text:
Talk:Holocaust denial

RFD
SoP, encyclopedic, sacred cow (= PoV?). DCDuring TALK 22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's been a discussion on the talk page of the Wikipedia article about this, specifically the fact that in this term, Holocaust refers  only the Jews, whereas it is normally accepted that other races and groups died in the Holocaust.  The anti-Semitic part of the definition is not covered by the SoP argument. The term itself is not encyclopedic, but the definition is too long. I'd cut the bit from "either by denying ...etc".  Not sure why you think it is POV.--Dmol (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP's discussion is irrelevant. This term refers to denial: of the Holocaust:, which we define solely as "The mass murder of Jews and other groups by the Nazi regime during World War II". Even if there were multiple definitions, one would be much like ours. We often seem to include SoP terms, often with encyclopedic definitions, because they are sacred cows. I view the inclusion of such terms as PoV pushing. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even so, there is a difference between a holocaust and the Holocaust, and Holocaust denial hinges on the event denied being the one that occurred during World War II. By contrast, people who deny the Armenian Holocaust before World War I are not called Holocaust deniers. bd2412 T 00:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that capitalized uses of "Holocaust" without previous reference to any holocausts almost solely refer to the one that occurred in Europe during WWII. However, AFAICT Dmol is correct that this term is only used in anti-Semitic contexts, and not in reference to other groups massacred in the Holocaust (gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, POWs, etc). Therefore we should keep this entry.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While it is probably true that capitalization makes that difference, I think it is important to note that people are historically sloppy about capitalization, and also that the phrase as a whole might come at the beginning of a sentence, which would make formal capitalization unclear. bd2412 T 00:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 * How is this term POV? It describes a particular viewpoint, but the term itself is neutral. "Obamacare" and "teabagger" are loaded terms. Both inextricably carry the views of the people who use them. But loaded terms exist, and it's not out of line for a dictionary to seek to define them, as long as the definitions themselves stay neutral. Astral (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that there are terms such as this for which we lose objectivity in our discussions for one reason or another: political or religious sensitivity, hormonal involvement, personal identity, etc. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though only used by people who have an unhealthy problem with Jews, I cannot see how Holocaust here is different from Holocaust in general, which usually is restricted to Jews. And judging from use I'd even go as far as to doubt that the term was ever used with reference to 'other groups'. Korn (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a fair amount of mainstream scholarship that includes other groups. For example, see this explanation of the use of the term not just to refer to Jewish deaths. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We may need some additional definitions for holocaust/Holocaust, but they would just mean that there are several possible compositional meanings of Holocaust/holocaust denial. DCDuring TALK 04:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, my point is that our current definition of Holocaust as extending beyond Jews is supported, and Holocaust denial does not extend beyond Jews. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ƿidsiþ 05:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, easy SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete That Holocaust denialists don't usually discuss non-Jews doesn't mean that they aren't denying the Holocaust as a whole. Denying the existence a gas chamber denies the existence of gassed Gypsies and homosexuals as much as gassed Jews.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete. Equinox ◑ 12:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete as SOP, per Prosfilaes. I dispute the suggestion above that this term only refers to denial of the mass murder of Jews; I would refer to denial of the mass murder of the Roma and Sinti and of gay people as Holocaust denial, and obviously the denial of the entire Holocaust (mass murder of Roma, Sinti, Jews, homosexuals, etc) is Holocaust denial, not "Holocaust+ denial" or something. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NB I removed the word anti-Semitic from the definition, as not necessarily true. There may be more than one meaning to deny the Holocaust. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what the true definition of this word is to me (and how one would cite it), but with the present definition I agree that it should be deleted. If I ever manage to find citations that obviously only refer to anti-Semitism, I will recreate it. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete. Armenian genocide denial and moon landing denial are also citable, and probably many more, but they are all (event) + denial SOPs. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * FWIW, it may be possible to cite Holocaustdenial so that Holocaust denial will meet COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. BTW, in some places it is considered a crime and knowing translations can be useful. --Anatoli (обсудить) 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. Important term. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't actually !voted yet, keep. There have been many events historically that have been described as a "holocaust", or could be so described, and anyone can capitalize that word if they feel like it. However, the terms Holocaust denial and Holocaust denier refer to only one such event. Note that the phrse is not "The Holocaust denier" (as in, Joe is a The Holocaust denier). bd2412 T 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Matthias Buchmeier and others, I assume you mean it's an important term for cultural reasons, not linguistic ones. I find that highly questionable, for example we don't have Gulf War or Iraq War which are also culturally important, if not less so. Nobody, I mean nobody, will argue this has any linguistic merit. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The linguistic merit is the translations. The are in many cases not SOP. Yes, we don't have Gulf War but we have e.g. American Civil War, which in your argumentation would also be SOP in the same way. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather think the merit in American Civil War is that it is a proper name containing a totum pro parte. There could be other "American Civils Wars" which are SOP, but in this one "American" means '13 European colonies on the northern American continent' rather than 'pertaining to the continents of America'. Korn (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in a previous debate, weather in London might have 'interesting' translations, but surely only interestingness of translations is not a reason to keep a whole entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 * comment: I reverted User:-sche's edit. That was not what the term means, and why IMO a dictionary definition is necessary. Esp. with the legal implications. It's a bit like "anti-Semitism" referring to Jew-hatred, and not hatred of Aramaeans or Arabs, who are (arguably) also Semites. kwami (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you provide evidence that this is a legal term in English (not a corresponding French or German term)? DCDuring TALK 13:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I further note that there is only one citation provided and that our "definition" is an apparent COPYVIO from that citation. In any event, if some citations were to show that they used Holocaust only referring to Jews and others referring to more aspects of the historical events, that would demonstrate that the term was SoP. Unless the present definition is cited I will RfV it if this is kept, add the broader definition, cite that, and open a new RfD. I would bet that the relative frequency of the two senses roughly corresponds to the relative frequency of the two senses of Holocaust. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know about legal status in English.
 * Not a copyvio, since it was written independently of that source.
 * I doubt it. AFAIK, the term refers specifically to the the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Although HD may be part of a larger apologetics of the Nazis, AFAIK denying their crimes in general is not called HD. kwami (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with DCDuring. "Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to a subset of the Nazis' democide, other times to refer to the entire democide; two corresponding senses of "Holocaust denial" are probably about as relative-frequently attested, and are still SOP. "Second World War weapon" isn't made non-SOP just because some people include the events of 1936-1938 in the war while others include only 1939-1945. Let's RFV both Holocaust and Holocaust denial to get some coarse idea of the relative frequency of the senses. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete, essentially just denial of the Holocaust. --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I still vehemently dispute that this is anything but SOP, but as long as it's staying, I have re-added the clearly widespread broad definition. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

