text:
Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-01/User:Donnanz for admin

User:Donnanz for admin
Nomination: I hereby nominate as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. DonnanZ is kind, thoughtful, and works hard to preserve others' work. He's been active for seven years. DonnanZ doesn't strike me as the type who'd abuse his authority; he prefers dialogue to taking action without consultation. He's an incredibly pleasant person. All in all, he'd be great for the future of our dictionary and our community.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 21:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dentonius 21:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Acceptance:
 * Not accepted. I have been through this before, and there is opposition already. Sorry. DonnanZ (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * DonnanZ, you've been through it already and I know it would be hard to deal with it again. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. Two "oppose" votes doesn't mean it's impossible. There are plenty in this community who would like to see you become an admin, but you'll never know if you throw in the towel before the fight's started. I beseech you; please try. — Dentonius 23:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Too late now; Metaknowledge has cancelled the vote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, DonnanZ. This has nothing to do with Metaknowledge. I nominated you; not Metaknowledge. If you simply state that you accept the nomination, the rest will take care of itself. In thirty days, you'll know what's what. But don't give up now. I believe in you. — Dentonius 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I could un-cancel it. But I don't think this vote would be any more likely to pass than the last one. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm not prepared to go through with it, if your prediction is true. DonnanZ (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I must however ask, was DonnanZ consulted about this vote and did he express wanting to become an admin? At least Wonderfool asks the people he wants to nominate if it's something they want. In this case, I just see a random ambush with no regard to DonnanZ, the community or past votes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was consulted at 21:55 on 1 Jan, see my Talk Page.
 * No, I did not request a nomination for admin from anybody, and never have done that in the past. DonnanZ (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry DonnanZ, but it actually says that you were nominated already and that a vote was underway. That's not discussing it with you. It's a pity because I personally wouldn't have had an issue voting in your favour, but it all just seemed so rushed and the reasons for the nomination were just so flimsy. The nominator did you a disservice by using you as a ploy. --Robbie SWE (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did notice the vote was created before I was consulted. And all the votes were cast before I replied, and I was forced into turning the nomination down. I think I am fated to never be an admin. Never mind, I can manage without. I'm not going to blame anyone for that. DonnanZ (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) . I hope he accepts. Here's my early support vote. Dentonius 21:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . Everything that needs to be said has already been said in the last failed vote: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-11/User:Donnanz for admin. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) . As many users have noted in the past, Donnanz has no coherent, respectable rationale for casting votes at RFD. Instead, he bases those choices on personal feelings about the terms in question with an extreme bend to keeping every entry in existence. The mild personal attacks seem to still be an occasional issue too. Imetsia (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank God I abstained in your vote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Love that British humour. To be fair to him, he's looking out for his interests. Wake up and smell the coffee. — Dentonius 23:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Decision
Vote cancelled, as nominee does not accept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As the against votes were cast before I arrived on the scene, I had no choice. DonnanZ (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is false. You have always had a choice. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


text:
modniś

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) fashionable man

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

title: modniś


text:
modny

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) fashionable

title: modny


text:
modnie

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) fashionably

title: modnie


text:
aleqaq

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) older sister (mostly of a male)

title: aleqaq


text: aleqat

title: aleqat


text:
êkwa

Conjunction

 * 1) and
 * 2) also, as well

title: êkwa


text: mairstean

title: mairstean


text:
User talk:Vidi Veni

"the same":

- translations:           (order relatively random)

Proto-Indo-European                *somHós Proto-Indo-Iranian                 *samHás

