source substems and stems as different entities. I find the treatment of these combinations as genuine suffixes misleading, therefore, I think they should be deleted (along with their categories) and removed from the etymology sections of antibody entries, while ,  and  should be reinstated as infixes. Einstein2 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

not know which end is up
To have no common sense; to be ignorant of the most basic facts; to be very confused.

This is just +. We don’t usually have entries for these kinds of negative constructions, since they’re plainly SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to know which end is up <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 20:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:Theknightwho. Benwing2 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect'. PUC – 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect at least, this phrase is mostly used in the negative. Justin the Just (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to know which end is up. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:783B:7193:770:2024 02:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's true that this phrase is more commonly used in the negative, then redirect — B ABR ・talk 03:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

abernathyites
This, that and the other (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

billion with a b
Not idiomatic - there are plenty more words this can be done with than, nor is it probably the archetype of this pattern. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 01:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete- purely SoP. Inqilābī 03:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is often heard on the radio and on TV to emphasize that "billion" is meant, not "million". "Two billion (that's billion with a b!" 2600:1700:4410:47A0:783B:7193:770:2024 21:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've heard only "million with an M" as well as "billion with a B", usually either to emphasize the bigness of the figures involved., or as a clarification. CitationsFreak (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you do a Google search for "billion with a b" there is a discussion on wordreference forum where a non-native English speaker is asking what "billion with a b" means. So apparently what the expression refers to is not clear to non-native speakers. Fish567 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A non-native speaker not understanding a term is not valid grounds for keeping a term.Inqilābī 15:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is not entirely clear what the expression refers to or else non-native speakers who know what "billion" means should understand it without a problem. Fish567 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat Inqilabi's comment: "A non-native speaker not understanding a term is not valid grounds for keeping a term". PUC – 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per proponent. PUC – 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is mostly used to emphasize the sheer magnitude of the number, as in 'we spent over a billion dollars on this last year- that's billion with a "b"!'. One rarely hears 'million with an "m" ' used the same way for the reverse. I'm not sure if it's enough to make it dictionary-worthy, but it should be kept in mind. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. "Billion with a b" is often used in writing even though in writing "billion" will not be mistaken for "million". It is used to emphasize the largeness of a billion as opposed to a million. Fish567 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think both "trillion with a t" and "trillion with a tr" could be attested. Either way, I recall that this same pattern is also seen with other words than just large numbers. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I just did some searching and I could find results for "trillion with a t" and even "quadrillion with a q". Fish567 (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Svartava (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

phytozome
all attestations I can find are for the comparative platform for green plant genomics Phytozome, no usage of phytozome as a name for plant genomes. Anatol Rath (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Move to RFV. Inqilābī 15:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

theatre organ
This refers to any organ installed in a theatre, so it's SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not really, because a) this also describes attributes and functionalities of the organ, b) most extant organs of that description aren't in silent movie theaters (which now are virtually non-existent, and c) not all "theatres" have this type of theater organ. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The definition as currently written is, "(music) A large pipe organ, usually also containing percussion and sound effect elements, of the style found in silent film theatres.", fwiw. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 03:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Purplebackpack89 Yes, that is the definition you wrote, but there are (were) plenty of s installed in conventional theatres, too, and those are theatre organs as well. The fact that not all theatres have a theatre organ is irrelevant. Theknightwho (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point. The point is that not all theaters WITH ORGANS have this type of organ.  The additional point was that this definition as currently written ISN'T SOP <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 20:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, not SOP. Wurlitzer organs essentially are theatre organs, even if not installed in a theatre (see). I'd call any organ with certain distinctive features (e.g. tibia clausa stops with the distinctive wide tremulant, or percussion stops) a theatre organ. I'm sure I could find durably archived evidence if needed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

church organ
Refers to any organ installed in a church. For some reason, the definition specifies "Christian church", but I don't think that's necessary. Theknightwho (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 06:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I will keep church organ and theatre organ because each of them is a special variation of the pipe organ, constructed very differently and sounds unique when played (I read that the theatre organ even has orchestral features and it may not be a true organ despite the name). The fact that the terms are lexically sums of parts should be irrelevant; the definitions can be improved however. Inqilābī 18:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian
Nonstandard use of capitalization. Vex-Vectoꝛ ​​ 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's an alt form, I would allow it. But is much more dubious. DonnanZ (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The prefix trans- is not normally capitalized, nor is the word trans-Siberian a proper adjective. To capitalize the T is nonstandard per capitalization of English words. It is not a valid form of the word, nor is it notable enough as a nonstandard form to merit inclusion, and should be deleted. It appears to be mistakenly reanalysed from Trans-Siberian Railway, which is indeed a proper noun.
 * On the other hand, transsiberian follows the older tradition of uncapitalizing a proper noun when it comes before a prefix (cf. other examples such as transalpine, transamerican, or transneptunian). This is perfectly standard in the English language, and is highly attested. What exactly do you find to be, “much more dubious”? Vex-Vectoꝛ ​​ 15:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed explanation. A reminder to Donnanz that whether you personally like or loathe a word bears no relevance in our inclusion, and stating your opinions thus can be confusing and misleading in a formal procedure. Inqilābī 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's hardly necessary, but I did forget about . DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We keep non-standard spellings too, and this is not a valid ground to rfd an entry. If you doubt its attestation, then go over to WT:RFVE. Inqilābī 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So be it, then. Vex-Vectoꝛ ​​ 15:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We do delete rare misspellings, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We do delete rare misspellings, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, but possibly RfV I would agree with Inqilābī's assessment that the nominator didn't provide valid grounds for deletion <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added a proper noun sense, since "Trans-Siberian" is sometimes used to refer to the . Theknightwho (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