broad definition
sche, you say that definitions must be cited or be deleted, yet you insist on adding an uncited definition. That makes no sense. Either cite it, or let it go. kwami (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, "one of the two uncited senses"? The only uncited sense is the one you keep adding. If you want to preserve it, move it here to talk. You're violating policy by your own definition, which is just weird. kwami (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The narrow sense has no citations that meet WT:ATTEST: unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary doesn't accept links to non-durably-archived internet sites as citations. So far, I've placed one citation of the broad sense . - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The citation in the entry *is* durably archived. I've added several additional print or archived citations.
 * And no, you placed one citation of the narrow sense. All it says is that holocaust deniers generally deny other Nazi crimes as well. The broad sense remains uncited. kwami (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Re my citation: I suppose it's up to the community to decide which of our interpretations is correct.
 * Re your citations:
 * The Niewyk citation doesn't use the term "Holocaust denial", so it should probably be moved to Citations:Holocaust. (I note, btw, that it is also trivial to find authors who use "Holocaust" to refer to the murder of all 11 million people, just as it is trivial to find authors who use it as Niewyk does to refer only to the murder of 5 or 6 million. I suppose the definition of Holocaust should be split into broad and narrow senses to reflect this. Can we do that without a formal RFV, or would you similarly dispute that "Holocaust" is ever broad?)
 * The "Contemporary examples..." and Austin citations also don't use the term "Holocaust denial". It might seem silly if you're used to WP's way of referencing articles, but Wiktionary requires citations to actually use the specific lemma (term) in question (not a related form like denier vs denial).
 * The Mathis and Shermer+Grobman citations are two great citations of the narrow sense, thank you!
 * Roth's citation shows how SOP this term is and why it should have been deleted, by re-arranging the component parts and thus not actually using the term "Holocaust denial".
 * Has the JPR citation been published in a book or journal? It isn't obvious... but if so, it meets WT:ATTEST, and if not, it most likely does not. (After at least half a dozen Beer Parlour discussions in the past two years, Wiktionary's policy of accepting basically only printed material and Usenet remains.)
 * The ADL page says it excerpts from a printed book, which means it meets ATTEST, and it supports the narrow sense. Good!
 * Lipstadt's snippet is ambiguous, but there are three clear citations of the narrow sense (which is all WT:CFI require), namely Mathis, Shermer+Grobman and ADL, so it doesn't matter. - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * That's not what ATTEST says. It only requires that the citations be "durable". They don't have to be in print. It even says, "Print media such as books and magazines will also do". kwami (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * See Beer parlour archive/2012/February, and before you point to the Internet Archive, see Beer parlour archive/2012/March and Beer parlour archive/2010/August (a more recent but brief discussion of the latter archiving site: Information_desk). If you're interested, a relatively recent general discussion of what is considered durable is here: Beer parlour archive/2010/November. Feel free to start a BP thread if you have a new reason why websites should be considered durably archived.
 * (PS: for a discussion of the durableness of songs and CD-inserts, see Beer parlour archive/2012/May; for a discussion of WikiSource and other Wikis, see Beer parlour archive/2008/December; for Google News, see Beer parlour archive/2007/July.) - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BP discussion are not policy. ATTEST is. ATTEST does not say that. I assume that's because there's no consensus to add it in. Until it is, it is not policy. kwami (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The en.Wiktionary community interprets ATTEST in the way reflected in those BP discussions. If your interpretation of ATTEST is different from the prevailing interpretation, start a BP discussion, but until community consensus changes, policy will continue to be applied according to the current consensus — the one those BP discussions reflect. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it's absolutely ludicrous to maintain two separate definitions here. Most citations out there cannot be confidently attributed to one or the other, and therefore these gradations of meaning should be merged (just as they are at Holocaust: itself). Ƿidsiþ 07:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I favour (and twice attempted) such a merger. Indeed, I would most prefer to define "Holocaust denial" simply as "[[denial]] of the [[Holocaust]", and let [[Holocaust]] do all the 'heavy lifting'. (Actually, I would most prefer to see it deleted as an obvious SOP, but...) - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I detagged both senses because they have been cited. I then merged the senses into "denial of the Holocaust", as explained on WT:RFV. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV
The broad sense is clearly in widespread use, but given the edit history (which see) should probably be formally cited. I suppose the narrow sense is also in wide use, but it would be best if it, too, could be cited in our usual way. (And yes, the term is entirely SOP, but it was kept at RFD because there was no consensus.) - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've placed one citation here (that's a link to the full paragraph; I trimmed it in subsequent edits per our standard practice of not having paragraph-long citations unless absolutely necessary). - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Kwamikagami has cited the narrow sense (see the citations on the Citations page and the discussion of them on the talk page); Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV has added 2-3 more citations of the broad sense. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I've started citing Holocaust]]. - -sche (discuss) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The broad sense is now cited thanks to Ungoliant and me; the narrow sense probably also has enough durably-archived citations, thanks to Kwamikagami. (If you're sick of people beating the dead horse of "but the internet is durable!!1!1" you may want to look away from the talk page.) The countable sense "an instance of such denial", added after the RFV tag and thus not (yet) subject to RFV, has one citation. I've added a usage note to the entry and to [[Holocaust]], describing the debate over the meaning of the term. - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Opinions are solicited regarding whether the keep the "11" and "6" senses separate or merge them. ([[Holocaust]] is an example of an entry which does not have separate senses for the "11" and "6" definitions, and which has a usage note instead.) See Talk:Holocaust denial. - -sche (discuss) 06:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that [[Holocaust]] would contain the distinction, which seems the kind of "encyclopedic" information that has become integral to the very use of the word. It also seems to me that any expressions that uses the word Holocaust is potentially entangled in the same ambiguity and associated controversy. The simplest thing to do that might lead to high-quality entries would be to improve [[Holocaust]] with a second sense and then determine whether there was any reason to maintain separate senses at the expressions using Holocaust and proceed normally from there. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The obvious solution is just to change the definitions to a single "Denial of the Holocaust." But I bet that won't happen. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * @DCDuring: as Widsith points out on Talk:Holocaust denial, many if not most uses of the base term "Holocaust" (and the derived term "Holocaust denial") will not make clear whether they are designating the "11 million" or the "6 million". There was a similar discussion about the word [[atheist]]/[[atheism]], but there, there already was a sense supported by citations with clear meanings which also covered unclear citations: here, to have separate senses, we'd need three, like:
 * the mass murder of either 11 million people including 6 million Jews, or only of 6 million Jews.
 * The mass murder of 11 million people including 6 million Jews.
 * The mass murder of 6 million Jews.
 * I'm not firmly opposed to that, but it does seem a less ideal solution than only having the first definiton, "11 or 6". (For one thing, all the translations currently in the entry would have to become s until someone determined if they meant "11 or 6", "11" or "6".) - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * @Mglovesfun: I support such a simplification of the def. I would guess Widsith would also support it. One of the two arguments for keeping the term some users put forth on RFD was the argument that "Holocaust denial" only denoted denial of one sense of [[Holocaust]], so some other users might oppose... but then, the citations added to [[Holocaust denial]] have shown that RFD argument to be mistaken. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Per Mglovesfun's and DCDuring's suggestion and in agreement with Widsith's comment, I have merged definitions to "denial of the Holocaust". "Holocaust denier" already has a similar definition ("one who denies the Holocaust").
 * I tend to agree with Widsith that a single definition (in this case, of "Holocaust") is best because most uses will not make clear which sense of the term they are using: and because if we split senses, we may need another definition to account for uses that mean "the genocide of 6 million Jews and the genocide of the Roma", as distinct from either the "only 6 million Jews" or "all 11 million people" definitions. Nevertheless, to suit those who insist it has one or the other specific sense, and because the different specific senses have some different synonyms and hypernyms (e.g. genocide vs democide), I could support a split.  The genocide of 6 million Jews by... could even be the first def, with  The democide of 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, by... as the second or third def (depending upon whether a "Jews + Roma" def can be cited). - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck as resolved (months ago). - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

RFD 2
See Talk:holocaust survivor. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Holocaust denial


text:
აკუთა

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  cookstove, hearth a fireplace made with stones for pots/cauldrons
 * 2)  small oven

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

title: აკუთა


text:
Talk:condolence

condolence
The two senses are obviously the same, but I'm reluctant to merge them myself without someone looking through the translations to see what impact it will have on those. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody will be able to deal with all translations. The normal procedure is to move all translations to "translations to be checked" -section, mark them with and be happy. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The definitions seem very similar, but the glosses ("uncountable" and "countable, usually in the plural") seem very different, too different to merge them. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The senses seem completely different to me. One is countable ("The deceased had three sons who are not on speaking terms with one another, so I expressed three separate condolences") and the other un-. We can discuss whether the countable sense exists in the singular or not, and other questions, but that it's distinct from the other sense is, I think, pretty clear. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
There is a discrepancy between the IPA pronunciation (ˈkɑndələns) and the spoken recording (kən'doləns).

Dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam Webster list kən'doləns as the primary pronunciation. Merriam Webster lists ˈkɑndələns as a secondary.

It seems like the recording and the primary pronunciation IPA should agree with the recording, at least, and then other pronunciations can be listed as marked alternatives.