Latvian:                        vienmuļš Latin:                           similis       ("similar") Corsican:                            listessu Sundanese:                         nilai  sarua Japanese: 相変わらず                     Aikawarazu Gujarati: સમાન                        Ēka sarakhuṁ Bengali: একই                        (Ēka'i)  Sinhala: ඒකමයි                       ēkamayai Somali:                             isku mid Italien:                             stesso Bulgarian:     същи                 (sŭshti) Macedonian:    истиот               istiot Bosnian:                            isti szlovén:                            isti szerbhorvát:                        isti Macedonian:    истото               istoto szlovák:                        ten istý polish:                         ten sam Hindi:सम                           (sam) czech:                              sám       ("similar") Old Irish:                          som Tocharsk. А:                        sоma-        (?) Tocharsk. В:                        sоmo-        (?) Proto-Indo-European:               *somHós Swahili:                            sawa polish:                        taki sam Belarusian: такі самы         (taki samy) Russian:   са́мый                   (sámyj) Ukrainian: цей же              tsey zhe German                            zusammen    (“together”) Dutch                               samen     (“together”) Icelandic                           saman     (“together”) Old Norse:                          samr føroyskt:                           samur Scots                               samin Old Frisian                         samin polish:                        tacy sami Sundanese:                          sami Icelandic:                          sami Icelandic:                          sama Indonesian:                         sama Gothic: 𐍃𐌰𐌼𐌰 •                     (sama) suomi:                              sama eesti:                              sama polish:                         ta  sama Sanskrit: सम                       (samá)                       (XV bc ?) Malay:                              sama Javanese:                           sama Lao: ສະມານະ                         sama na   Gujarati: સમાન                       samāna Old English                         sama Javanese:                           sama saja Proto-Indo-Aryan                   *samás Proto-Indo-Iranian                 *samás middle english:                     samo polish:                         to  samo Althochdeutsche:                    samo Norwegian Nynorsk                   same Old English:                        same english:                            same polish:                         te  same english:                        the same Ukrainian: цей же               tsey zhe jiddis:  זעלב                       (zelb), jiddis   זעלביק                      (zelbik) niderland:                        dezelfde (masculin) niderland:                       hetzelfde (neutre) deutsch:                       derselbe luxembourgish:                      selwecht luxembourgish:                       gläichfalls román:                             același svenska:                         densamme suomi:                             saame dansk:                              samme Norwegian Bokmål                    samme niderlandzki                        samen Old Norse:                         samen Old English                         samen     (“together”) Azerbaijani:                        həmin Azerbaijani:                        haman Persian هم                          (ham) Avestan 𐬵𐬀𐬨𐬀                       (hama) Old Persian 𐏃𐎶              (h-m /hama/) Hebrew: אותו הדבר                  Vtv hdvr                        ( XV bc ?) Proto-Indo-European                *somHós Ancient Greek: ὁμός                 (homós)                       ( IX bc ?) Proto-Iranian                       *hamHáh tai: เหมือน                           H̄emụ̄xn Lao:   ຄືກັນ                         (khukan) Lao:   ດຽວກັນ                      (diauakan) Khmer: ដុចក្នា                     (do ch kna) Khmer: ដូចគ្នា                     (dauchaknea) Lao:      ດັ່ງດຽວ                  (dang diav) koreai:                         (ddokgatda) koreai: 똑같다                    (ttokgatda) Somali:                           Xukaamta Sesotho:                          ho tsoana Sesothoho                            tsoana polski:                            tożsame Ukrainian:  Те ж саме           Te zh same rosyjski:   тот же             (tot zhe) Ukrainian:  той же             (toy zhe) cseh:                           tentýž Lithuanian:                     