text:
Talk:illegal formation

illegal formation
Surely just a formation that is illegal? -- Liliana • 04:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 06:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has a specific meaning, not guessable from the parts. Requires prior knowledge--Dmol 09:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. IMO it is very much guessable from the parts. Equinox ◑ 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete current definition, if there is a definition not guessable by the sum of its part, Dmol should add it and then we'll discuss it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep . Illegal generally means against the law in the larger sense of legislation governing a civil society, not against rules of a game. Is this used in any sport other than football, by the way? bd2412 T 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Illegal meaning against the rules is very common, it might even be more common than the against the law sense. In effect a law is a special type of rule, so there's not even different definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the second question, I looked at b.g.c, and illegal formation also occurs in football (the American one), volleyball, and even military aviation, so no, it is not specific to soccer at all. -- Liliana • 18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant American football. Wikipedia only has one sense of illegal formation (the term redirects to Penalty (American football)); and that is:
 * Fewer than 7 players line up on the line of scrimmage(NFL/High School); more than four players in the backfield (NCAA only); eligible receivers fail to line up as the leftmost and rightmost players on the line in the NFL; or when five properly numbered ineligible players fail to line up on the line.
 * Ah! For some reason, redirects to . It should not do that. -- Liliana • 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be a very specific definition, one that does not even include formations that break the rules by having the wrong number of players on the field or having a player offsides. We should have a definition of the very specific sense used in American football. bd2412 T 18:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. What does it prove that that there are more ways than one to end up in an illegal formation? --Hekaheka 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that there are four specific formations that constitute an "illegal formation", even though there are other formations (one with twelve players, or one with a player on the other side of the field) that would be against the rules. Therefore, an illegal formation, in American football at least, is not any formation that is illegal, but only formations falling into one of those four specific rule violations. bd2412 T 23:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes it even more SoP. There are various conditions which determine what is "illegal parking" and what is not, what is "unlawful killing" and not, and so on - it doesn't mean we create a specific legal definition for each, that is what an encyclopedia is for. ---> Tooironic 23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, however, there are "illegal" formations that are not "illegal formations". bd2412 T 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, the definition being challenged is wrong, because the definition says that it can be any formation that is illegal. Equinox ◑ 23:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've added the missing senses, and narrowed the RfD to the SOP sense, which I agree is SOP and should be deleted. bd2412 T 00:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Replace remaining sense with . DCDuring TALK  00:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes the formation illegal isn't part of the definition; it's just any formation which is illegal. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone cares, I this doesn't seem to meey WT:CFI as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No more so than many of the cricket expression which we so lovingly include. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this comment vague and provocative, hence not very useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to provoke looking at this kind of entry with respect for the possibility that this term has as much idiomaticity as comparable cricket terms, some of which have seemed SoP to me, at least at first. Terms in certain fields seem to get a much more sympathetic view than those from other fields, in a way that suspiciously reflects the background, training, and interests of active contributors. I have the feeling that our recent treatment of emergency medical technician jargon was a little less sympathetic than our treatment of, say, linguistic, cricket, or internet jargon. It is a reason why formal criteria, rather than pure votes, would make for more objectivity and a better Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would add that I think our evaluation criteria should consider whether a phrase would be likely to appear in a specialized dictionary on a given topic. I have no doubt that illegal formation would appear in a dictionary of football terminology, just as equal rights in fact appears in every current legal dictionary, and various EMT phrases would appear in a dictionary directed towards that field. In a sense, I think when a phrase like this actually appears in another dictionary, the authors of that dictionary have done the work for us of determining whether the term belongs in a dictionary. bd2412 T 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is that simple really, but we could decide to let it be that simple. Many glossaries seem to include in their definitions a great deal of content I would characterize as encyclopedic. They often have, say, both "Adj" and "Adj + N" as entries, where N is not limited in its meaning to the area covered by the glossary. I would argue for only "Adj" being included. OTOH, the benefits of simplicity are such that it is tempting just to accept such terms without qualification, at least for now. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW I edited Talk:caught and bowled to express why I think it's an idiom and I'd happily do the same for other cricket terms. There are some terms in Category:en:Cricket that I'd like to delete, but where I'm not confident enough of getting a majority so I'm not gonna even try. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:illegal formation


text:
Talk:plastic bag

plastic bag
Total SOP? —  [Ric Laurent] — 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Liliana • 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

 * It's included in foreign language dictionaries: Mandarin:, Japanese: , Russian: , why don't we include it? Keep, of course. --Anatoli 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Exactly and we should keep it because it is an everyday consumer good. It is unique. Translations are useful. It is too common a term to make it hard on people looking it up having to cross reference plastic and bag which both have tons of convoluted info on em. Some plastic bags aren't even made out of plastic they are made out of starch or corn, some are singleuse some are multiuse some are permanent, some rot, some not. All that is not something you could expect to find with plastic+bag defs yaknowhamean?Acdcrocks 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your rationales for keeping things make no lexicographic sense and you never seem to learn from these discussions. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends if any bag made out of plastic is a plastic bag. FWIW I don't care how many non-English dictionaries have it, we're not trying to be other dictionaries, we're just trying to be Wiktionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For one thing, a bag made of a woven fabric of plastic fibers would not be called a plastic bag in normal usage that I am familiar with. For another, the plastic bags (or bag-like things ?) enclosing electronic items inside the cardboard and foam are not normally called plastic bags in my experience.
 * FWIW, I have a great deal of respect for the inclusion decisions of lexicographic professionals vs. our own votes. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I sometimes get sent things in plastic envelopes which are in effect bags (just of a squarish shape) but I wouldn't call that a plastic bag. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some are not made out of petrochemicals they are biodegradable but resemble the petro ones almost exactly and they are still called plastic bags due to their exact same purpose.Acdcrocks 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The bags enclosing electronics and the envelopes I would call (and have called) 'plastic bags'. Woven, I guess not. FWIW. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * CALPERG is working on a series of plastic bag bans, but these laws don't target any old transport invention made from plastic, just the one's handed out by stores.Acdcrocks 03:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Washington D.C. has imposed a 5 cent tax on plastic bags, which is understood only to apply to grocery bags, including those made of plastic-like materials that are technically not plastic, but not to garbage bags or to plastic purses. I would be inclined to keep and note the paper/plastic dichotomy. bd2412 T 03:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to come up with any solid reason for keeping this, so a legal one is a bit of a stretch, but it does show that a priori we think of plastic bags in the specific context of shopping even when we would consider a trash bag to be, you know, a bag made of plastic and technically fulfilling the request if not quite what we had in mind when we asked the host if she had any plastic bags we could borrow. DAVilla 05:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Treat like day after tomorrow. -- Gauss 07:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No deserves a definition.Acdcrocks 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

keep, not just a bad made outta plasic. --Rockpilot 06:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:plastic bag


text:
Talk:danger zone

danger zone
A zone of danger. -- Liliana • 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. NiSoP. Delete. Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 06:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WT:CFI as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there are substantial idiomatic senses not included in the current definition. These should be added. See, e.g.
 * 2010, Misty Evans, I'd Rather Be in Paris, p. 160:
 * A low moan sounded in his throat and the intensity of their kisses shot back up into the danger zone.
 * 2007, Pat Tucker, Led Astray, p. 68:
 * When he eased into the danger zone and gently fingered my clit, I shamelessly spread my legs a little wider.
 * 2006, JoAnn Ross, E. C. Sheedy, Jill Shalvis, Bad Boys Southern Style, p. 175:
 * He slid his hand to her waist, across her tummy, and every butterfly in her body was set loose to flap and fly. She shook a negative even though it killed her — and his hand was slipping down toward her danger zone.
 * Not actual "danger" in either case. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but perhaps it's just a poetic use of danger, so in that case it is actual danger, just a poetic form of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with MG, except I don't think there is much "maybe" to it. It might be metonymy (2010) or an extension of zone: to non-physical spaces (2006 and 2007). The extension of "zone" is an example of what seems to me to be the nearly universal extension of any spatial term to time and to other realms that are not literally spatial but commonly thought of and spoken of in spatial terms. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you point. As I have often demonstrated to my wife, almost any sentence is susceptible to a non-literal connotation if said with the right emphasis. For example, she will say "Honey, can you put a little celery in my soup?", and I'll say "Oh, I'll put a little [air quotes] celery in your soup!", and then she'll roll her eyes and say, "you're disgusting". It's a little ritual that we have. bd2412 T 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing that :) 86.176.209.178 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
 * keep this is a common phrase that is not easily understand by sop searching.Acdcrocks 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