title: Talk:condolence


text:
Talk:Plastikschwanz

Plastikschwanz
SOP, plastic+cock Korn (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't get any more straightforward than this. delete -- Liliana • 11:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - all words in all languages. Several hits on Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Annoyingly we tend to keep these by a majority, though not a massive majority, see Talk:Zirkusschule. I've always said the way to moderate WT:COALMINE is to delete attested single word terms when they are easily decipherable from the some of their parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Do we have a specific CFI for German compounds? "Plastik" can be prefixed to virtually any noun in German, just as the adjective "plastic" can describe almost any object in English. Plastikkasten (plastic box), Plastiklöffel (plastic spoon), Plastikfenster (plastic window), Plastikflasche (plastic bottle), Plastikgeige (plastic violin) and Plastikauto (plastic car) are all attestable, but I wouldn't call these dictionary words. (That said, Plastikschwanz I'd lean towards keeping, as long as the definition given - "dildo" - is accurate, and the word doesn't just apply to objects made of plastic shaped like penises). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't, it's an 'unresolved issue', albeit not one of our most discussed ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WT:BP 12:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does really mean "dildo", as our entry claims? Smurrayinchester asks if it ever refers to anything other than a dildo; turning that around, I'd also ask if it ever refers to a dildo made of anything other than plastic. Because if it really just means "plastic cock (whatever that might mean)" — and especially if it ever uses any of the other senses of  — then delete. —Ruakh TALK 12:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that our entry is wrong, and, as you say, it means plain "plastic cock". German has the uppercase which is exactly what it says on the tin. -- Liliana • 15:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This term may be used also literally. In a story of fighter kiting I encountered this sentence: Für absolute Anfänger besteht die Möglichkeit einen kurzen Plastikschwanz (ca. 1 m Länge) an das Ende des Drachens zu kleben. It does not recommend that the absolute beginners glue a short dildo of about 1 meter in one corner of the kite. Another example is this bit of advice for LARP enthusiasts preparing to play Alice in Wonderland: ''Drei Striche auf der Backe und aufgesetzte Ohren sind keine Cheshire Katze. Ein Plastikschwanz und Ohren zu einer Jeans ist keine Schlafmaus. It also seems that the word may be used to mean "dildo" in general: Mein Plastikschwanz ist kaputt. Ich habe die Batterien ausgewechselt, aber vergeblich.'' A basic plastic dick most likely does not require batteries to do its job. I think we should keep this. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The last example from Hekaheka is the kind of thing I was thinking of. If it's referring to a vibrator, that's presumably not simply a plastic penis so there's at least a little idiomaticity (here's another example where the "Plastikschwanz" is clearly a vibrator (although "Plastikschwanz" may be a metaphor in this case). My vote is now Keep, unless a native German speaker suggests otherwise. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case, see User:Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Use of to refer to a vibrator still seems completely SOP to me. "Plastic _____" does not mean "a ____ made from a single solid piece of plastic"; see, , etc. —Ruakh TALK 17:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. As WT:SOP says, "Compounds are generally idiomatic, even when the meaning can be clearly expressed in terms of the parts." Idiomaticity may also be supplied by the fact that Plastikschwanz is used also for dildos made of other materials. AFAIK, most dildos nowadays are silicone rubber. —Angr 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep attested compound German nouns spelled without spaces. This is the English Wiktionary, where anglophones look things up, and they don't know where to (or, perhaps, even to) break up the words. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't claim to know German, but based strictly on the literal translation, "plastic cock", I wouldn't deem this SOP. If "plastic cock" were interpreted more broadly to mean "artificial phallus", that wouldn't just include dildoes, but also prosthetic penises, and it appears this term is used exclusively to indicate the former. Astral (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did find one description of a German play where all the male characters wear fake penises, which the original script apparently called "Plastikschwanz". I'm not entirely sure whether this was in the dildo or prosthetic sense though - it's a weird sounding play. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By "prosthetic," I meant the type sometimes worn by trans men or biological men who don't have penises due to congenital deformities/accidents/etc., which are qualitatively different than dildoes. They can be used for erotic purposes, but their main purpose, as I understand it, is to replace/stand in for a missing body part in the same way that an artificial leg does. I suppose there could also be prosthetic penises used in movies for effects. This wasn't an angle that had been considered in this discussion, so I thought I'd bring it up. Astral (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Beer Parlour! I think this place is much more suitable for this topic and discussion. Korn (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be viewed as SOP. A dildo is not a penis; it somewhat resembles a penis and fulfills some of the same functions, but that does not make it a penis. Incidentally, I checked if it exists in Danish, and it does: .__Gamren (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Plastikschwanz


text:
Talk:corporate social responsibility

corporate social responsibility
Given that we have corporate and social responsibility, does this add value to the project? Not that this would necessarily destroy it either, but we seem to be expanding towards defining more and more "soppish" terms. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I didn't actually know there was a term for this, if I had been talking about it in speech I would probably have used some long periphrasis. It does look a bit soppish, but the fact that it is commonly abbreviated to CSR and that there is a Wikipedia article by this name makes me feel it's a specific term for a specific complex of ideas. Ƿidsiþ 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP has entries for, and there are abbreviations of, loads and loads of things we don't want. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Our definition for this is precisely a paraphrase of ours for corportae and ours for social responsibility. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete SOP in classic form; Widsith makes some valid points, but that's simply not we work as of now. Perhaps we need a new way of looking at it (cf. the BP). --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since social responsibility exists, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July 2023–April 2024
Deleted as SOP in 2012, maybe time to re-evaluate. Jberkel 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Tellingly, the only quote we have at social responsibility is "corporate social responsibility", and it seems to be much more common in this combination. – Jberkel 13:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as term of art. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a meaningless corporate buzzword. Corporate PR media is frequently laced with facile, promotional, or vapid jargon in this vein. AP295 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. If it's in use in the language in question, isn't just a transparent combination of other terms, and isn't a term for a specific thing like the name of an individual, we have an entry for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One can just as easily say it should be deleted as SoP. Descriptivism is all well and fine but if it means wiktionary must include meaningless corporate jargon (if it's not SoP in the first place) then I have to question the value of descriptivism as such a strict, dogmatic approach. AP295 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Naturally I shall follow the rules. I only mean to say that it does not seem ideal to apply absolute prescriptivism or absolute descriptivism. Descriptivism might be easier to justify, but if it's followed strictly and to the point that the language is debased as a result of integrating any sort of nonsense just because people use it, then clearly that's not a responsible approach. In other words I feel it's a bit of a cop out if it's taken to the extreme, because it requires one to enshrine every popular buzzword or stock phrase as long as it's arguably not SoP, regardless of whether such words and phrases are subversive, or politically expedient, or generally a bastardization/distortion of the language at large. It seems like common sense that neither are ideal when they're set in stone.  AP295 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a term of art. We don't delete things because some people can't be bothered to learn what they mean or because they don't like them. We're not a propaganda outlet. Theknightwho (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP (corporate + social responsibility). — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:corporate social responsibility


text:
Talk:sides reversed is

sides reversed is
"Used to form palindromes." Equinox ◑ 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely attestable, plays a role in communication not necessarily apparent from its components (I certainly didn't realise straight away that it was a palindromic phrase). I've given it a slightly better def. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no test case or criterion that says it must be kept, but it's too good to lose :) --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we generally want to include all smart palindromes in all languages? To begin with, Emme liene vätyksiä lemmen, emme läiskytä, veneilemme is Finnish for "We aren't slobs of love, we don't splash, we are boating". If you are asked for the price of producing a new palindrome, you might answer that you do it Alle satasella, i.e. "for less than a hundred". I have about 2,000 more to go. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to keep every soppish palindrome in every language, but this one serves a special purpose in (admittedly rare) palindromic discourse. I will openly admit that I have no winning arguments for it - but I'm an inclusionist at heart. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It should be kept because it’s a template, not because it’s a palindrome. We shouldn’t and won’t include palindromes using it. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Amusing as it is, I see no criterion under which this could be kept, so delete. -- Liliana • 11:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to think it does convey some meaning, so should be kept, but reworded. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV, if people actually use it like that then keep, I guess. Ƿidsiþ 08:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Google book search has quite a few hits (not counting accidental ones), but they all seem to be mentions. Actually, I'm not sure how any usage could be other than a mention. So, delete, or remove elsewhere. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Banish it to Appendix:Palindromic_phrases Chuck Entz (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about if we redefined it to "used to indicate a pair of semordnilaps" or something similar? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:sides reversed is


text:
Talk:do one's bit

do one's bit
I'm a little unsure about this, but it seems somewhat sopped up. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I’m also unsure, but leaning towards weak keep, because it does seem somewhat idiomatic to me as a non-native speaker. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 05:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of another expression that uses this sense of bit:, something like "share of effort". Can anyone else? Isn't that now the sense of bit in this expression whatever its derivation? DCDuring TALK 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Synonymous expressions could include,.
 * @DCDuring, the bit here doesn't strike me as all that idiomatic, and synonymous with or  -- basically senses 5 and 7 of  as the entry currently stands.
 * Incidentally, senses 5 and 7 don't seem very distinct. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Out sense 5 is "A small amount of something.", not "A share". I think share has the specific sense that it is one's obligation (work, money, risk or other contribution) in a group effort, which portion does not usually have. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't a simply part of something that has been  among multiple other parties?  I can have my  of cake, for instance, without being under any obligation.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:do one's bit


text:
Talk:nipper

nipper
(Australian, slang) Young child in the Australian surf life-saving clubs. Covered by the broader sense of child - which is also used in Australia. — Pingkudimmi 09:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless I'm missing something. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a specific term used for children aged 5 - 13 in the Surf Lifesavers. I've changed the definition to match this. Not used for any child, just those in the program. I'll start adding some cites--Dmol (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. New definition is specific. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 06:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This definitely needs cites from independent, durably archived sources. A sense specific to an organization that is not recognized outside that organization doesn't seem dictionary worthy even if it does meet attestation. There is a rank in the cub/boy scout organizations called WEBELOS, which seems comparable and would be attestable, I think, though our standards for inclusion of an abbreviation are more relaxed. Do we have the cub scout ranks as senses: wolf, bear, lion? DCDuring TALK 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Three independent book cites added.--Dmol (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:nipper


text:
Talk:fun house

fun house
(colloquial, slang) An environment that (unintentionally) resembles a fun house.