tas pats Lithuanian:                    taip pat Lithuanian:                         patį Latvian:                        tas pats Javanese:                           padha polish:                             podobne polish:                             po równo Filipino:                           pareho Cebuano:                            pereho Basque:                             bera Basque:                             berbera Azerbaijani:                        bərabər Uzbek:                              baribir Kazakh: бірдей                      birdey Uzbek:                              bir xil Chinese: 相同                     Xiāngtóng Proto-Indo-European              *somHós Chinese:                          Tóngyàng de shìwù pirahã:                        xaisigíai Vietnamese:                     chữ giống nhau Vietnamese:                     cũng   thế Vietnamese:                    tương tự Vietnamese:                      cũng cách ấy Welsh:                           un  fath Irish:                          céanna Yoruba:                         kanna Irish:                         ionann Xhosa:                           fanayo Xhosa:                        obufanayo Zulu:                         okufanayo Xhosa:                          ofanayo Arabic:                        nafsih Turkish:                         farketmez Uzbek:                           farqi yo'q Sinhala: ඒකමයි                   ēkamayai) Amharic:                         temesasayi török:                             aynısı                    azeri:                             eyni Malagasy:                         ihany Slovenian:                          enak Slovenian:                          enaka Slovenian:                          enako          polish:                           jednakie albański:                          e njëjta Russian:    са́мый                  (sámyj)                                   Japanese: 同じ                       (Onaji) Swahili :                             moja Bourguignon :                         moîme Tourangeau :                          meime Tourangeau :                          minme Picard :                              minme Wallon :                              minme Tourangeau :                        méguime Hongrois :                         maga spanyol:                           mismo polish:                          ( myśmy?) portugál:                          mesmo Gallo :                            mesm francia:                           même Gallo :                            méme Occitan :                          mème Haitian Creole :                   menm Occitan :                          meme  quant Occitan :                          medeish italiana:                          medesimo polish:                            my te same Lithuanian:                        monotoniškas Occitan :                          meteis Catalan :                          mateixa   (féminin) Catalan :                          mateix    (masculin) Armenian:                          miatesak Tamil:  அதே                     ( Atē) Telugu: అదే                        (Adē) Kannada: ಅದೇ                      ( Adē) Kannada: ಒ೦ದೇ ರೀತಿಯ         (O0dē rītiya) maori:                              rite tonu Igbo:                                otu Japanese: 同                         (Dō) Japanese: 同断                       (Dōdan) Japanese: 同様                       (Dōyō) Kazakh:  дәм өзі                    (däm özi) latin:                              idem asszámi: একে                      (eke) cigány:                           székodá, bengáli: একি                       eki) Hausa:                              haka Uzbek:                             o'sha Japanese:                       (Gotoshi) Korean:    같은                  (gat-eun) Chinese:                         Tóngyàng de shìwù Kurdish:                          wek yên din Vietnamese:                      tương tự Hmong:                           tib yam Uzbek:                         farqi yo'q Kyrgyz:                            oşondoy  Uzbek:                             o'sha Japanese:                       (Gotoshi) Korean:    같은                  (gat-eun) Hongrois:                         ugyanaz Proto-Indo-European                 *somHós Ancient Greek ὁμός                  (homós) Hungarian:                          azonos  Lithuanian:                         vienas tas pats Lithuanian:                         vienodas Latvian:                            vienāds Latvian:                           vienmuļš Latin:                               similis       ("similar")   ( V bc ?)