At least I understand easily danger + zone. --Hekaheka 02:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete, especially as the suggested definition introduces the idea of a region to be avoided, and this is not supported by the citations claimed.   D b f  i  r  s   08:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Having thought it over further, I say keep because danger is a noun, not an adjective, making the phrase grammatically unintuitive. If a place presents danger, we would say it is a "dangerous place" or a "dangerous field", "dangerous building", etc., not a "danger place", "danger field", or "danger building"; however, I would find it at least somewhat awkward to say we are going to a "dangerous zone" or "zone of danger" rather than a "danger zone". I would be interested to see what sort of collocations come with "danger" as opposed to "dangerous". bd2412 T 03:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per figurative use. DAVilla 05:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This instantly made me think of the figurative use in Cyndi Lauper's "She Bop." Dug up some more cites and added a second sense. Astral (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:danger zone


text:
Talk:prairie-dogging

prairie dogging plus prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings
[Latter three entries added by--Eng in ear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)]

Sense: An incident of a fecal solid involuntary exiting the anus as the person having the involuntary bowel movement fights the undesired exiting with his rectal muscles. nt because it is vulgar, but because the cites given for it don't match the definition, and I can't find any that do --Rockpilot 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I did find some better ones if you wanna have a look.Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Definition is very strange - as if the author does not speak English as a native language. I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch semper! English and Spanish are both my first language, maybe I have fucked up syntax to show for it. I would have written in "when you are fighting off a bowel movement and the shit keeps poking out" but that isn't quite phrased in the form of a noun or proper dictionary jargon. Help?Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A sense of "fecal matter poking out" is attestable so ideally this would be fixed rather than deleted. Fugyoo 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that prairie dogging is a present participle of the verb "to prairie dog", but there doesn't seem to be such verb definition. Should somebody correct something? Second, I think the verb should be defined in more general terms, e.g. "to pop up from a hole or similar in a manner that resembles the way a prairie dog pops his head up from his burrow". This would make the undeniably interesting poo-related "sense" a mere usage. Third, the noun sense appears unnecessary. --Hekaheka 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome job citing this, Acdcrocks. --Rockpilot 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it needs cleaning up into 'noun' and everything else should be covered by . Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't work because "I'm prairie dogging" doesn't mean "I" am popping up from a hole. Fugyoo 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does. If you read carefully, the examples referring to an urgent need to defecate, say "I'm prairie dogging it ". I take back a little of my earlier comments. To "prairie dog" seems to have a transitive sense. Whether it is limited to the specific use our examples are of, remains to be seen. --Hekaheka 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A figurative burrow/hole is what cubicle workers etc are popping their heads up from.
 * If seems that the "popping one's head up" sense should not have a noun or a verb definition. It should just be a present participle of "to prairie dog". I think we could find the past participle and possibly the other forms attestable in this sense.
 * I found only one cite (now on Citations:prairie dog) in our customary sources for the past participle of the other sense, so perhaps it should be defined only in this entry. OTOH, if verb is attestable in each form in some sense, wouldn't we assume it to be a full verb in every sense, even though we cannot find each form attested in each sense. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I've just added prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings to this RFD, since if the noun sense of prairie dogging falls, so will they, as they are only claimed in that sense. If they pass, it would be helpful to have added some cites to each, to avoid RVFs later. --Eng in ear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a new sense to "prairie dog", made "prairie dogging" a present participle entry. "Prairie doggings" and "prairie-doggings" still need to be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:prairie-dogging


text:
Talk:prairie-doggings

prairie dogging plus prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings
[Latter three entries added by--Eng in ear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)]

Sense: An incident of a fecal solid involuntary exiting the anus as the person having the involuntary bowel movement fights the undesired exiting with his rectal muscles. nt because it is vulgar, but because the cites given for it don't match the definition, and I can't find any that do --Rockpilot 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I did find some better ones if you wanna have a look.Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Definition is very strange - as if the author does not speak English as a native language. I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch semper! English and Spanish are both my first language, maybe I have fucked up syntax to show for it. I would have written in "when you are fighting off a bowel movement and the shit keeps poking out" but that isn't quite phrased in the form of a noun or proper dictionary jargon. Help?Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A sense of "fecal matter poking out" is attestable so ideally this would be fixed rather than deleted. Fugyoo 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that prairie dogging is a present participle of the verb "to prairie dog", but there doesn't seem to be such verb definition. Should somebody correct something? Second, I think the verb should be defined in more general terms, e.g. "to pop up from a hole or similar in a manner that resembles the way a prairie dog pops his head up from his burrow". This would make the undeniably interesting poo-related "sense" a mere usage. Third, the noun sense appears unnecessary. --Hekaheka 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome job citing this, Acdcrocks. --Rockpilot 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it needs cleaning up into 'noun' and everything else should be covered by . Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't work because "I'm prairie dogging" doesn't mean "I" am popping up from a hole. Fugyoo 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does. If you read carefully, the examples referring to an urgent need to defecate, say "I'm prairie dogging it ". I take back a little of my earlier comments. To "prairie dog" seems to have a transitive sense. Whether it is limited to the specific use our examples are of, remains to be seen. --Hekaheka 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A figurative burrow/hole is what cubicle workers etc are popping their heads up from.
 * If seems that the "popping one's head up" sense should not have a noun or a verb definition. It should just be a present participle of "to prairie dog". I think we could find the past participle and possibly the other forms attestable in this sense.
 * I found only one cite (now on Citations:prairie dog) in our customary sources for the past participle of the other sense, so perhaps it should be defined only in this entry. OTOH, if verb is attestable in each form in some sense, wouldn't we assume it to be a full verb in every sense, even though we cannot find each form attested in each sense. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I've just added prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings to this RFD, since if the noun sense of prairie dogging falls, so will they, as they are only claimed in that sense. If they pass, it would be helpful to have added some cites to each, to avoid RVFs later. --Eng in ear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a new sense to "prairie dog", made "prairie dogging" a present participle entry. "Prairie doggings" and "prairie-doggings" still need to be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:prairie-doggings


text:
Talk:prairie dogging

prairie dogging plus prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings
[Latter three entries added by--Eng in ear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)]

Sense: An incident of a fecal solid involuntary exiting the anus as the person having the involuntary bowel movement fights the undesired exiting with his rectal muscles. nt because it is vulgar, but because the cites given for it don't match the definition, and I can't find any that do --Rockpilot 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I did find some better ones if you wanna have a look.Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Definition is very strange - as if the author does not speak English as a native language. I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch semper! English and Spanish are both my first language, maybe I have fucked up syntax to show for it. I would have written in "when you are fighting off a bowel movement and the shit keeps poking out" but that isn't quite phrased in the form of a noun or proper dictionary jargon. Help?Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A sense of "fecal matter poking out" is attestable so ideally this would be fixed rather than deleted. Fugyoo 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that prairie dogging is a present participle of the verb "to prairie dog", but there doesn't seem to be such verb definition. Should somebody correct something? Second, I think the verb should be defined in more general terms, e.g. "to pop up from a hole or similar in a manner that resembles the way a prairie dog pops his head up from his burrow". This would make the undeniably interesting poo-related "sense" a mere usage. Third, the noun sense appears unnecessary. --Hekaheka 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome job citing this, Acdcrocks. --Rockpilot 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it needs cleaning up into 'noun' and everything else should be covered by . Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't work because "I'm prairie dogging" doesn't mean "I" am popping up from a hole. Fugyoo 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does. If you read carefully, the examples referring to an urgent need to defecate, say "I'm prairie dogging it ". I take back a little of my earlier comments. To "prairie dog" seems to have a transitive sense. Whether it is limited to the specific use our examples are of, remains to be seen. --Hekaheka 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A figurative burrow/hole is what cubicle workers etc are popping their heads up from.
 * If seems that the "popping one's head up" sense should not have a noun or a verb definition. It should just be a present participle of "to prairie dog". I think we could find the past participle and possibly the other forms attestable in this sense.
 * I found only one cite (now on Citations:prairie dog) in our customary sources for the past participle of the other sense, so perhaps it should be defined only in this entry. OTOH, if verb is attestable in each form in some sense, wouldn't we assume it to be a full verb in every sense, even though we cannot find each form attested in each sense. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I've just added prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings to this RFD, since if the noun sense of prairie dogging falls, so will they, as they are only claimed in that sense. If they pass, it would be helpful to have added some cites to each, to avoid RVFs later. --Eng in ear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a new sense to "prairie dog", made "prairie dogging" a present participle entry. "Prairie doggings" and "prairie-doggings" still need to be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:prairie dogging


text:
Talk:prairie doggings

prairie dogging plus prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings
[Latter three entries added by--Eng in ear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)]