This seems to be saying that fun house can be used metaphorically, though not specifically with any particular definition. This kind of definition would seem to potentially apply to virtually term that is attestably used metaphorically, but does not yield any value to a user seeking to understand a particular use. DCDuring TALK 10:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with DCDuring, delete. Also senses #1 and #2 appear to be the same despite the slightly different wording of the definition for funhouse. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and isn't it worrying that the only definition I knew was the last one... --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 13:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, it just says your adulthood is more fun than your childhod. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ƿidsiþ 13:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also think sense 2, "A carnival or amusement park attraction through which customers ramble to see unexpected clowns, distortion mirrors, ramps, slides, stairs, rotating barrel slides, etc." is redundant to sense 1. In fact, as long as the brothel meaning can also be written funhouse, I'd prefer if this whole article was, but that's outside the scope of this RFD. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a bit bold, but you could make that sort of change without any discussion, I've done it before. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The solid spelling is more common than the open, which is more common than the hyphenated at COCA (119, 98, 41). At BNC (8, 8, 0). So solid looks good to me as main entry. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:fun house


text:
Talk:shitwork

shitwork
Sense: ''(feminism) Thankless, demoralizing work, as traditionally assigned to females in society.

I think the term is used much more widely and is understood as "Work of low status or satisfaction.", which sense is cited with a wide range of non-feminist book uses. There seems to be either PoV-pushing or just a lapse in logic (Women often get assigned shitwork, therefore shitwork is a feminist term.). DCDuring TALK 02:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, I don’t consider shitwork to imply a particular gender. ~ Robin (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Another possibility is that the editor is in a speech environment where shitwork wouldn't otherwise be used, so they only hear the term from feminists. I believe the sheep/cow/swine vs. mutton/beef/pork distinction is based on a similar sort of coincidental alignment of sociopolitical and lexical distribution. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But Wiktionary isn't about production, it's about understanding. At least I thought our target users were normal humans trying to understand what they heard or read. Writers would need a lot more help, for which we provide hints in the form of usage examples, citations, etymology, and a large list of senses. For normal speech our content is not timely with current technology (heads-up displays? implants?). DCDuring TALK 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of bitchwork but although possibly having origins used to refer to women's work they seem to be used as comparatives and to refer to undesirable work in its actual usage, so let's delete it.Lucifer (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let me add that I have no feminist agenda but had never seen the term used outside that context. Equinox ◑ 00:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:shitwork


text:
Talk:horned god

horned god
sop recreation of Horned GodLucifer (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. No opposition. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:horned god


text:
Talk:oatmeal drink

RFD
Sum of parts — surely just a drink whose chief ingredient is oatmeal. — Pingkudimmi 13:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There you go using cultural and practical knowledge to construct meaning. So insensitive of you to fail to take into account the users from other cultures who would have to select from 3 meanings of oatmeal: and five senses of drink:. And that already excludes the readings using drink:.
 * Delete precisely to establish the precedent that encyclopedic definitions such as this do not afford protection to SoP entries. If necessary we should RfV this to make sure that every detail of the definition is conveyed by the dated Australian citations required by the context. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Weak delete Contrary to what the article suggests, there is no one recipe for "oatmeal drink". A Google Book search finds oatmeal drink defined as "oatmeal and barley water", "whiskey and oatmeal", "oatmeal, sugar and citrus fruits", "oatmeal and milk" and "the strained liquid from boiled oats". That said, the specific phrase "oatmeal drink", without an article "the" or "an", seems to have been used quite a bit during the temperance era, when it was marketed as an alternative to beer, and in books about labour and fitness. Eg: "cold tea, cold coffee, oatmeal-drink, are admirable substitutes for the unlimited strong drink that too often shows its evil effects just now.", "I have often since heard these men speak with great approbation of the supporting power of oatmeal drink", "A correspondent who takes a great interest in the cause of temperance requests us to publish a recipe for Oatmeal Drink by the lata Dr. Parkes", "we there made oatmeal drink for the glass- blowers, about one hundred quarts a day". I think there was an understanding of "oatmeal drink" as a set phrase, I just don't think it was enough that any reader couldn't immediately understand it as "drink made of oatmeal". Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Smurrayinchester. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Send to RfV. Neither "oatmeal" nor "drink" implies the inclusion of brown sugar in the definition, but the lone citation does not make it clear that this is definitional either. bd2412 T 16:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think the odds are for finding such confirming citations? DCDuring TALK 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose this comment has any effect on the keepability or otherwise of this term, but I suspect that this is not "a drink whose chief ingredient is oatmeal"—that wouldn't be liquid enough to drink—but rather a drink whose characteristic ingredient is oatmeal but whose chief ingredient is water (like chocolate chip cookies, whose chief ingredient is flour, but whose characteristic ingredient is chocolate chips). —Angr 17:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A drink whose main solid ingredient is oatmeal? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment. Terms which follow the pattern of ingredient + type of food/beverage can impart basic information, but not details about other ingredients, preparation, consumption, etc. I think it would be beneficial to set specific inclusion guidelines for food and beverage terms. We've got entries like pea soup, chocolate cake, iced tea, clam chowder, etc. which could potentially be deemed SoP, but are apparently uncontroversial (based on the fact they haven't been nominated for deletion). Thus I think it would be helpful to have criteria that could be referred to in order to determine whether a particular food or beverage term is SoP. Astral (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that there is also a degree of set phrase recognition going on with these. Clam soup and pea chowder would be correct descriptions, but would not be the phrases actually used to identify the thing in question. bd2412 T 03:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I still think it might be worthwhile to set guidelines on what qualifies food and beverage terms as set phrases. It would simplify the process of determining includability. Astral (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV
seems salvageable as an idiomatic item of gastronomy if the definition is correct.Lucifer (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed. Entry failed RFD. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:oatmeal drink


text:
siala

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) saddle

title: siala


text:
Talk:all around

all around
Encircling: usex "all around the earth". Seems very, very literal. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. No opposition. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:all around


text:
Talk:Argentine-American

Argentine-American
SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, but this is really a minor part of a much larger set of entries. See . --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete them all. Although I can see reason for keeping one such as African-American as it is specific to the United States and includes people that are only of very slight black African origin, but does not include people from Egypt or descendents of European immigrants in South Africa nor Indians and Asian and possibly not even most Malagasys as they are Polynesian.Lucifer (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, Malagasy is only distantly related to Polynesian languages. It has much more in common with the languages of Borneo. As far as I know, people from Madagascar are considered African American, because some of their ancestry comes from the African mainland. Of course, US racial terminology is pretty illogical and inconsistent, so nothing can be determined 100-percent. Besides, I know people from Madagascar, so I don't really think of them in terms of their racial classification, anyway.Chuck Entz (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete SoP. Bad definition anyway. A person born in the US with Argentine parents, or a person born in Argentina living in the US but not yet a citizen, would still be an Argentine-American. It's a cultural definition, and there are endless variations of it, all of which would be SoP.--Dmol (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Single word. And all such which are attestable. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's two words linked by a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I consider (as is traditional) two words linked by a hyphen to be a single word. Not that I would go out of my way to add many of them, but I see no justification for deleting them. Ƿidsiþ 09:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The justification would be that the words are SoP, which was the reason they were listed originally.--Dmol (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of restarting this whole conversation again, I consider it a single word and therefore SOP doesn't apply. Ƿidsiþ 11:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there's much evidence to be put forward on either side. Interestingly when you say 'as is traditional', um according to who? Maybe that bit you could evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a truism of teaching, and of writing/editing. Go here, type in ‘I am an Argentine-American’, press submit, and see how many words you've written. Hint: it's four. See also and similar. Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete. Nothing more than "Argentine" + "American". ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's next: Andorran-American, Burkina-Fasoan-American, Tuvaluan-American? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can they be attested? This can. Ƿidsiþ 06:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Argentine-American