...

probably minor mistakes to be made, please correct

...

add to "family" more languages ...

Links
Hello. Please don't do edits like this, where you put a raw link to another wiktionary inside a link template. (a) It didn't work, and linked to a nonexistent page on this wiki, (b) this therefore meant it still didn't work even after had been created here, and (c) even if it had worked, it would've still left us with a link to another wiktionary instead of the entry we had here. Just create a red link and leave it, because someone will pick it up. Theknightwho (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vidi Veni


text:
mistahi

Adverb

 * 1) very

Determiner

 * 1) much, a lot of

title: mistahi


text:
Module talk:pa-verb

Table of sandhi (left is stem, top is ending):

Problems with conjugation module
Hello @AryamanA, pinging as it looks like you have worked on this.

There are various problems with the way this is implemented - some of the forms are inflected incorrectly, and many are missing. In the spaces for feminine participle forms, masculine adjectival forms are shown. That the irregular participle forms coexist with regularised forms is also not accounted for.

I intend to make a conjugation module with both Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi for pnbwiktionary based on Lexicographical Wikidata, would you be open to replacing the one here as well? It is going to be quite time consuming to implement so if you are able to help it would be appreciated. عُثمان (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Module talk:pa-verb


text:
Talk:aaffappoq

, this is a great word. Any chance you could add a quotation or reference to the entry? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done :) —JakeybeanTALK 23:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:aaffappoq


text:
Talk:go through hell

RFD discussion: August–December 2020
SOP? go through hell --Daleusher (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep set phrase. Mihia (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it? You can also be put through hell. Or be in hell. Or go to hell (and back). Ƿidsiþ 06:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support an entry for go to hell and back, albeit with the slight proviso that the common (have) been to hell and back would presumably then not appear as a standard inflection. Mihia (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Weak keep for translations. PUC – 10:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Two idioms dictionaries have it. We often keep such metaphors, however obvious their interpretation. DCDuring (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep as it is an idiom and not a sum of parts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:go through hell


text:
Talk:Juliet

RFD discussion: December 2019–December 2020
"One of the main characters of 's play ." Encyclopaedic material, not dictionary material. (We can keep the figurative senses derived from this, like "a great lover", and explain the character in the etymology, as we do for many other words derived from character names.) Equinox ◑ 05:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't see much sense in removing it; this sense (2) ties in with sense 4. DonnanZ (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The relation between the character of the play and senses 3 and 4 can be presented in the etymology section; then an entry for the fictional character is superfluous. --Lambiam 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Lambiam and Equinox. This is etymological, not lexical, information. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, move relevant info to the etymology section. Canonicalization (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep consistent with WT:NSE and WT:LEMMING, for which see below. This is the name of a fictional character, and the policy is probably WT:CFI; WT:CFI does not seem to apply since Julia is a fictional character but not from fictional universe. For comparison, Cinderella has a fairy tale and a dedicated character sense; there is Category:en:Fictional characters featuring such items, having 139 entries. Some fictional characters were deleted, e.g. Talk:Uncle Scrooge, but there, one RFD first was kept, and only second lead to deletion, with mere two supporters. As for WT:LEMMING, Shakespeare's Juliet is in M-W and Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition at collinsdictionary.com. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete sense and mention in etymology. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dan. However, I think lemmings are a much less convincing reason for keeping fictional characters. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No consensus, after over a year of discussion. This outcome, of course, does not bar adjustments to the wording, layout, and citation of the entry. bd2412 T 17:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Related
Related: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alfa_or_Alpha%3F_Juliett_or_Juliet%3F Wikipedia:Alfa or Alpha? Juliett or Juliet?] on the English Wikipedia. --03:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Juliet


text:
Talk:route redistribution

RFD discussion: January–December 2020
This entry is for a 2-word phrase, not a single word. 66.82.144.143 23:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 * That's not in itself a reason to delete: some two-word phrases, like black magic, are includable. The important question is whether the meaning is obvious by putting the two words together, as in black car. Equinox ◑ 00:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what makes some people tick - it has been RFD'd by the creator. DonnanZ (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 * It was a test edit that is no longer needed. I was trying to create some other entry but the edit filter blocked me and I wasn't sure why.  That being said, it is a legitimate technical term, and also "author requested deletion" seems not to be a speedy-deletion criterion on Wiktionary like it is on Wikipedia, so if somebody else thinks that it should stay, that's okay with me. 66.82.144.143 01:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. It appears unlikely to me that someone would guess the meaning of the term solely from the components. For one thing, what is being redistributed are not routes themselves, but information used for routing. Then, this information is not redistributed between network nodes (routers) as in some network protocols, such as, but between different routing protocols running on a single node. --Lambiam 08:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 08:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:route redistribution