Sense: An incident of a fecal solid involuntary exiting the anus as the person having the involuntary bowel movement fights the undesired exiting with his rectal muscles. nt because it is vulgar, but because the cites given for it don't match the definition, and I can't find any that do --Rockpilot 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I did find some better ones if you wanna have a look.Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Definition is very strange - as if the author does not speak English as a native language. I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch semper! English and Spanish are both my first language, maybe I have fucked up syntax to show for it. I would have written in "when you are fighting off a bowel movement and the shit keeps poking out" but that isn't quite phrased in the form of a noun or proper dictionary jargon. Help?Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A sense of "fecal matter poking out" is attestable so ideally this would be fixed rather than deleted. Fugyoo 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that prairie dogging is a present participle of the verb "to prairie dog", but there doesn't seem to be such verb definition. Should somebody correct something? Second, I think the verb should be defined in more general terms, e.g. "to pop up from a hole or similar in a manner that resembles the way a prairie dog pops his head up from his burrow". This would make the undeniably interesting poo-related "sense" a mere usage. Third, the noun sense appears unnecessary. --Hekaheka 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome job citing this, Acdcrocks. --Rockpilot 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it needs cleaning up into 'noun' and everything else should be covered by . Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't work because "I'm prairie dogging" doesn't mean "I" am popping up from a hole. Fugyoo 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does. If you read carefully, the examples referring to an urgent need to defecate, say "I'm prairie dogging it ". I take back a little of my earlier comments. To "prairie dog" seems to have a transitive sense. Whether it is limited to the specific use our examples are of, remains to be seen. --Hekaheka 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A figurative burrow/hole is what cubicle workers etc are popping their heads up from.
 * If seems that the "popping one's head up" sense should not have a noun or a verb definition. It should just be a present participle of "to prairie dog". I think we could find the past participle and possibly the other forms attestable in this sense.
 * I found only one cite (now on Citations:prairie dog) in our customary sources for the past participle of the other sense, so perhaps it should be defined only in this entry. OTOH, if verb is attestable in each form in some sense, wouldn't we assume it to be a full verb in every sense, even though we cannot find each form attested in each sense. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I've just added prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings to this RFD, since if the noun sense of prairie dogging falls, so will they, as they are only claimed in that sense. If they pass, it would be helpful to have added some cites to each, to avoid RVFs later. --Eng in ear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a new sense to "prairie dog", made "prairie dogging" a present participle entry. "Prairie doggings" and "prairie-doggings" still need to be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:prairie doggings


text:
Talk:pillar of the community

pillar of the community
Probably just pillar + of + the + community. Not particularly set as a phrase. Can be replaced by "pillar of society", "pillar of the city", etc. No hits on OneLook. ---> Tooironic 05:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say we need another, figurative sense for "pillar". --Hekaheka 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or is this use of pillar: a "live metaphor"? DCDuring TALK 09:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the two missing senses. ---> Tooironic 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The new senses look good. I don't see any sense to the RfDed term that has meaning beyond the SoP sense. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a common idiomatic phrase meaning an informal leader, it has nothing to do with the marble columns of a greco-roman building.Westernstag 03:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the figurative sense is added to pillar, I don't see how we can prove this is not SoP. ---> Tooironic 06:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Westernmark. What is the evidence that it is idiomatic? I stipulate that it may be more common than phrases like "red car" and agree that it doesn't have the straw-man definition that you suggest. The implication of your line of reasoning would be that we should have all attestable phrases whose component words are polysemic. Since the polysemy of a word itself seems to depend greatly on the patience, care, and analytical mindset of those who attest to and author definitions, very few words indeed would fail to be polysemic. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep per discussion above; unique definition of pillar. bd2412 T 05:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term 'pillar of the community' is a common expression. --Bunnyboi 22:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. SOP. —msh210℠ (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:pillar of the community


text:
Talk:dynamic IP address

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

 * keep, if attested the use of "dynamic" makes this a highly technical term, non-compsci majors/geeks would unlikely understand.71.142.73.25 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Delete. Cf. polymorphic constructor, petroleum hydrocarbon. A phrase made up of two bits of specialist jargon can still be NISoP. Looking up two words won't kill anyone. Equinox ◑ 09:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not obvious from the several meanings of dynamic.--Dmol 09:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be SOP, but I think we need a new meaning of dynamic, something like "(computing) Dynamically assigned; subject to change or reconfiguration". 81.142.107.230 10:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. IP addresses are by far not the only thing that can be dynamic, check out w:Special:Prefixindex/dynamic to see a whole bunch of dynamic things in the computer world. -- Liliana • 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete if we have a good definition of dynamic. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Dynamic is not merely an adjective, a "dynamic IP address" is itself a technical term which merits a separate entry. Arielkoiman (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:dynamic IP address


text:
Talk:child bride

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

This term has a very specific connotation when used in the media, it refers largely to islamic and moron [mormon] child marriages where a girl is married to a much older man, often against their will, this is a richer meaning that [than] you would get from say kid+groom71.142.73.25 08:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you mean moron or Mormon? Both fit in the context somehow... —Angr 09:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, they did. But yes I meant mormon.71.142.73.25 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as amended.--Dmol 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because 71.142.73.25 mentioned the media, which I took to mean the news media, I checked http://news.google.com for the term. the first result (here, now, for me) was an article about "Hollywood child bride Courtney Stodden". (There were other results about her also.) So it doesn't only mean someone "coerced or pressured into nuptials with a much older man in a conservative culture". Is it ever used to mean that, to the exclusion of other brides who are children? (E.g., a book that distinguishes "child brides" — who are those pressured into marriage in a conservatve culture — from brides who are children.) If (as I suspect) not, then the definition should be reverted to "a very young bride" and IMO it should be deleted. —msh210℠ (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then that's a separate definition that would be sum of parts. As it stands it is a valid meaning.--Dmol 23:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have a more-specific "an organism of the species Prunus persica" sense for tree:, but only a broader "large plant" sense, whereas we have both the more-specific "line of connected cars with a locomotive" and the broader "sequence of vehicles" sense at train:? Because there are citations that support it: specifically, there are citations that use train to mean a line of connected cars with a locomotive, to the exclusion of any other sequence of vehicles: they say things like "take a train or a caravan" or the like. If there are citations saying "a tree or any other kind of large thing bearing fruit" (where by tree they meant what we call a peach tree), then we should have a separate "Prunus persica" sense for tree. (I highly doubt that that's the case.) If there are citations saying "a child bride or other bride who's a child" (where by child bride they meant someone coerced into marriage in a conservative culture) then we should have a separate "coerced into marriage in a conservative culture" sense for child bride. (I also doubt that that's the case.) —msh210℠ (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The first hit child bride gets on bgc is Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley. (Interestingly enough, she was 22 when she married Elvis.) I don't see that this is a separate definition, instead of a common use of the normal meaning.--Prosfilaes 07:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, "child bride" must surely be idiomatic, since a 22 year-old is hardly a child. ---> Tooironic 11:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? On BGC I find "Children remain eligible for TRICARE benefits while they're in college up to age 23". Child is a pretty elastic word.--Prosfilaes 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another BGC hit is Sister of the Bride by Beverly Cleary, where the bride is 18-years old. '"My child bride," he [the groom] teased.'--Prosfilaes 07:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably keep per Prosfilaes. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But the definition was "A very young bride". If you want, we can argue about its SOPness, but IMO that depends solely on whether child generally is used for contextually relatively young people who are not strictly children in the usual sense. —msh210℠ (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