text:
Talk:monster cock

monster cock
a monster cock is not a cock that is a monster such as a wherewolf or a demon, it is a cock that is huge so sum of parts it is not, plus it is a set term common in porn and erotica.Lucifer (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No different than, donkeydick, donkeycock, horsedick, supercock, superdick, or horsecock.Lucifer (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See monster: + cock:. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it means "creature" or "evil being" to most people. "unusually large" is an informal/slang usage and not the common meaning.Lucifer (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're insulting 'most people' as you put it. Just because they know one meaning of a word doesn't mean they won't know any other meanings, 'monster' to mean large or big is informal but well-known. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So this usage is not informal? It comes up in court and on the floor of Parliament? I don't think that people have any trouble understanding, say, monster truck, car; monster storm, blizzard, monster bass, catfish, trout (fish), etc. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "monster hand" is used in poker to mean a really great hand, but Oliver Stone said "any horror fan will be disappointed if he comes to this movie expecting a Jaws-like monster hand". I don't think the various uses of monster cock or monster hand will really confuse anyone. (Seriously, is any porn viewer going to pick up a movie box claiming the star has a monster cock and wonder if it's demonic or werewolf?)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy-deleted by. Wrongly so, IMHO, since gets enough hits that I think this satisfies WT:COALMINE, but whatever, I can't say that I mind. ;-)  —Ruakh TALK 05:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, We have monstercock and it is well and durably cited, I have taken the time to add to Citations:monster cock and the citations really show that people are not comparing penises to creatures but rather a more metaphorical sense of a penis that has the qualities such as badass, large, adept at lovemaking, impressive, shocking and per coalmine and all words in all languages and the rich connotation this word has amount its prurient users we should undelete it.Lucifer (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of the 5 Google Books hits for “monstercock”, 3 of them also feature “monster cock”, so there is a possibility I conclude that they are misspellings, delete . Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 06:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, delete. Ƿidsiþ 05:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I object, it is a common literary practice to spell compounds as 1 and 2 words when synonyms are not readily available.Lucifer (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Like all Lucifer's claims, this one comes with no evidence and is probably false. Equinox ◑ 17:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * “monster cock” occurs up to the 32nd page of Google Books results (~320 occurences); “mosntercock” has only 5 hits.
 * Of the 5 books with “monster cock”, 3 also have “monster cock” (in equal or greater amount).
 * The is only one occurrence of “monstercock” in each book where it occurs without “monster cock”.
 * In one of the two occurrences it is written “Monstercock” (with italics); the writer was clearly emphasising monster as an adjective describing cock.
 * To me, this is all evidence that monstercock is a misspelling of the adjective + noun SoP + . Note that I only considered quotes that could be seen in a snippet; in reality all 5 books with “monstercock” yielded results when I searched for “monster cock”. — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Dug up five Usenet cites of monstercock (see Citations:monstercock). This should now meet COALMINE. Astral (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:monster cock


text:
Talk:Saint George

Saint George
Wiktionary is not a place to explain saints. I assume the only reason we have this one is he's the patron saint of England. If he were the patron saint of a non-English-speaking country, I suggest we would not have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Wiktionary is also not the place to explain where Chongqing is, you might say. As I see it, it's not doing us any harm, and it's even slightly helpful sometimes. Yes, Anglocentrism is the deciding factor in which saints we have and which we don't. Let's just wait for the rest to arrive and not worry, as long as the page comes up to our standards. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point really, we could write a really good entry for George W. Bush, but it doesn't mean we should have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Wiktionary indeed is not the place to explain where Chongqing is- it's the place to explain what "Chongqing" means. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, how do you propose we explain what Chongqing means without saying where it is? How do you propose we explain what Saint George means without saying who he was, and mentioning his role as patron saint (and perhaps referencing some business with oversized reptiles)? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete Wiktionary doesn't have entries for people. Saint and George explains the issue to the extent of our needs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Alexander the Great. Attila the Hun. Jack the Ripper. Van Gogh. Just sayin'. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the CFI doesn't disallow it. Certainly the entries exist. So, Prosfilaes, are you just giving up on the prospect of explaining the non-SOP information in Saint George? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you giving up the prospect of explaining the non-SOP information in Civil War? There's just certain things that Wikipedia does better then us, and people by name is just one of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep, of course. CFI allows to keep individuals but I don't remember the exact rules and what similar RFD's we had about it. Anyway, we had a number of long discussions about this kind of entries, otherwise they would have been long deleted. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 01:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to all, consensus can change, and in terms of 'this has been discussed before', George Washington has been deleted 6 times. In terms of non-SoP information, how can one guess from David + Beckham than David Beckham is an international footballer and model? What about Adam Smith? Not just the second US president and first vide-president, but the name of thousands upon thousands of people. Imagine how much we could write on that subject! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean John Adams. Adam Smith was never Vice-President nor President of the U.S. Anyway, I'm inclined to keep Saint George and anyone else whose name is different in different languages - and I mean not just by mechanically transliterating the name into other writing systems or phonetically transliterating it for languages like Latvian and Serbo-Croatian. Foreign translations are part of our remit, so people will expect to be able to come to Wiktionary to find out that Saint George is called Saint Georges in French, Sankt Georg in German, San Jorge in Spanish, San Giorgio in Italian, and so forth. But I don't feel it's our job to tell people that David Beckham is called デビッド・ベッカム in Japanese, Дэвид Бекхэм in Russian, and Deivids Bekhems in Latvian, because those changes are automatic and predictable to anyone who knows the language in question, so we don't need an entry for him. —Angr 11:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've kinda made my point for me, in all the examples you've given it's the word for saint then the word for George. So your argument doesn't work, it totally defeats itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Spanish say "San Jorge", but I don't think anyone ever called George Bush "Jorge Arbusto". I think that was Angr's point. David Beckham is still called David Beckham everywhere, Saint George is not. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Angr. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In WT:CFI "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." So no this doesn't rule out Saint George. I also notice it doesn't rule out W. Disney as W. is not a given name or a diminutive, it's an initial. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Some counts: keep: 4; delete: 3: --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saint George


text:
Talk:Beachcomber

Beachcomber
Needs to meet our "Names of specific entities" nonrule AFAICT. Delete: nothing here of use that's not in [[beachcomber]]. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to oppose a lot less strongly terms that refer to individuals when they're only one word. In one way just to be less of an outlier on this subject, but also they can have linguistic merit. I'm not keen on this one, but I'd struggle to come up with a really good argument to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Take to RFV If there are cites along the lines of "Beachcomber today writes" without an explicit context like "in his Daily Express column", it seems like a weak keep. If it's always qualified - i.e., if it's always obvious from context that Beachcomber is a Daily Express columnist" - delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good. —msh210℠ (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's an author's pseudonym, like Araucaria for the cryptic crossword setter, or Voltaire (which we have, but I disagree with; encyclopaedic and non-lexicographical). "Beachcomber writes..." doesn't seem to mandate an entry. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This just the nickname of a specific person; everything lexically significant about the term is at the lowercase title. bd2412 T 19:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Name of a specific person, but without any redeeming attributive use. --Dmol (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beachcomber


text:
Talk:time of day

time of day
"the time according to the clock". Isn't this sum of parts? How is this different than time of the year/time of year, time of the week/time of week, etc? (If this is kept, the definition could really use some improvement, by the way.) --Yair rand (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Unlike quite a few Latin-based languages, modern English doesn't normally differentiate between time as in "The general quality of the flow of events" (tempus) and time as in "The specific measure of the flow of events until a certain moment" (hora). "time of day" is the nearest we have to a specific term for the latter. It doesn't seem immediately obvious from its parts that the "time" of a "day" is actually a count of the number of hours and minutes that have passed between midnight and a given moment. Note that time of year doesn't have the same kind of meaning - it's a much looser term roughly synonymous with "season", and it's not something that can be measured or compared. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think your theory holds water. The only non-obsolete sense we have defines "time of day" as unspecified period of or point in time. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I use time of day mostly to refer to things like morning vs afternoon or evening, not "7:00 am". Give someone the time of day verifies that it's also used the other way, so I think we're talking about two senses derived from the two different senses of time you mentioned. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This expression is mostly not used in English as a replacement for the word "time" as in "What time is it?". It is relatively uncommonly used other than as part of true idioms like "not give someone the time of day" [or] to differentiate daytime from nighttime ("any time of day" vs. "any time of night") or from bedtime. Accordingly, I doubt that it is usually the right translation for the words that appear in its translation table. As I review the ambiguous, obsolete, and archaic glosses assigned to many non-English words, I wonder further about how many of the glosses are otherwise inappropriate.
 * On Google Books, the first few pages of hits mostly seem to be split fairly evenly between the hours and minutes sense and the looser morning/evening sense, though admittedly the books that use it in the clock sense tend to be quite dry textbooks (mostly computing and science). Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not find much of anything in which time of day was used in current English to point to a specific point or period in time. It seemed to have sometime had such a meaning in earlier centuries. I would welcome citations from books or other sources, originally written in the last half-century and not quoting earlier usage, that were unambiguously referring to a specific time. I just haven't found it myself and my own intuition saps my enthusiasm for the hunt. DCDuring TALK 00:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1977, 1985, 2006, 2011. It does seem to be less common than I thought though. I'd keep the current definition, but it make a secondary sense under something along the lines of "A period of the day". Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that the computer time data cites (1985, 2006, and 2011) are specifically to distinguish time variables that use some combined date and time (with a great deal of precision, too, like UTC) from one that uses the familiar recurring 24-hour cycle. That sense would be seem to be attestable in the context of computing based on what you found alone I think. I wonder if there are any other terms, possibly SoP, that are synonymously used in computing for time of day. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep entry, but replace content with what DCDuring said! —Ruakh TALK 14:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at it. Please inspect and improve. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To me it very much looks like the sum of "time", "of" and "day". If we are missing a sense of "time", let's add it there and not to a place where few people would know to look for it. Even if "time of day" is kept, the appropriate sense should be found also under "time". --Hekaheka (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In many ways it does to me, too. But if non-native speakers persist in attempting to use it with the consequence of marking themselves as non-native, we can be useful as a source of corrective information, provided we are capable of preparing something that is both correct and intelligible. I am not sure by what path a non-native speaker using Wiktionary would come to this entry. From the entries for the translations? From the search box? DCDuring TALK 20:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing idiomatic sense?
"That's the time of day" appears to mean something like "that's the state of affairs", and/or "that's right / that's the ticket". has used it a few times:. Equinox ◑ 20:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