text:
Talk:Aramis

RFD discussion: August–December 2020
RFD sense of the fictional character: "Along with Athos and Porthos, one of the Three Musketeers." Neither Athos nor Porthos have English entries for their respective characters. There is a French entry for Porthos however, which does have the character as one of its definitions. As it is French, I'll RFD that separately. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 *  Delete . I doubt that the musketeer Aramis is ever referred to without qualification outside of the specific fictional context. -Mike (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here, here and here we see the term used as an, without explicit reference to the fictional universe. --Lambiam 18:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. -Mike (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I recall Aramis had some other characteristics than being a Musketeer, womanizer? or noble? was his name ever used to personify these qualities? Troll Control (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 10:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aramis


text:
Talk:get to

RFD discussion: November–December 2020
SOP. Move the seemingly idiomatic senses to get. Benwing2 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Largely keep as idiomatic enough. As far as I can see, "get" does not have an obviously extractable substitutable sense in several of these. Even for arguably the least idiomatic sense, "To reach or arrive at ~", get says "for specific idiomatic senses see individual entries get into, get over, etc.", to which we could add "get to". See also get at. Mihia (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep at least senses 3 and 4. I'd say 1 is probably SOP, so make that a %lit, and I'm a weak keep for #2. 76.100.241.89

RFD kept — Dentonius 10:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:get to


text:
Talk:Epstein

RFD discussion: March–December 2020
RFD-sense of "Jeffrey Epstein". CFI does not clearly protect or proscribe content like this. My view is that not every notable, or rather notorious individual belongs in a dictionary. We might as well add a royal bevy of Henries. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted out of process. I think the term has acquired a hot-word meaning, something like “child molester who is enabled by the high and mighty”: “How many more Epsteins are out there?”; “And if we don’t deal with this fundamental fact, there will always be more Kochs, more Epsteins, and all the other depraved elites who would happily commit us to extinction if it means another dollar”; “no doubt there are many more Epsteins around”. --Lambiam 12:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And restored again. --Lambiam 11:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm. We do have 'generalized' senses at Eichmann and Hitler. It does seem like a grey area, since many famous people's names are used (and theoretically any could be used) to refer to their characteristics. "Boris Johnson is England's Trump" or vice versa, and how many more Trumps will arise in America in the future, etc; or, on Google Books I see someone writing that "it scares me that there aren't more Obamas in Congress." (We have both the president and an adjective sense at Obama, besides the surname sense, which seems questionable.) - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not recommending that we add this generalized sense before it has stood the test of time; it was just an observation that might be of interest. --Lambiam 11:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are who may be referred to as Epstein; one has marked, but almost certainly quite temporary, notoriety; soon it will be more likely the surname used in isolation refers to some other individual.  --Lambiam 11:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete for the reason given by Lambiam. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was inclined to support deletion, but my test did not get me very far: . Another test looks more promising for deletion, suggesting low notability: . I feel indecisive and may switch later. In general, let us keep some senses for specific individuals like for Einstein and Hitler. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm OK with references to individuals at Einstein, Hitler, Picasso, Gandhi, Stalin, and Mao, or even first-name references like Britney and Aretha, but I just can't see Epstein as having reached the one-name recognizability of the aforementioned surnames (and two first names). If someone were to say "Hitler", everyone would think of Adolf Hitler, whereas, quite frankly, if I were to see the name "Epstein" in isolation, the first person to pop into my mind would be Sir Jacob Epstein. Khemehekis (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. If people are one-wording him frequently in a decade or two, reconsider. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Epstein


text:
Talk:get there

RFD discussion: November–December 2020
SOP. The only idiomatic definition, to "succeed after a lengthy attempt", should be moved to get. I also question the "after a lengthy attempt", it just means "to succeed", and can be used in "get somewhere", "get nowhere", etc. Benwing2 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep this one, as a set phrase. "Arrive there" would seem incorrect by comparison. bd2412 T 01:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the sense #2 as idiomatic enough. Keeping the figurative sense entails some mention of the more literal "arrive at a place" sense, however we want to handle that -- I mean, whether with &lit. Mihia (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh, come on. Why is this even an RFD? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:get there