 * That;s a really good point, I agree.Lucifer 00:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:child bride


text:
Talk:rock hard

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

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

 * We had a similar discussion for apple pie:, and the consensus there was that the literal sense needed to be included in order to balance out the figurative senses. That is, it would be misleading to only indicate figurative senses for the term, when the literal meaning is also in common use.  See also Mohs scale of mineral hardness to see why the literal sense of rock hard needs a definition. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One issue is whether any one of the possible senses combining senses of rock and hard should be on the first sense line rather than . Another is whether the open class of constructions of the form N + Adj, with some restrictions on Adj, is appropriately represented. Including every such combination seems absurd, though many seem to believe that each attestable combination would merit an entry. Combined with the absurdity of WT:COALMINE, we seem to be committed to an exceptionally foolish course. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I attested all the meanings, but someone moved most of them to rockhard, which seems to be a disservice, as its not clear which sense they are directed at there.Lucifer 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved them because they are not of rock hard which is the headword in question. It may be that all attestation should be devoted to each sense of rockhard. I would expect that any sense attested in the form rockhard would also be attestable in the form rock hard. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the page for rockhard states only that it is an alternative form, I'd argue that the senses should be moved back to the lemma page. They might be duplicated on the alternative form page, but they shouldn't reside only there since, as Lucifer points out, they are not tied to any senses there. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

 * I've almost never seen it said "rockhard". What I've seen, and no one's mentioned, is "rock-hard".  I agree with Pilot that there is enough content to be placed somewhere  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think that all the possibly less common, but attestable collocations of similar form Adj-N can have entries. DCDuring TALK 05:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this thread about rock hard, or about all the possible words of the same construction? If the latter, then a separate thread should be started in the Beer Parlour, as this discussion pertains to a particular tagged entry.  And why must the decision be all-or-nothing?  Language isn't Boolean. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was interested in the "principle" being applied to the term in question. Any such principle that is so invoked and is not generally accepted needs to be addressed and its validity challenged, especially here at RfD, which is principally based on reasoned argument Or is it just voting with a figleaf of rationalization.
 * I think that each of the senses of rock hard needs to be confirmed as being used with the spelling rockhard, because I do not believe that the solid-spelled form is commonly used. The rationale for inclusion of the senses of this term is partially WT:COALMINE, after all. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For you, perhaps, but not to my mind it isn't. I don't think WT:COALMINE has anything to do with the discussion that was started here.  It applies only to a tangential topic that invaded the current discussion.  Only one sense was raised for discussion, and whether it has a single-word form or not is not critical to retention of the sense. --EncycloPetey 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to extend this discussion also to the other senses given in the entry. I'd say "rock hard" simply means "very hard" and that's basically what the rfd'ed definition currently says. There are two other senses, one referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" muscles (muscles of abdomen, it says, but there's nothing in the quotations that would connect them with the abdomen) and the other referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" penis. As a minimum development to the entry, I would like to combine these three senses into one, defined as "very hard". The quotations could be kept as examples of "very hard" sense. --Hekaheka 10:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's very clear from the quotations that these do not all mean the same thing. If sentence begins "He was very hard...", the first sense means rigor mortis (or petrification), the second sense means his muscles are toned, and the third sense means his penis is erect.  The second and third sense imply an unstated noun that is not implied by the first sense.  These cannot be meaningfully combined. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not convincing. Saying that "rock hard penis" means "erect penis" is equal to saying that "red tomato" means "ripe tomato" and thus we should add the sense "ripe" to the word "red". It's true that rock hard penis is erect, but if I'm using "rock hard" I'm discussing a different aspect of the penis than when using "erect". --Hekaheka 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying, so please look at the quotes. I am not talking about situations where "rock hard" is used to modify the word "penis".  Rather, I am pointing out that "rock hard" implies "penis", even if the word "penis" is omitted . --EncycloPetey 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's evident from the context. It's not so uncommon to refer to the state of one's penis as if it was equal to one's person, like "I am flaccid", "I am only half-erect". What would make rock hard so special? If you just say "He is rock hard" you may as well refer to the other guy's willpower or physical strength. The first quote clearly mentions "cock" and I suppose it does not refer to a sexually aroused rooster. --Hekaheka 07:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that "He is rock hard" has so many possible meanings is what demonstrates that there are multiple senses. The "first quote" you mention is misplaced. --EncycloPetey 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:rock hard


text:
Talk:Vichy water

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

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

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

 * Anybody here seen the end of Casablanca? That somewhat makes the case for this entry's inclusion.  Not completely, but somewhat.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

When I was growing up, my parents used sometimes to buy bottled carbonated (artifically carbonated, not with natural bubbles) water with certain salts/minerals in it — IIRC baking soda was one of them. They called this Vichy water. Seemingly that was not just their idiolectic word for it: First of all, see La Republique Francaise v. Saratoga Vichy Springs Co., 107 F. 459, aff'd, French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., 191 U.S. 427, which, though they discuss the use of Vichy by a specific company, may be weak evidence of its use generally. But more convincingly, see, which sounds like so-called "vichy water" may have had some antacid in it. (Baking soda is an antacid.) Similarly, see, where so-called "Vichy water" is made, so is clearly not from the Vichy (France) springs. (And it contains baking soda.) (Don't let the italics there throw you off: italics are used throughout that text for English words.) Now, certainly Vichy water also refers to water from the Vichy springs, as in : I'm arguing merely that it has another meaning also. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

 * Chambers has an entry. Equinox ◑ 19:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally, Vichy water has existed before any commercial brand like Vichy Saint Yorre or Vichy Célestins. Vichy water can not simply be considered as water from Vichy. It has long been a remedy, owing to its peculiar chemical properties, and there were some Vichy waters that had never seen the French soils. This is why you should see it as a generic term.
 * Else what would mean ? ("In 1862 Carl H. Schultz, the testator of the defendant, began in New York the manufacture and sale of artificial Vichy water in accordance with the standard analysis of the Grand Grille spring by Bauer, an assistant of Struve.") — Xavier, 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 * See also Apollinaris water (also from Webster 1913). Equinox ◑ 12:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept as no consensus. No votes but most comments are disputing that it’s just water from Vichy. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vichy water


text:
Talk:base isolation

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

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

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

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

 * After thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to have to say keep to all. I wouldn't understand any of the given meanings of these terms looking at our entries for their constituent parts. —  [Ric Laurent] — 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all, per Mr. Laurent's point. bd2412 T 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:base isolation


text: Category:Hebrew numeral forms

title: Category:Hebrew numeral forms


text: Category:Hebrew numerals

title: Category:Hebrew numerals


text:
ualu

Etymology
, from, from.