declare war
A set phrase, but SOP. There's a figurative sense because has one (war on drugs, etc.), it's not specific to this combination. As far as I can tell, none of the translations is entryworthy and warrants a THUB; these, although set phrases too, are equally SOP. PUC – 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. Inqilābī 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's taken only 13½ years, from November 2010, to discover that fact.  Abstain  for now. DonnanZ (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My verdict changed to keep. I found enough refs that illustrate it is indeed a set phrase with a figurative meaning. As for PUC's aversion to SoP translations, the hard work put into translations by some editors would be wasted if this entry was deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * People who regularly add translations have added translations to innumerable entries, and I don’t understand how few entries getting deleted would be a wastage of their effort. Anyway, a pro tip would be to avoid adding translations or quotations to questionable entries if you don’t want your contributions to get deleted. Inqilābī 11:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now, because I feel like an indefinite article would normally be expected there. But I would also point out that if I painstakingly reconstructed The Garden of Earthly Delights by hand using only ASCII and CSS, all the hard work I would have put into it would be wasted if it were deleted. That doesn't mean it should be kept. That's a bad argument. Hythonia (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as a set phrase/construction and as a translation hub. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which translations qualify? PUC – 20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Mandarin, Japanese, and Korean ones, mainly. But presumably most of the languages have set phrases, rather than just being any old combination of "declare" and "war", so it's useful to have this entry for those collocations as well. For instance, I suspect that "ilmoittaa sota" in Finnish would be incorrect, even though "ilmoittaa" is listed as one of the translations of the relevant sense of "declare". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Olympic Valley
Etymology 3: "An oil tanker built in West Germany in 1954, under the Liberian flag." I don't think WT:CFI permits inclusion of the names of marine vessels which have no figurative sense. The list of such names is endless. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't normally record ships, though I think an exception can be made for the Titanic. It's probably been broken up by now. Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete man-made stuff like this is usually deleted <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 22:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per norm. Inqilābī 14:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Deleted Newfiles (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think closure is somewhat premature; only three editors have voted so that isn't really enough for a snowball, and we're supposed to wait a month. However, I don't propose to reverse the edit to the entry. If any editor thinks the sense shouldn't be deleted, they are free to comment here until 13 August 2024. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, don't close for another 31 days. DonnanZ (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

attack is the best form of defence
attack is the best form of defence and all variations inc. the best defence is attack, the best defence is attack, attack is the best form of defense

None of these seem idiomatic, IMHO these are all SOP. — B ABR ・talk 09:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems paradoxical/oxymoronic and paradoxes and oxymorons aren't SOP <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 11:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: We don’t keep non-idiomatic proverbs? Inqilābī 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm not sure but WT:CFI says:
 * An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP).
 * To me, it does not appear that "attack is the best form of defense" applies to that at all. I think anyone who knew the meaning of the component words would know what the phrase meant as a whole meant. — B ABR ・talk 18:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Solid collocation that also has its own Wikipedia article; that said, I see no reason for deletion — <b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b><b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y ☽ ru</b> 04:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Inqilābī 20:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake
Originally tagged for deletion because the creator had misspelled the entry, but I discovered that the entry was deleted previously as SoP. Inqilābī 14:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The definition given ("One should avoid any feeling of pity or sympathy for one's rival or opponent.") is also incorrect; the actual definition is precisely what you'd expected based on what the parts mean. And we are not Wikiquote. So I would say delete ... and since the entry indeed previously failed RFD, I've deleted it. User:Mynewfiles is reminded not to recreate things that previously failed RFD (this is not the first time you have tried to do that), but to raise a request for undeletion here. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

CN95
Brand name used by obscure mask companies. I can't find anything from the Canadian government involving this word. Randomstaplers (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Plural form: CN95s Randomstaplers (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

gorilla suit
NISOP Kiwima (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I withdraw the request, as I managed to cite a second meaning. Kiwima (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe the request should be un-withdrawn, as the second meaning is the only one that's not SoP. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete the SoP sense of “gorilla costume” (reopened the discussion in respect of this sense). — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm unenthusiastic about that. It could be converted to "see gorilla and suit" (I've forgotten how to do it), in order to keep the quotes. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The template is . J3133 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I gave it a "dry run", we'd need to keep the def "gorilla costume" somehow. Let's see if Sgconlaw is agreeable. DonnanZ (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * personally I do not favour the use of . In this case I also do not see why keeping the literal sense is needed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I do. Keep it somehow, whether using &lit or not. DonnanZ (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well we also have in the sense of a rabbit costume. Inqilābī 18:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is protected by WT:COALMINE. Maybe "gorillasuit" is attested? CitationsFreak (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Convert to a &lit definition. Inqilābī 16:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

New Fish Street
Old street. Denazz (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fish it. Inqilābī 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as not compliant with WT:CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence supplied saying it is now Fish Street Hill, where the Fire of London monument is situated. That happened in 1666, and the quote is from 1569. There is an Old Fish Street Hill, which seems to be an alley off Queen Victoria Street, some distance away. Delete, I think, despite its interest. DonnanZ (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a reference to New Fish Street in the WP article. It seems to be where Monument Street is now, but anyway... DonnanZ (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Monster Manual
Let's kill this fast Denazz (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)