text:
Talk:before times

RFD discussion: October–December 2020
A joking reference to the apocalyptic nature of the pandemic, but it doesn't seem like the joke is unique to it. Certainly a hot word if it does pass RFD. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's probably attestable in all sorts of apocalyptic fiction to refer to the period before the relevant apocalypse. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would keep this, especially as it is a "trending" phrase that people may encounter and wish to look up, but I would generalise the definition and make the Covid reference a "now especially" case. Mihia (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. Reference "before time" as an alternative form. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Definitely generalize, per Mihia (and Mahagaja?). But probably keep an entry; the phrasing feels idiomatic / the grammar feels odd, like it would pass the "once upon a time" test. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, nobody talks about their "before girlfriend" or "before car". Equinox ◑ 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I've boldly (speedily?) broadened the definition so that covid is merely one example. Does this resolve this? - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 * With no further input after 56 days, and no consensus to delete (indeed, 3 !votes to keep and only 1—the nomination—to delete), kept. Now has a changed, broadened definition, too. - -sche (discuss) 11:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 10:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Origin in 1960s Star Trek?
In the episode , the children talk about the "before time". Equinox ◑ 16:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:before times


text:
Talk:hidden gem

RFD discussion: October–December 2020
SOP: hidden + gem (2). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as sufficiently a set phrase. However, the definitions presently seem on the weak side (I'm not sure I even understand #2), and there is presently no example of what I would call the typical usage as a set phrase. Mihia (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the definitions have changed since I made that comment. Mihia (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as a set phrase. Imetsia (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not just hidden, it can also imply "underrated" or "underappreciated". – Jberkel 13:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:hidden gem


text:
Talk:get moving

RFD discussion: November–December 2020
Clearly SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep this one, as a set phrase. bd2412 T 01:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficiently idiomatic, and doesn't even need to mean actually moving (except in the weakest sense, I suppose, that almost any human activity involves some kind of "movement"). Mihia (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Keep. Definitely idiomatic and distinct from get or moving. Rauisuchian (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Clearly SOP? Khemehekis (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 05:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:get moving


text:
Talk:fever clinic

RFD discussion: November–December 2020
I have changed the definition because it was too specific, but I think the definition is SOP now. See also the citation page. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanded rationale: A clinic is "a medical facility, such as a hospital, especially one for the treatment and diagnosis of outpatients", a fever is "a higher than normal body temperature of a person (or, generally, a mammal), usually caused by disease". Fever clinics are set up when there is a contagious disease outbreak that includes fever as a symptom, to diagnose people with fever (and to provide treatment if possible and necessary) to verify what caused the fever; isolation is necessary to prevent fever clinics from being hotbeds. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep -- Dentonius 08:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. ---> Tooironic (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is your reason for voting this way? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's idiomatic — "diagnose people with fever in isolation" is not contained in either "fever" or "clinic". ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep at least because of the "in isolation" part. Troll Control (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding substantively. I think this is not a clear-cut matter either way; the isolation could be said to 'obviously follow' from the fact that many diseases that have fever as a symptom are contagious and there is an obvious need to avoid additional infections, but it is indeed something that requires some background knowledge that is not present in the parts. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak meh. Mihia (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 10:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:fever clinic