Numeral

 * 1) eight

Numeral

 * 1) eight

Etymology
From, from.

title: ualu


text:
Talk:seismic load

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

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

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

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

 * After thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to have to say keep to all. I wouldn't understand any of the given meanings of these terms looking at our entries for their constituent parts. —  [Ric Laurent] — 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all, per Mr. Laurent's point. bd2412 T 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:seismic load


text:
Talk:seismic performance

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

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

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

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

 * After thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to have to say keep to all. I wouldn't understand any of the given meanings of these terms looking at our entries for their constituent parts. —  [Ric Laurent] — 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all, per Mr. Laurent's point. bd2412 T 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:seismic performance


text:
MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order

meta-native-languagename


text:
MediaWiki talk:Interwiki config-sorting order

Explanation
According to Interwiki sorting order, bots use this page to determine the sort-order for interwiki-links on a given project; however, according to, pywikipediabot actually uses native-language-name order here regardless of what this page says. (See Grease pit/2012/August) So, I've created this page to match pywikipediabot's order, in case there are any bots that do use this page like meta claims, so as to avoid conflicts between bots. —Ruakh TALK 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


text: Category:Old Georgian numerals

title: Category:Old Georgian numerals


text: Category:Old Georgian determiners

title: Category:Old Georgian determiners


text: Category:lv:Whites

title: Category:lv:Whites


text:
kaxat

Noun

 * 1) A piece of mesquite cake

Etymology
From kagat, from. Compare 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to bite

title: kaxat


text: Category:Interlingua numerals

title: Category:Interlingua numerals


text:
bábóg

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) doll

title: bábóg


text:
Talk:aibítir na Gréigise

aibítir na Gréigise
SOP, +  + Gréigise. And anyway, the usual Irish name for the Greek alphabet is aibítir Ghréagach. —Angr 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted, no objections in 6 months. —Angr 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:aibítir na Gréigise


text:
Talk:mund'

mund', amig', agor'
These are poetical elisions. And they don't have apostrophes in the original texts, they just concatenate the following word (although they usually have in transcriptions). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we have almost no Portuguese speakers here, you might have to explain a bit more, link to texts online, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. These aren't actual words in Old Portuguese, they are just the words mundo, amigo, agora with the last vowel removed so the line has the correct amount of syllables. (occurrence of mund') (occurence of mundo). Notice that mund' only occurs when the next letter is a vowel, but mundo occurs anywhere.
 * Here is an example in the original source (E codex of Cantigas de Santa Maria), the 9th line of the left column here: do que o mund' á de salvar. Instead of mund' á it is written mũda.
 * Although poetical elisions are common in Old Portuguese texts (after all, most texts which survived are lyric poetry), if we were to include them in the Wiktionary we would need an extra entry for the elided form of every word which ends with a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Portuguese, but poetical elisions are abundant in German, and if we included them all we'd easily have one or two poetical forms of every German word in existence. That said, delete. -- Liliana • 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep, as no reasons for deletion relating to CFI have been given. As regards the argument with the large number of what you call "poetical elisions" (a rare term per ), consider the large number of obsolete spellings that Wiktionary is about to include: for "knowledge", there is cnaulage, cnoulech, knauleche, knaulege, knaulach, knaulage, knawlache, knawlage, kneuelich, kneuleche, kneuliche, knoleche, knolege, knoleige, knolych, knouelache, knouelech, knouelich, knoulecche, knoulegge, knouliche, knowlache, knowlage, knowleche, knowledg, knowlege, knowlesche, knowliche, knowlych, knowlech. --Dan Polansky 09:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't obsolete spellings; they are just terms with the last vowel removed for poetical purposes. This occurs in other languages, I've seen it at least in Esperanto and Latin. In the example given above, the writer needed the line to have 8 syllables, so instead of writing "do que o mun.do á de sal.var", he wrote "do que o mun.dá de sal.var". They aren't specific spellings like "kneuelich" or "knolych", it can be applied to any word which ends in a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think these should be kept by analogy with English elided forms like needin', wantin'. Attestation is a separate issue; RFV remains an option if these forms aren't actually in use. Though that could get a bit messy, as trying to get hold of the original texts with no modernization might be tricky, or very tricky. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are eye dialects; and their elision is phonetic not poetical. Facsimiles of the entire E and To codices of the Cantigas de Santa Maria are available at Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:mund'


text:
Talk:amig'

RFD discussion
These are poetical elisions. And they don't have apostrophes in the original texts, they just concatenate the following word (although they usually have in transcriptions). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we have almost no Portuguese speakers here, you might have to explain a bit more, link to texts online, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. These aren't actual words in Old Portuguese, they are just the words mundo, amigo, agora with the last vowel removed so the line has the correct amount of syllables. (occurrence of mund') (occurence of mundo). Notice that mund' only occurs when the next letter is a vowel, but mundo occurs anywhere.
 * Here is an example in the original source (E codex of Cantigas de Santa Maria), the 9th line of the left column here: do que o mund' á de salvar. Instead of mund' á it is written mũda.
 * Although poetical elisions are common in Old Portuguese texts (after all, most texts which survived are lyric poetry), if we were to include them in the Wiktionary we would need an extra entry for the elided form of every word which ends with a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Portuguese, but poetical elisions are abundant in German, and if we included them all we'd easily have one or two poetical forms of every German word in existence. That said, delete. -- Liliana • 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep, as no reasons for deletion relating to CFI have been given. As regards the argument with the large number of what you call "poetical elisions" (a rare term per ), consider the large number of obsolete spellings that Wiktionary is about to include: for "knowledge", there is cnaulage, cnoulech, knauleche, knaulege, knaulach, knaulage, knawlache, knawlage, kneuelich, kneuleche, kneuliche, knoleche, knolege, knoleige, knolych, knouelache, knouelech, knouelich, knoulecche, knoulegge, knouliche, knowlache, knowlage, knowleche, knowledg, knowlege, knowlesche, knowliche, knowlych, knowlech. --Dan Polansky 09:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't obsolete spellings; they are just terms with the last vowel removed for poetical purposes. This occurs in other languages, I've seen it at least in Esperanto and Latin. In the example given above, the writer needed the line to have 8 syllables, so instead of writing "do que o mun.do á de sal.var", he wrote "do que o mun.dá de sal.var". They aren't specific spellings like "kneuelich" or "knolych", it can be applied to any word which ends in a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think these should be kept by analogy with English elided forms like needin', wantin'. Attestation is a separate issue; RFV remains an option if these forms aren't actually in use. Though that could get a bit messy, as trying to get hold of the original texts with no modernization might be tricky, or very tricky. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are eye dialects; and their elision is phonetic not poetical. Facsimiles of the entire E and To codices of the Cantigas de Santa Maria are available at Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:amig'


text:
Talk:agor'

mund', amig', agor'
These are poetical elisions. And they don't have apostrophes in the original texts, they just concatenate the following word (although they usually have in transcriptions). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we have almost no Portuguese speakers here, you might have to explain a bit more, link to texts online, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. These aren't actual words in Old Portuguese, they are just the words mundo, amigo, agora with the last vowel removed so the line has the correct amount of syllables. (occurrence of mund') (occurence of mundo). Notice that mund' only occurs when the next letter is a vowel, but mundo occurs anywhere.
 * Here is an example in the original source (E codex of Cantigas de Santa Maria), the 9th line of the left column here: do que o mund' á de salvar. Instead of mund' á it is written mũda.
 * Although poetical elisions are common in Old Portuguese texts (after all, most texts which survived are lyric poetry), if we were to include them in the Wiktionary we would need an extra entry for the elided form of every word which ends with a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Portuguese, but poetical elisions are abundant in German, and if we included them all we'd easily have one or two poetical forms of every German word in existence. That said, delete. -- Liliana • 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep, as no reasons for deletion relating to CFI have been given. As regards the argument with the large number of what you call "poetical elisions" (a rare term per ), consider the large number of obsolete spellings that Wiktionary is about to include: for "knowledge", there is cnaulage, cnoulech, knauleche, knaulege, knaulach, knaulage, knawlache, knawlage, kneuelich, kneuleche, kneuliche, knoleche, knolege, knoleige, knolych, knouelache, knouelech, knouelich, knoulecche, knoulegge, knouliche, knowlache, knowlage, knowleche, knowledg, knowlege, knowlesche, knowliche, knowlych, knowlech. --Dan Polansky 09:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't obsolete spellings; they are just terms with the last vowel removed for poetical purposes. This occurs in other languages, I've seen it at least in Esperanto and Latin. In the example given above, the writer needed the line to have 8 syllables, so instead of writing "do que o mun.do á de sal.var", he wrote "do que o mun.dá de sal.var". They aren't specific spellings like "kneuelich" or "knolych", it can be applied to any word which ends in a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think these should be kept by analogy with English elided forms like needin', wantin'. Attestation is a separate issue; RFV remains an option if these forms aren't actually in use. Though that could get a bit messy, as trying to get hold of the original texts with no modernization might be tricky, or very tricky. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are eye dialects; and their elision is phonetic not poetical. Facsimiles of the entire E and To codices of the Cantigas de Santa Maria are available at Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:agor'