by ellipsis
What does by ellipsis refer to in the last meaning? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Basic intelligence or knowledge
Basic intelligence or knowledge. Used with negative constructions of the verb "know." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/time+of+day --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:time of day


text:
Talk:respiratory sounds

respiratory sounds
Created by an IP, but it's on Lucifer's agenda. Again, aren't these sounds made by the respiratory system? Note breath sounds and that whole situation. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 * What is the word that should be used instead of "respiratory sounds"? Wikipedia doesn't provide one. --BB12 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 * English allows an adjective to precede a noun. It doesn't have a single word for every concept.    D b f  i  r  s   16:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 * That sounds reasonable, though it also seems reasonable to include terms, and this certainly seems like a medical term. Also, Japanese has 呼吸音 (kokyūon) for this. Although it can be analyzed as 呼吸 (respiratory) and 音 (on), it feels like a single word to me. At least for the latter reason, it seems that this should be preserved as an entry. --BB12 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 * It's difficult to know where to stop with glossaries of technical terms. The Wikipedia article suggests that the sounds are just the various sounds of breathing ( and we don't have an entry for that ).    D b f  i  r  s   17:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @BB12, use respiratory sounds in the Japanese entry. Also, I suspect the IP is Gtroy, hoping that if he doesn't use his account this is less likely to be spotted and deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how does an English speaker look for the Japanese translation of "respiratory sounds" if there is no English entry? I think that's a point of concern I've seen raised before. --BB12 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From your own analysis, above, they look up respiratory and sounds.   D b f  i  r  s   07:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Definition seems inadequate so I'd discount it, and unless evidence is provided, this is SoP and be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Wikipedia considers this a valid topic doesn't mean it's an idiom. They have a List of fictional dogs, for crying out loud, surely that's not an English idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Respiratory sounds are a criteria not actual sounds. Talking or whistling are made by the respiratory system but they are not respiratory sounds, rhonchi and stridor however are and in medicine that is what we mean when we check respiratory sounds, just a small criteria of audible symptoms not any noises made by the respiratory system.Lucifer (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "a criteria not actual sounds" [sic], so they're not sounds, not ever? Not audible in any way? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your own references shoots you in the foot; "Noises, normal and abnormal, heard on auscultation over any part of the RESPIRATORY TRACT." i.e. [[respiratory]] [[sounds]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. —msh210℠ (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * this wikipedia chart shows pretty clearly that only a specific set counts as respiratory sounds while whistling or singing or belching are not
 * it is also a medical condition according to the national diagnostic and statistical manual
 * included in this medical dictionary

 * Gtroy/Lucifer (or whatever you call yourself today), how can respiratory sounds be a "medical condition"? Your own link seems to argue against your claim.    D b f  i  r  s   07:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not the sounds themself the are the sounds in the wikipedia article chart as a whole to the exclusion of others.Lucifer (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lucifer’s argument is that whistling, talking, belching and singing are sounds made by the respiratory system but aren’t respiratory sounds. However, the definition of respiratory is “relating to respiration; breathing”. Whistling, talking, belching and singing aren’t directly related to breathing thus this term is SOP, delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I spotted that, delete (not sure if I've already said that above). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned above, my understanding is that words such as eight hundred are included so people can find translations of them. If that is what we do, then I think this has to be kept for 呼吸音. --BB12 (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, surely not any term that can have a translation should be included! That would be almost any combination of words in the English language! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see both sides to the argument. Should we delete eight hundred? --BB12 (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mglovesfun. As a veteran English and Chinese editor here I also want to voice my objection to BB12's logic. Shall we add act rashly out of spite, in case anyone wanted to know the Chinese concept (赌气), or pleasing to the ear for 入耳, etc, etc. Absurd. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your answer puzzles me, Tooironic. I'm not sure who you think wants to act out of spite, but I am trying to follow principles. As I stated, I can see both sides of the argument. Mglovesfun found the discussion that I was unable to find, but for some reason posted it on my user page. The link is Talk:three_hundred. I personally do not care whether this entry is kept or not, only that the relevant issues are discussed. --BB12 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my point. What I was saying was that it would be absurd to keep an English entry just because its translation happens to have a one-word equivalent in a foreign language. Surely you see the slippery slope such a proposal presents? ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree this is a slippery slope and care is required. I think by adding Haplology's link, this issue will be addressed. --BB12 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I think you missed a word or two when you read Tooironic's comment: "act rashly out of spite" is merely the translation for "赌气", which was given as a random example- not as a statement of opinion. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * hahaha. I thought that looked odd. Thank you! --BB12 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. "Respiratory sounds" is used to indicate a group of strictly defined medical terms, like "rhonchi", "coarse crackles", "bronchovesicular sounds", which are assessed by auscultation. @Ungoliant & Mglovesfun: e.g. sigh, gasp, pant, puff are [[respiratory]] [[sounds]], but not [[respiratory sounds]]. -- Curious (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Somebody familiar with Japanese could guess this term pretty easily. If you know "respiration" is 呼吸, you can guess the translation for "respiratory sound" by sticking 音 (おん) at the end. You can't just coin words this way, but if you tried, people could understand you. 呼吸音 is further divided into "bronchial sounds", 気管支音, and "pulmonary sounds", 肺胞音, but I doubt that people would allow pulmonary sounds here. Somebody looking for the translation could find it through a link at 呼吸. --Haplology (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think adding that link is a great idea, Haplology. --BB12 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is well established medical terminology then we should Keep it, at least as translation target. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got a medical J-E dictionary here (the 医学用語大辞典 from Nichigai Associates, ), and is showing up as  or  (the latter term is also listed as  and, with the last shown as an uncommon variant).  The English term  is listed as , , , and .  This last is also given as the Japanese gloss for  with the SNOMED code F75800.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Votes:
 * Delete: (nom.),, , , ,
 * Keep: ,
 * Didn’t vote, but seem to be in favour of keeping: ,
 * 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 〃 deleting: ,
 * Clear consensus for deletion. Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:respiratory sounds