text:
Talk:even as

RFD discussion: June–December 2020
Nominated by Backinstadiums as SOP. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * even reads "(archaic) Exactly, just, fully", but we rightly skip just as. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But even as is not quite the same as just as. You cannot substitute it in common idiomatic uses as in Even as we speak, ... . Also, in just as, just is not archaic. The similar-looking use of even in, which has a rather different meaning, makes this even more confusing for learners of English. --Lambiam 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep; definitely passes the lemming test. --Lambiam 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this could be tricky to disentangle. The present examples for that "archaic" definition of even ("Exactly, just, fully") are all archaic uses, including the one that uses "even as", i.e. "I fulfilled my instructions even as I had promised". Yet there are modern uses of "even as" too, such as "Even as I spoke, the heavens opened". Does "even" have a clearly different meaning in all modern uses of "even as", compared to the archaic uses, and if not then what is the differentiator between modern and archaic? One could also perhaps look at the sense of "as". In "Even as I spoke, the heavens opened", "as" refers to time, while in "I fulfilled my instructions even as I had promised" it refers to manner. At minimum, I think that even as, if it is to be kept, is missing an archaic sense. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 * FYI, I have amended the existing definition of even as, previously reading "occurring at the same time as something", which is not substitutable and apparently not even the correct PoS, and also added an archaic definition. Plus, I have changed the PoS from adverb to conjunction. Leaning keep for the entry as a whole. Mihia (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 09:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:even as


text:
Talk:home loan

RFD discussion: May–December 2020
SOP. Since a loan contract is not agreed upon without economic purpose (else what has passed from the lender to the loanee can be reclaimed according to the rules on ), so here the loan is for a home “one’s own dwelling place”. Like there are car loans, mine loans, and so on; the exaltation of one’s homestead doesn’t change anything in this. This page has been created for Chinese translations which may also be SOP, originally defining “home loan” as “mortgage” while a mortgage is a specific type of contract being a loan with an accessory pledge (an in-rem right splitting off the right to realize the value of the thing from the ownership right), which is not needs the case with the term “home loan”. So it does not appear to be a legally fixed term and there is in comparison no fixed term in German since there is in general nothing peculiar about such a loan, the general rules on and practices of loan contracts and the provision of securities apply; so one agrees upon a loan and or not but not necessarily upon a security consisting in a pledge on real estate. The Greek translation looks pretty much SOP too. The Finnish entry begs the question what the systematical construction in Finnish law is, the gloss with both “mortgage” and “home loan” and the claim “in English ‘mortgage’ is a wider concept than asuntolaina” lets the presumption arise that its author,, had too little of an idea of  and  to actually put into English what it is. Fay Freak (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well set phrase, and one used as readily for the purchase of a house one does not intend to use for living in (i.e., not a "home") as for a condominium or other unit that is not a "house", and therefore might not be defined as a "home". bd2412 T 19:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * “Home” is not defined as “house”. For example in the Wiktionary definition it is “a house or structure”. Why the condominium should change anything I see not. If that is the example for something that is not a home than I say that a condominium is a home, like a retirement home. Of course one may also take loans for speculation to sell homes to others, so it is not necessary that one oneself intends to live in it, but it is implied that with the money a home is made. And businesses may have a home. So if like you seem to suggest it is also for real estates becoming the objects of commercial rent, it only shows how colourless the term is and still SOP. And still, the types of (home) loans may be extended at pleasure, any reasons why not to create the following terms? home purchase loan, house improvement loan, house construction loan, land purchase loan, plot purchase loan, NRI home loan? Freedom of contract is what makes these names, it is not an idiomatic set phrase but a naturally occurring collocation. Fay Freak (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Meriam Webster defines the term as the borrowing of money "to buy property (such as a house)". bd2412 T 05:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because one avoids to define terms with themselves. Fay Freak (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then they could have just said the borrowing of money "to buy a house". bd2412 T 19:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's in the OED. ---> Tooironic (talk)
 * Keep. The fact that it has an alternative form as one word—unlike *mineloan and *carloan (~150 Ghits but only one meaning an actual car loan)—and the fleet of lemmings militate in favour of it being a fixed phrase to me. Btw, the OED lists another (dated?) definition as "a government loan raised in the home country rather than abroad" with examples, which should also be included. —Nizolan (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:home loan