text: Category:Mandarin numerals

title: Category:Mandarin numerals


text:
Talk:disabled person

disabled person
Stupidly sum of parts, also not a euphemism as the entry claims it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Inclined towards delete. I fail to see how this is euphemistic. It's a person who is disabled. That is all. No good or bad connotation. It's not idiomatic, as I can say disabled individual, disabled man and disabled bloke. The only reason this should be kept is this might be idiomatic/non-SoP in another language, but again, this is the case for many English SoP terms. We can't account for them all. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:disabled person


text:
Talk:buyback

buyback
Sense: The compulsory purchase by the government of most semi-automatic weapons following the introduction of new anti-gun legislation in 1996. — A specific example of the primary sense. — Pingkudimmi 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete . Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The primary source is - The repurchase of something previously sold, especially of stock by the company that issued it -. Nothing in this definition applies to "the buyback".  It applied to all newly banned weapons, and was a purchase by the government who were not the original sellers. It also applied to guns that had not been sold but may have been obtained generations before.--Dmol 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any specific "buyback" or type thereof would have some kind of specific scope. Would each type need its own sense line? One can find "asset buyback", "real estate buyback", "aircraft buyback", "marine fisheries buyback" (another US government program), "matroid buyback program". Any of these could be referred to without the qualifiers in an appropriate context. I don't see anything particularly entryworthy about this specific one. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it's a bad definition. makes it clear that there's many gun buybacks besides "the government" (presumably the US government) in 1996.--Prosfilaes 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not the IS government, it was the Australian government, as evidence by the Austtralian tag at the start of the defintion. But no-one has addressed the point that it is specific to this one historical event, and is not a buy back in the same sense of the primary sense. The Australian government did not sell the weapons in the first place, therefore they can't buy them back. As for the other entries, I am not familiar with them, but perhaps they can have their own entry.--Dmol 07:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did address the point that it was not specific to this one historical event; shows that the US cities of St. Louis and Seattle had "gun buybacks". I won't say that it should be merged into the main sense--I'm sort of neutral on that--but using it for one particular buyback is too specific.--Prosfilaes 07:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be modified then, removing the tag along the way. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. User:Dmol's argument suggests that at least one sense of buyback should make it clear that "back" does not necessarily mean "back" to a previous seller, but rather in the opposite direction from the usual flow of the item in question. I believe that back: covers the sense at the lexical component level. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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

This would cover the disputed sense, plus any other similar situations.--Dmol 23:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above, but perhaps with a rewrite. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition offered would include any simple purchase of, say, land by the government for, say, a park or a road or a pollution-control plant. Of course, it would exclude anything that was non-governmental.
 * There is no reason for the definition to be so particularistic. It is particularly pernicious that the original definition - not found in other dictionaries - was created without citations. The proposed definition similarly does not have the benefit of a citations-based reality check. Clearly, the existing definition is unsupported and unsupportable.
 * Whether a new definition could be found and supported is a separate matter, not part of this RfD. Similarly, whether a particularistic definition should not be subsumed under a more general one is also not properly part of this RfD. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you should RFV it. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when this is closed. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with DCDuring. This is the same sense as sense 1; this first definition should be rewritten to include this case more clearly, but this is not another sense. Lmaltier 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV
Rfv-sense: (Australian, firearms) The compulsory purchase by the government of most semi-automatic weapons following the introduction of new anti-gun legislation in 1996.

We may as well get this uncited sense right. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * It's still open at Requests_for_deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see it's closed. I see it as silly to RfV in this state; someone needs to at least rewrite it to a general sense, since there have been several gun buybacks across the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had suggested at the RFD that we alter it to - "A government purchase scheme intended to achieve a specific goal such as habitat protection or a reduction in firearm numbers". This would cover the "too specific" argument and cover the other uses of the term.--Dmol (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And increase the desirability of an RfD on grounds that it is a simple ellipsis for any of several possible programs or practices by governments or businesses. There seems to be a yet more general missing sense which is not limited to guns, relating to the fact that the back morpheme does not convey the sense that the entity doing the buying had any previous relationship to the item being bought back. But that would actually require that we have citations or, at least, find some reference that made this clear. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Meh, I've changed to Dmol's broad def. I'm not necessarily opposed to simply removing the sense altogether... - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:buyback


text:
kayval

Noun

 * 1) A species of jay: the Steller's Jay,

title: kayval


text:
Talk:solar energetic particles

solar energetic particles
They are solar: energetic: particles:. SemperBlotto 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * keep. This belongs to the vocabulary of English. The existence of the acronym SEP is an evidence. Wikipedia provides a definition. Lmaltier 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could this possibly be an argument similar to WT:COALMINE? —CodeCat 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. We have acronyms for all sorts of crap that should never be included. -- Liliana • 22:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that singular solar energetic particle is missing. --Hekaheka 04:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

 * , agree with assessment of regarding Google Books analysis. -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:solar energetic particles


text:
Talk:drive away

drive away
Both senses are the verb drive followed immediately by the preposition away. Doesn't function as a single unit. Other prepositions can be used; drive into; drive towards; drive up; drive down; drive across etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sense yes, the second one I'm not so sure about. -- Liliana • 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with the second sense, "to force someone to leave". I know the sense "to cause someone to leave", which is probably what's meant, and that's SOP. The first is certainly SOP. Delete (or bring the second to RFV and delete the first). —msh210℠ (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some lemmings say keep. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Idioms and Phrasal Verbs has both senses. A few other dictionaries have one or both of these. See . DCDuring TALK 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, we don't seem to have a sense at to cover #2, the closest seems to be "To herd (animals) in a particular direction." If you generalize this to include things that aren't animals (though I suppose, a human is an animal) and change the word 'herd' which chiefly refers to animals, it should be ok. I think this sense of drive that we lack is usually used with 'away' when referring to people. However, [books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hce8_tXv63EC&pg=PA104&dq="drove+him+into+a+corner"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H9smT7OoK5SQ8gOHw7XABw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="drove him into a corner"&f=false this citation] "Eventually, Sullivan drove  him into a corner and knocked him down." referring to boxing uses 'into' instead of 'away', so it can refer to humans without the preposition away being used. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep both senses outside CFI as phrasal verbs and translation targets. The tentative translation target criterion that I am using: "The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds." DCDuring's consideration of lemmings is also of interest. --Dan Polansky 12:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it is rather questionable that "away" is a preposition; it can be a preposition only with the non-traditional part-of-speech model that allows prepositions without complements. In any case, "drive away" seems rather disanalogous to "drive into", "drive towards", and "drive across". --Dan Polansky 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A similar entry is go away, although it has some fairly clearly idiomatic senses. --Dan Polansky 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep both senses, as per Dan Polansky. --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems we all agree this doesn't meet CFI, apart from Liliana who isn't sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete per msh210; one sense is SOP and the other is apparently an error for something that's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep of course. It is a phrasal verb. To my mind in both the definitions. The first might be &lit if you insist, but the second is a good example of a typical phrasal verb. I've added a usex where the word away is clearly a separable particle, and not a preposition. If you are not clear about this, then I recommend that you look at the category we have recently set up; Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (away) to see more examples. -- A LGRIF  talk 10:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One possible argument is that if we keep these definitions, there are more SoP definition we can add, for example a golf might drive away from an obstacle. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see how finding SoP definitions like that can in any way make drive away a non- phrasal verb. You might as well say that if we allow look after the baby, we might as well include look after you leap and anything else that comes to mind, and use that to argue for deletion. If in golf, you drive away from something, then away is a proposition. But if somebody drives you away from the golf course, then you would immediately recognise the two phrasal possibilities:- (i) in a car or (ii) as in "And don't come back, or I'll call the police!" You would not assume (iii) "-with a nº 6 iron". (or would you??) -- A LGRIF  talk 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 * The first sense is literal, but the second means more than compelling someone to do something; that something is to leave. Even if it were sum-of-parts, this is not a primary sense of the word drive and not obvious in meaning. Strong keep. DAVilla 15:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the meanings seem linguistically possible, though some are much more likely in specific contexts.
 * As I hear it, the particle away adds the notion of successful completion of the activity of driving. It seems to me to be like the meaning added by up in clean up (base meaning) and away in run away. I'm not sure that we have this function defined for either word. There may be other adverbs that have a similar meaning or function, like through or over. IMHO, whether or not the particles can be deemed to have such meanings, there may be sufficient semantic difference between verb + particle and the meanings of the components so that the phrasal verb merits. But, IMHO, there probably are cases in which the potential phrasal verb is more economically considered SoP. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. And I'd say "drive to" and "drive down" also merit entries. ("You drove him to insanity" is metaphorical, since drive is usually a physical action. "It was the night they drove old Dixie down" would seem to mean something similar to "crushed" or "suppressed") —Quintucket 17:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi DCD. Well, yes. Particles in phrasal verb constructions are considered to contribute as much (if not more) to the full meaning of the verb, as the verb half itself. Hence we can find that away forms phrasal verbs with meanings commonly of - but not limited to - elimination (throw away, chuck away, take away), distancing (run away, slip away, break away), and action without control (blaze away, fire away, fritter away). Drive away seems to be mainly about distancing. -- A LGRIF  talk 18:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * re: Algrif: I hadn't thought about the out-of-control sense. It would be a worthwhile project to document the meanings of these adverbs or particles.
 * In this case, though the lexicographers at some other dictionaries seem to think there is idiomaticity, I don't yet see it.
 * re: Quiontucket: drive:, as many verbs, has metaphorical meanings with which metaphorical meanings of away: would associate.
 * DCDuring TALK 18:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mg's original comment. Both senses are drive + away. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete; not phrasal or idiomatic. The second sense, which appears to be of concern, can be expressed also as "drive out" or "drive off". There is nothign special about the prepositional/adverbial element in the combination. --EncycloPetey 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi EP. Question; How does the example of two other phrasal verbs drive off and drive out make drive away non-phrasal? Surely it does quite the opposite. Another question; Why do you think that "drive away" is non idiomatic in a sentence such as Rising crime in this part of town is driving away our customers. ? How on earth can that be simply "drive" + "away" ? -- A LGRIF  talk 18:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Sense 1: Kept as no consensus. Sense 2: Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:drive away