text:
Talk:刈り立て

刈り立て
This seems to me to be a pretty clear derivation of 刈る plus the suffix たて, which is always written in hiragana anyway, not like this. Unless this is idiomatic? --Haplology (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say to delete it because it is simply a sum of its parts. To be safe, I consulted two dictionaries, 大言海 and デジタル大辞泉, looking for idiomatic senses, and found no entry either for 刈り立て or 刈りたて --Whym (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- simple SOP. Any verb stem + たて (tate) means "just [verbed]".  Nothing idiomatic about this particular 刈り + たて combo.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I found 136 hits on Google Books. Casually looking through them, two catch my eye:
 * 網の中がわをトャバとよび、樹木を刈り立て高さ三〜五 V の一群の立樹を仕立てておく.
 * ぶるぶる慄ふ手にバ V カンを持って、無雑作に刈り立てた.
 * In both cases, it seems this has the same meaning as 刈る rather than "just [pp]". Either way, an entry is needed for -たてる and -立てる. --BB12 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, both cases appear to forms of what would be compound verb, i.e. "to cut something and then stand it up vertically". I cannot get Google's search feature to give me any more context (searching on the book page itself seems to fail for any search string), and the hit strings appearing in the summary list of search hits have what appear to be scannos ("高さ三〜五 V の一群": a group with a height of 3-5 Vs?? "手にバ V カンを持って" hold a ba V kan in the hand?), so I'm not entirely sure how much weight to give these.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point! I say delete (but add -たてる and -立てる). --BB12 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 刈り立てる means to cut something like dense grass (such as leaves and hair) to have a vertical shape. Not to confuse with 駆り立てる. And they must be "高さ三〜五m" (メートル) and "バリカン". — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: sum of parts. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 * At TAKASUGI Shinji: You say that 刈り立てる means cut something like grass to have a vertical shape. Doesn't that mean 刈り立て needs to stay as a form of 刈り立てる? --BB12 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Takasugi-san -- Thank you for the clarification of the verb meaning, and for solving the riddle of the scannos.
 * @ Benjamin -- I'm clearly not Takasugi-san, but given my understanding of basic policy, yes, if is a valid verb, albeit somewhat rare, then the  page could stay as a form of that verb.  The def would need rewriting in this case.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally form-of pages aren't made for Japanese, certainly if the entry is only a form of a lemma and not a lemma in itself. I've seen a few but not many and the lemma doesn't link to them.  Do I understand correctly that there's no prohibition against them, or any opposition?  I don't mind them myself but I have enough work to do on the lemmas without making non-idiomatic form-of pages.  But...if somebody made a script to write all of the form-of pages and batch uploaded them, that would be fine?  A good thing even?  I'm asking everyone's opinion. With a little Python it shouldn't be too hard... --Haplology (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my understanding (and please, somebody correct me if I'm wrong) is that there's no dictum against having form-of pages, but also that there's no dictum requiring us to create them. My own thought for Japanese is that verb conjugation tables should suffice, but if a page already exists like, I'd rather that we rework it into a form-of page instead of deleting it.  But I don't think it's a real biggie either way.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Generally form-of pages aren't made for Japanese" They should be, IMO though. :p Probably not all of the forms listed in the tables though, like how we don't include aurai donné: et al. for French verbs. 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should. In the past I've found EDICT's form-of entries to be very helpful when I didn't recognize that a certain form was a certain conjugation or declension of another word.  --Haplology (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:刈り立て


text:
Talk:levenslange gevangenisstraf

levenslange gevangenisstraf
This seems SoP: 'life-long' + 'prison sentence'. 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, clear SOP. —Angr 19:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: but in some countries life sentences aren’t lifelong. They last at most 21 years in Norway (I think). Would the term levenslange gevangenisstraf be used in such cases? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 01:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you calling them "life sentences"? —msh210℠ (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The term “life sentence” is sometimes used with the meaning “whatever is the longest sentence of a country”. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the Dutch term may be considered SOP, the existence of life sentence should suffice for this entry to exist? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Why? —msh210℠ (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:levenslange gevangenisstraf


text:
Talk:menselijk wezen

menselijk wezen
This is SoP: 'human, humanlike' + 'being'. The definition also seems a bit too literal as this is not the usual term used to refer to a human, it more literally means 'a being that has qualities of a human'. The normal word for human is. 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as I trust both CodeCat's intuitions about Dutch and my own suspicion that is no more idiomatic for "human being" in Dutch than menschliches Wesen is in German. —Angr 19:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 01:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:menselijk wezen


text:
Talk:body hair

body hair
"androgenic hair" - but women can have body hair too so this can't be right, can it? Equinox ◑ 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 * "androgenic hair" does not preclude women, it includes post-pubescent hair growth on the human body including public hair in men and women, chest, leg, arm, and facial hair in men, armpit hair in men and women, and lower leg hair in women.Lucifer (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, what's more it would even meet Luciferwildcat's most stringent SoP criterion of using the primary sense of body and the primary sense of hair. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the common phrase "unwanted body hair" would vellus hair be considered body hair?Lucifer (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Okay. Presumably vellus hair is body hair because it's hair on the body. The only exception I can think of is hair growing on the head. I cannot imagine anyone calling head hair "body hair" even though head is part of body. Not sure about beard/moustache! Equinox ◑ 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep but correct to the common meaning, that being hair found on the arms, legs, torso, and trunk. I've never heard of hair on the hands or feet being referred to as body hair either. bd2412 T 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am iffy on whether the hands count, I have heard both yes and no but foot hair is definitely body hairLucifer (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an even better analogy, eyelashes, eyebrows, nares, and ear hair, neck hair come to mind as well. I think a beard or stache are generally not considered body hair even though they are androgenic hair but regardless of what hair they are they are definitely hair whose purpose is that of a secondary sexual characteristicLucifer (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I hate to bring it up as well because this term stands on its on merits but per coalmine since bodyhair also exists this is clearly just the common spelling of bodyhair and the existence of a one word compound really gives this term more legitimacy as generally deducable but nevertheless extand word and we do cover all words here don't we?Lucifer (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * @Luciferwildcat: Is it possible to break up that comment into two or three sentences in a logical way and without spelling errors? It's really difficult to figure out what you mean. --BB12 (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I am dislexic that's as good as it gets, feel free to ignore me forever, some people give up trying to understand my spoken word through my learning disability too and if you get too frustrated or simply cannot understand well that's your decision.Lucifer (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I have a tendency to get mixed up, so I will just try to work harder at understanding. --BB12 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep per COALMINE; improve the definition as needed. - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * The entry should be speedily kept per COALMINE. --Anatoli (обсудить) 04:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. It’s not SOP because not any hair in one’s body is body hair. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep: in some cases hair and body hair are used together:
 * Nails, hair and body hair are cited more often because they are subject to growth and death. (Michel Feher, Ramona Naddaff, and Nadia Tazi, Fragments for a history of the human body, part 3, 1989)
 * She eventually began to pull out her eyelashes, hair, and body hair. She often felt ill and withdrew from outside events. (Rose Wood, Dysinhibition Syndrome: How to Handle Anger and Rage in Your Child Or Spouse, 1999)
 * In those citations, hair naturally means head hair, and body hair must be a separate term. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:body hair


text:
Talk:all pervading

all pervading
Adjective: "Pervasive. Everywhere at once." Besides the definition being worded both as adjective and adverb or noun phrase, the headword seems SoP to me. There are a fairly large number of verbs whose -ing forms are used with all in this way. A perfectly good, more accurate, and transparently SoP definition is "pervading everything". And, of course, as is usually the case in uses of all and everything, they do not actually mean literally "every thing": they need to be interpreted contextually. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * At the very least, this should be moved to all-pervading, since it seems to be afflicted with the all-too-common condition I like to call hyphen-deficit disorder. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree. Okay, we're trying to be descriptive, but I want to see strong evidence (many citations) before creating such an entry that defies traditional (and coherent) grammar. Equinox ◑ 01:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * The entry all lists it as an adverb. Although hyphenating an adverb that modifies an adjective that modifies a noun is common as in "well-known fact," I don't see any reason why it has to be that way. You can make the argument that the adverb and adjective are a single unit modifying the subsequent noun and therefore the hyphen is required, but I prefer not using the hyphen. It seems like doing so results in things like "The quickly-running girl" and "a very-young boy." --BB12 (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * "The quickly-running girl" looks right to me, but "a very-young boy" doesn't. I would guess that's because running- although it may function as an adjective- is a verb form. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think both look wrong. Trying "quickly-running X" using boy, girl, car and horse on GB, one had the hyphen and the others did not. The total number of hits was small, though, about 10, so further investigation might be useful. Other combinations that look bad to me: "a horribly-running car," "an oddly-talking man" and "a loudly-barking dog." --BB12 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * @BB12: There does exist an adverb, but that's not what this is. This is the determiner (pronoun) in its sense of “everything”, and it's functioning here as the direct object of :  means “pervading everything”, just as  means “hugging trees”. —Ruakh TALK 03:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't think it can be a determiner as those modify nouns. I looked at the OED, which says under the adverb meanings: "Whence, as true adverb modifying adjectives or adverbs: Wholly, completely, altogether, quite" with one of the examples: "All-agog to have me trespass." The entry is obviously quite old and needs updating, but I find it really difficult to believe this is a determiner or adjective sense. Also, the AHD has "Wholly; completely: a room painted all white; directions that were all wrong." --BB12 (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand CGEL, determiners alone are considered to constitute fused-head noun phrases. This gives us meanings like "everything" or "all (of the items or stuff under discussion)". This kind of usage pervades all of English. DCDuring TALK 04:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:all pervading


text:
Talk:いつもは

いつもは
As it says on the etymology section, this is a word plus a particle. Usually word+particle combinations are regarded as sums of their parts on WT. Thoughts? --Haplology (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete: SOP. In fact, I'm even leaning towards SOP for, as any question word +  is a common pattern:  +  = ;  +  = ;  +  = ; etc.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. いつも must be kept though, as it is fixed enough. 何も, 誰も, どこも are all negative polarity items quite naturally, but いつも is not. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, we have to explain the difference between いつも and いつもは. The former means always or usually, while the latter only means usually. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:いつもは