text:
Talk:!!

!!
Rfd-sense: ''dramatization of the ! punctuation''.

Really? Not just ! + ! for added emphasis? You can say that something is very very hard, this doesn't warrant an entry on very very though. -- Liliana • 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet we tend to include SOP meanings of terms that also have idiomatic meanings. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per msh210, but rewrite. (And [[!]] should mention that this sort of usage is possible. Note that people don't use as a sort of emphatic period, nor, nor . Offhand, in fact, the only other punctuation mark that I can think of that seems to be emphasized by duplication is .) —Ruakh TALK 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as Ruakh. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as Ruakh and Mglovesfun. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

DCDuring TALK 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have idiomatic senses of !!, so no can do AFAICT. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:!!


text: agglutiné

title: agglutiné


text: agglutinée

title: agglutinée


text: agglutinés

title: agglutinés


text: agglutinées

title: agglutinées


text: agglutine

title: agglutine


text: agglutinons

title: agglutinons


text: agglutinez

title: agglutinez


text: agglutinais

title: agglutinais


text: agglutinait

title: agglutinait


text: agglutinions

title: agglutinions


text: agglutiniez

title: agglutiniez


text: agglutinaient

title: agglutinaient


text:
Talk:троюродный правнук

троюродный правнук
translation of RFD-failed entry -- Liliana • 04:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * The English term may be rare, but the Russian term isn’t. Also, it is not a translation of an RFD-failed entry, it is an independent entry that predated the English entry by three years. The English term is almost unheard of, but the Russian term is part of a symmetrical system, and the English meaning of the Russian term is very difficult to get unless you find a translation entry such as the one we have here. —Stephen (Talk) 09:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. --Anatoli (обсудить) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:троюродный правнук


text: agglutinâmes

title: agglutinâmes


text: agglutinâtes

title: agglutinâtes


text: agglutinèrent

title: agglutinèrent


text: agglutineras

title: agglutineras


text: agglutinera

title: agglutinera


text: agglutinerons

title: agglutinerons


text: agglutinerez

title: agglutinerez


text: agglutineront

title: agglutineront


text: agglutinerais

title: agglutinerais


text: agglutinerait

title: agglutinerait


text: agglutinerions

title: agglutinerions


text: agglutineriez

title: agglutineriez


text: agglutineraient

title: agglutineraient


text: agglutinât

title: agglutinât


text: agglutinassions

title: agglutinassions


text: agglutinassiez

title: agglutinassiez


text:
Talk:first grade

first grade
twelfth grade · eleventh grade · tenth grade · ninth grade · eighth grade · seventh grade · sixth grade · fifth grade · fourth grade · third grade · second grade

The US/Canada difference is already noted in the example sentences of grade, which makes all these sum of parts. -- Liliana • 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Probably delete but put something in the usage notes at grade. I doubt we will keep this up to date with changing education systems, so link to the relevant topic on Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 22:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all. (and we need to get rid of the US and Canada tags, it's more wide-spread than that). The terminology used to describe class levels varies widely throughout the world and also changes over time. Several other terms get used as synonyms, such as scholarship, junior, senior, leaving, inter, prep, O-levels etc. On top of that, I use the example of Ireland, where "first year" is not the first year of a child's education. There are too many variations to rely on usage notes as we would run the risk of becoming encyclopaedic.--Dmol 23:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * first year might be idiomatic in Ireland, but we are not talking about that entry. first grade means first + grade anywhere on the world, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and presumably on Moon and Mars too once these planets are colonized and an education system is created there. -- Liliana • 12:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep all: Can be defined as follows, "the year between X and X, when a child is generally Y-Z years of age". Not SoP, and should be kept even if it was  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If they can all be defined mathematically then they apparently are sums of parts. If we're going to have these I suppose we should also have the British first year, second year, etc., but it seems silly to me. Equinox ◑ 23:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep all and recreate first year, second year, etc. (Those uses seem idiomatic.) —Quintucket 09:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrative note. I've now tagged the entries nominated above, linking to this section of RFD. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to [ [grade]] or delete. This is pure SOP, the first grade, the second grade, etc. Our entry for grade should have a usage note indicating that [whatever]th grade is often used without the and perhaps a usage note indicating what age [whstever]th grade refers to and synonyms therefor, but the entries are useless. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. One can also be in the top year or final year of school. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; grade already makes its usage clear. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Hekaheka 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, and make sure we have adequate usage notes (which apparently, we already do). Trying to define every individual institution's definition of grade is not the way to go here. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 * The variations don't seem to be based on individual institutions, but rather on regions, and to a lesser extent, generational changes. These are definite specific meetings that vary locally and over time. We need the basic entries to hang the synonyms on. Nothing in the usage notes for grade covers this. Just to elaborate on the example I used earlier, the order from youngest to highest for Ireland is junior infants, senior infants, first class, second class etc - none of which can be deduced from its parts. (I think the UK is similar) Again, all should be kept if only for the variations that occur. --Dmol 12:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Either keep [[first grade]], etc., or greatly improve [[grade]] and redirect there, or perhaps create an appendix and redirect to it. But right now, the relevant sense at [[grade]] is not nearly sufficient to help someone figure out what "eighth grade" means. For example:
 * it rather implies that fifth grade lasts for multiple years (which is not the case, no matter how much it may have felt that way) ;
 * it doesn't make clear that e.g. "third grade" has approximately the same meaning nationwide (so that a phrase like "he has only a third-grade education" makes sense; as opposed to, say, each school having its own definitions of grade-levels);
 * it doesn't indicate that kindergarten doesn't count;
 * it refers to primary and secondary schools as "pre-collegiate education", as though people who don't plan to go to college go to schools that aren't divided into "grades".
 * (Actually, that stuff probably needs to be improved even if we don't redirect [[first grade]], etc., but redirecting them would make it all the more important.)
 * —Ruakh TALK 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This smells encyclopedic. Are we going to start include school year systems from all countries in the world? (Form 1, Form 2 - British system, Year 1, Year 2 - Australia/NZ system)?? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case, greatly improve grade. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are we complicating something that is really quite simple. It won't require "school year systems from all countries in the world", just the English speaking places. That alone cuts it down dramatically.  All we need is to keep the above entries, and add the synonyms for each level.  There won't be more than a dozen or so for each entry, and as I have discussed already, they won't all be as simple as one to twelve.--Dmol 11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't make it non-SoP. --Hekaheka 15:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be the case, but there's a few things to consider about the SoP argument.
 * Eg, the meaning of grade is not immediately and exclusively obvious.
 * Not all places use grade, and the words year, form, class, etc are use.
 * Not all places use 1 - 12 ordinal numbers, eg, some restart the numbers at high school, others start counting after two or three years of early education.--Dmol 08:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete all entries of the form 'ordinal' + grade:, replace with redirects, and improve sense of grade. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that grade is broadly interchangeable with year, form, class, etc. makes it seem all the more SoPpy to me. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's not even remotely true. If we're all allowed to make up facts, we'll be here all day! —Ruakh TALK 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They are interchangeable conceptually and cross-culturally. "What grade are you in?" = "What year are you in?" even if the specific values vary wildly by locality. Equinox ◑ 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Weak keep [[first grade]] etc or greatly improve [[grade]] etc, per Ruakh. These can be made SOP, but only if we expand [[grade]], [[year]] (to the extent that they become, arguably, borderline encyclopedic). "One of the sequential, numbered, one-year long levels of education through which pupils pass after kindergarten and before any further education, beginning (with first grade / grade one) around age 6 or 7"? - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote count:
 * Delete:, , , , , and.
 * Keep:, , , and.
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:first grade


text:
Talk:alvine evacuations

alvine evacuations
SOP? alvine + evacuations? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes seems like it; alvine gives the example "alvine discharges" suggesting that there's nothing special about "alvine evacuations" as a combination. Of course evacuation(s) should cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with your observation. On top of that, there is no reason why the lemma entry should be in plural. I don't see anything wrong with saying every alvine evacuation. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's handily attested in the singular/mass, too. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:alvine evacuations


text: agrémentée

title: agrémentée


text: agrémentés

title: agrémentés


text: agrémentées

title: agrémentées


text:
Talk:unexploded ordnance

unexploded ordnance
"Explosive weapons (bombs, shells, grenades, etc.) that did not explode when they were employed, and still pose a risk of detonation, decades after the battles in which they were used." Nothing more or less than unexploded + ordnance. The further details are misleading: "decades after the battles"? -- it's still unexploded ordnance even if there was only one battle, and even if it wasn't decades ago. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good example of a sacred cow entry. Delete. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, the definition is basically copied from Wikipedia, per Equinox, the bit which is correct is SoP, and the rest is wrong, so it's irrelevant at best. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, but it's not enough for me to vote keep. Doesn't the term imply munitions that have been fired but didn't go off, rather than munitions that have never been used?.--Dmol 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in essence that's what unexploded means. I doubt you'd go to a munitions store and call all the arms there 'unexploded', though technically accurate. For the same reason I don't call an unopened yogurt 'uneaten', though it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you say seems to indicate that we should make sure the entries at unexploded: and uneaten:, and presumably other similar entries, should have better definitions, otherwise "unexploded X" and "uneaten Y" and "unused Z" could be considered non SoP (Which would undoubtedly be an error IMHO.) -- A LGRIF  talk 09:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a problem. Adjective noun always implies that adjective is a meaningful change to the meaning. Any un-adj noun formations where most nouns are un-adj are going to be rare and tend to be used only in contrast to adj nouns. Unexploded buildings; undivided buildings.--Prosfilaes 10:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great question. From a pragmatic perspective, I would still say delete. DAVilla 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

keepo, cus ya knao itsa word!Lucifer 23:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:unexploded ordnance


text:
Talk:Rückingen

Rückingen
was created before the placename CFI was voted down; why do we need this small village in a /dictionary/? -- 84.177.198.99 02:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Our mission statement is to include "all words in all languages". Are you saying that the name of this village is not a word? SemperBlotto 08:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder who that IP is. In any case I created the entry only to prove how ridiculous the placename CFI are, so I don't care all too much. -- Liliana • 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, we'll just keep it. By the way, just because placenames are acceptable doesn't mean you have to create them if you don't want to. SemperBlotto 22:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? I'd like to have a more thorough discussion than just Semper and an IP. -- Liliana • 16:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * keep. It's a word. Linguistic (etymologic) dictionaries for placenames do exist. The page is not ridiculous at all, and it's already useful (pronunciation). But the definition should be expanded a bit because we don't know the precise sense (where is this village, more precisely?), and the etymology too (if possible). Lmaltier 08:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In some cases yes (like Hitlersee), and I liked the old placename CFI in this regard which set up hurdles for including place names. Too bad it was voted down. -- Liliana • 16:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. Governed by WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rückingen


text:
Talk:antessive case

antessive case
This is defined as "The grammatical case that is antessive.", which is obviously an unidiomatic sum of the parts undefined: + undefined:; therefore, either this is defined incorrectly and should be redefined or it ought to be deleted. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 * "The grammatical case that is antessive" is a correct definition. Equinox ◑ 14:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

KEEP. The definition could be more idiomatic as, "The antessive grammatical case" (though "The grammatical case that is antessive" is not so bad). This begs the question, hmmm, how is the nominative case defined? As it stands, with language describing the case function somewhat redundant of that found in nominative. Hmmm, the dative case relative to dative. It might be a small project to bring the semantic style of all the cases, well known and otherwise, into harmony as to how they present. I feel certain, however, that the article antessive case should remain. -SM 07:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought we were keeping all the x case entries for no apparent reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For this (and all the other case entries) why not just write "The antessive." --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, your first comment (of 12:02) is right on target. I'm not opposed to keeping x case entries, but we could also have all the definitions at x, because the cases can always be used the way you describe, as "the x" (without "case"). - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete per nomination. —msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 * So what do you people want? I myself previously put one of the "___ case" entries up for deletion on the grounds that it was just the grammatical case that was "___" (unfortunately I can't currently find which one it was). We have had ablative case, nominative case, etc. for ages. I only created this entry (and a bunch of related ones) because they were requested and I understood there was community consensus to have them, per my own RFD I've just mentioned. If we don't want them, let's delete them all, not on a case-by-case (groan!) basis. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed! - -sche (discuss) 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 * per the discussion and voting at, to be later found at Talk:nominative case. The current definition is crap. --Dan Polansky 10:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:antessive case


text:
Talk:meule de foin

meule de foin
looks like a meule de foin, but I could be wrong. --Itkilledthecat 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. meule has a haystack definition too. Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm French, and I really feel that this phrase belongs to the French vocabulary. meule has several very different senses, but, unlike other senses, it is rarely used alone in this sense, it's almost always meule de foin. 07:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:meule de foin


text: allaitée

title: allaitée


text: allaités

title: allaités


text: allaitées

title: allaitées


text:
Talk:template strand

template strand
SOP. —msh210℠ (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which sense of strand? Unless there is a missing sense specific to molecular biology, keep. ("An individual length of any fine, string-like substance." is too vague to call this SOP in my opinion). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sense. DNA has two strands. A strand acting as a template at any given moment (and each of them does sometimes) is the "template strand". Note that your average Joe doesn't walk into a bar and mention "template strand", expecting everyone to know he's talking about DNA: I'd then agree with is idiomatic. Rather, this phrase is used in the context of genetics (or cell biology, vel sim.), where the fact that the strand is a DNA strand is implied by context. —msh210℠ (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing in "template strand" suggests to me that is means "The noncoding strand of a DNA molecule that is used as a template for RNA synthesis". Even when in the proper context of genetics or molecular biology or so, so that "template strand"="template DNA strand" is easy, this would still not suggest to me the given meaning, hence I'd say not SOP. --JorisvS 09:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:template strand