text:
Talk:outgunned

outgunned
Rfd-redundant: "being in the position of having insufficient guns". Redundant to. I do not believe this is an adjective, but is used in the passive voice (we were outgunned is passive, not adjectival). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Yeah. It can be found before a noun ("America's technological superiority over an outgunned enemy") but I don't think that makes it an adjective, does it? Neither does "Store the swap file on a defragmented hard disk" make "defragmented" an adjective. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. One disk can be more defragmented or less defragmented then another, and one enemy can be more outgunned or less outgunned then another. bd2412 T 02:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, BD. I suppose this is technically an RFV issue ("can citations be found which show adjectival use?"), but I've just added citations showing adjectival use in the phrase "more outgunned", to obviate the need to actually send this to RFV. - -sche (discuss) 06:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I give up. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be proscriptivist. Even if the word shouldn't be used as an adjective, there are a CFI-worthy number of cites showing that it is used that way. You can add a usage note to the effect that this is bad grammar. bd2412 T 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is what Mglovesfun would argue, but my sense of objection here is that [[outgunned]] is not an adjective, but rather a verb form. Verb forms are used attributively, sure enough, but I've always been taught that they're still verb forms.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By that reckoning, would a descriptive use of overrated be an adjective, or a verb form? bd2412 T 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I got in school, it would be a verb form. From my growing understanding over the years, it seems a more nuanced question, and part of that comes down to how you define your working terms: how, exactly, does one define an ""?  Re-reading a couple things in this thread and elsewhere on WT just recently, it's clear that at least some editors (maybe most?) use the presence of comparative forms as an indication of adjective-ness for purposes of POS categorization.
 * So maybe I need to turn the question around: what constitutes an adjective for POS purposes? Is attributive use enough?  Do we require comparatives?  How common must a usage be before we class a term as an adjective in its EN WT entry?  Could any verb's -ing form be classed as an adjective?  (C.f., , .)  I'm not being contrary here, these are serious questions.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More is an adverb, and adverbs can qualify verbs, so more outgunned could just be adverb + verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it comes down to positioning there. You can say that "Bob swam more than Jill", but not that "Bob more swam than Jill" or "Bob was more swam than Jill". However, with outgunned, you can say "Bob outgunned John more than Jill", but you can also say "John was more outgunned by Bob than by Jill". In the latter instance, outgunned is being used in the same way as a pure adverb like heavy, for which you can say "John was more heavy than Bob", but it would be an awkward construction at least to say that "John was heavy more than Bob" (which would imply that John and Bob were both heavy, but that John was heavy more often. bd2412 T 20:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Thinking about this over lunch, it seems like just about any verb that can be used in a passive sense could be used as an adjective as described in this thread: "a more widely book", "a more commonly  apple"; "that book is more  than this one", "that apple is more  than this one."  I struggle to think of any intransitive verbs used in this same attributive fashion.
 * To use the Bob and Jill example above, here is intransitive, so "more" doesn't fit.  (Also, the attributive senses of a verb used in this way come with the past participle, not the simple past, so it would have to be  -- but that doesn't quite work either.)
 * Using a transitive verb or a passive verb construction could work: "Bob more than Jill", "Bob was more  than Jill"; "Bob was  more than Jill", "Bob was more  than Jill".  Or possibly even using  in a transitive sense: "Bob s that lane" → "That lane is  more" → "That lane is more  than this one". -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that we could find citations for "very outgunned" and "too outgunned" which would be utterly inconsistent with the verb-form interpretation. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep:
 * 2012, Bruce DeSilva, Cliff Walk: A Liam Mulligan Novel, p. 211:
 * In the unlikely event of trouble, I'd be too outgunned for it to do me any good; and the .45 didn't need blessing.
 * 2005, Samuel J. Best, Benjamin Radcliff, Polling America: A - O, p. 82:
 * While some blacks successfully organized to defend themselves against these incursions against the newly won civil rights, most found themselves too outgunned by the white supremacist organizations to put up much resistance.
 * 1991, John Colling, The spirit of Yenan: a wartime chapter of Sino-American friendship, p. 91:
 * Militarily, they could not attack and occupy ground and they were too outgunned to fight pitched battles.
 * Cheers! bd2412 T 00:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It must be a matter of how one looks at it -- I still see a passive verb. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly by derivation, but outgunned also follows copulas other than be (seem, feel) and occurs attributively. There is hardly a distinguishing feature of adjectivehood that it does not seem to attestably have.
 * Interesting contrary indications are that:
 * one could, say, "I seem outgunned by my opponents." Do any adjectives that are not deverbal take a PP headed by by?
 * there is no adverb ending in -ly: formed from outgunned.
 * But, in any event, that outgunned can be compared already requires that we should show it as an adjective.
 * The number of deverbal adjectives ending in -ed: is large. The more stylistically fastidious among us may seek alternative where they exist, but:
 * The alternatives don't always exist.
 * The alternatives can be in the wrong register.
 * The ship had already sailed before Fowler.
 * @BD I do not think they require usage notes, except in relatively rare cases, of which this is not one. What could such a usage note say? "Some people have been taught that this is wrong and others that it is stylistically inferior. Consider using synonyms."? DCDuring TALK 15:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: copulas other than be, couldn't most other transitive past participles be used in a similar way as a sort of passive attributive? "I feel ", "I seem  up", "I look ".  Even intransitives: "I got ".  Functionally, past participles can be used as adjectives: "an  imagination", "an  strategy", "a  poem".
 * At this point, I'm not arguing against using an adjective POS header for -- instead, I'm trying to get a handle on the EN WT view for where past participles and adjectives overlap, for purposes of POS categorization.  It seems like evidence of use as an adjective alone might not be enough for a term to have an adjective POS here, but then again maybe the label simply hasn't been added yet due to the inherent limitations of time and energy: going the other way, where a verb label is missing, I've found a couple verbs with clearly marked past participles on the lemma page for the verb, but clicking through to the past participle page shows only an adjective header and no verb header (such as, , ). -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring 15:29, 17 May :  Re: "Do any adjectives that are not deverbal take a PP headed by by?": Yes: adjectives formed by adding  to passive participial adjectives can also take "by": "unsurprised by", "unseen by", "unused by". I think the "by" should be thought of more as indicating the adjective's provenance than as indicating that it's not fully adjectivized: "very surprised by", "very confused by", "very dismayed by", "very disappointed by". —Ruakh TALK 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ruakh -- Um, aren't those all still ? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr: Well, I didn't think so, because their is clearly the  that attaches to adjectives, not the  that attaches to verbs. (To see the difference, imagine a verb "to unsurprise (someone)". It would presumably mean something like "to cause (someone) not to feel surprised anymore". Obviously the adjective "unsurprised", meaning "not surprised", is not derived from such a verb.) That said, I suppose one could argue that the  that forms adjectives from adjectives can also form adjectives directly from past participles (rather than there having to be an unprefixed participial adjective as an intermediate step); and I see now that our entry actually does seem to take that view, in that it says of this  that it's "added to adjectives or past participles". So I guess they might still be deverbal? But I stand by my other point, which is that deverbal adjectives are still adjectives, no matter how deverbal they might be. —Ruakh TALK 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note also that we have an adverb form, unsurprisedly. I am not surprised by this. I further note that Webster's Online Dictionary has a definition for outgunnedly, which it calls an "Adverbial inflection of the verb-based adjective outgunned". bd2412 T 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ruakh: Thanks.
 * @Eirikr: You have identified one of the many deficiencies in Wiktionary. It would be nice if a bot could create a list of all of the cases you have characterized so that it was not necessary to check them one at a time. Any volunteers among our dump-processing adepts?
 * @BD: A web search finds four (4) hits for "outgunnedly", all apparently mirrors of the "Webster's Online Dictionary". DCDuring TALK 01:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that outgunnedly would meet the CFI, but merely that reasonable dictionary writers can recognize it as a grammatically possible form, which suggests that outgunned may properly be used as an adjective. bd2412 T 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of any usage whatsoever makes me wonder whether your assertion that a reasonable dictionary writer was involved is warranted. Was there even a person involved? And what is this properly? Should one dictionary writer's conclusion contrary to the evidence of the largest corpus ever assembled carry any weight? DCDuring TALK 16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that a construction hasn't been used in the wild doesn't make it an improper construction. We have in the past noted that "podiumward" (as in "the speaker moved podiumward") is gramatically correct and intelligible, but is just not a word that has actually been used. Here, the question is not whether outgunnedly is a word, but whether outgunned can be used as an adjective. The fact that someone thinks "outgunnedly" is a permissible word is as useful for making that determination as a citation saying "In its zeal to put shiny new hardware on display in Europe, the government bought a tank that will be the oldest and most outgunned machine in Europe in a couple of years". Gerald Porter, In retreat: the Canadian Forces in the Trudeau Years (1979), p. 167. bd2412 T 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:outgunned