text:
Talk:take responsibility

RFD discussion: April–December 2020
Sum of parts. Take + responsibility. Also definition is inaccurate - blame and fault are not essential. You can take responsibility by just deciding to be a responsible person in general. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the present definition is imperfect, but I would be inclined to keep this as potentially not entirely obvious from the parts, especially when you look at how many senses "take" has. For example, is it totally obvious from the parts that this is (normally) something that one does voluntarily? Noting also that we have many "take ~" compounds (see search results), some admittedly more clearly idiomatic than this one. Mihia (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I see the term used in two related and sometimes overlapping but nevertheless clearly distinguishable senses, corresponding to different senses of . One is to accept responsibility, which is a social act: it is not something you can do in secrecy but only in a social context. In this sense there is an explicit or implied conduct, circumstance, event or outcome for which the responsibility is taken (for example, the door having been left unlocked). Another is to resolve to act responsibly, to take control of one’s actions so as to ensure they do not cause unnecessary harm. This can be a purely internal act. In this sense there is an explicit or implied aim for which the responsibility is taken (for example, one‘s health). Both senses seem a sum of parts, but perhaps the polysemy is nevertheless a reason to keep the entry. --Lambiam 15:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a good example of the second sense. For the first sense, just Google [Trump crisis]. --Lambiam 15:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that "take responsibility" can in itself mean "resolve to act responsibly". The Billie Eilish quote may be an error for something like "behave responsibly", or "take responsibility for their own actions" could be implied. In one place the full quote is given as "Please take responsibility for your endurance of this", which hardly makes sense to me. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The mention of "behave responsibly" reminds me of one of my favourite T-shirt messages: "When They Make 'Responsibly' Beer, I'll Drink Responsibly". Ha-ha! Mihia (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete as SoP. It can be added as a usage example to take. It's true that take has many senses, but does that mean we are going to have entries for phrases like take medicine, take one's temperature, and so on? — SGconlaw (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. As already stated, the definition cannot easily be gleaned from the sum of parts, because of the 50+ senses "take" has. In addition, we already have entries like take a joke (sense 14), take a nap (sense 14?), take a picture (sense 41), take out of context (sense 3; otherwise, sense 1 of take out), take a seat (sense 30), and so on. At first blush, these may look like SOP. But these expressions and more are so common (and their meaning would not be readily apparent to a non-native speaker) that they feel like set phrases meriting their own entries. Imetsia (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is equally true of "take aspirin", "take the third exit", "take $5" or "take Calculus". Chuck Entz (talk)
 * There's probably no bright-line rule for determining whether a certain term is "set phrase enough" or "idiomatic enough" that it overrides its at-first-glance SOPness. Your examples pretty obviously aren't, and therefore everyone would agree that they shouldn't be included as entries. But the sheer number of meanings for "take" makes it difficult to sort out the meaning of "take responsibility". That, combined with (1) the fact that the locution seems subjectively "set-phrase enough" and (2) our (by no means binding) precedent of including many similar "take" compounds should be compelling enough to keep the entry. Until we have a solid rule to eliminate this penumbra, these determinations will be made ad hoc. Imetsia (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Abstain, it feels like a set phrase to me. In any case, fix the definition. PUC – 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – I don't think this is a sum of its parts. If it were SoP, then people wouldn't be complaining that the definition given is incorrect, because it would be obvious, right?  I agree that the definition is incomplete.  There's 'take responsibility for the bad past decision; you can blame me for the mess' (the sense given) but there's also 'You need to take responsibility for doing your homework; in the future, don't blame your parents if you didn't get your work done' (the sense mentioned by Tooironic and Lambian).  The entry needs to be expanded.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 09:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:take responsibility


text:
Talk:Ludgate Hill

RFD discussion: December 2019–December 2020
No reason in the entry to suggest this is dictionary material. It has an interesting etymology, perhaps... But so does "Bob Avenue" - a street in my neighbourhood named for Bob, who got run over by a truck on the street. --Vealhurl (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought all street names are to be included too, like all place names. Every hill in Rome, Madison Avenue, etc. Only that we do not have sufficient means to disambiguate often-used names as with coordinates (there would be hundreds or thousands of ). Fay Freak (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Street names are not listed in the section Names of specific entities of WT:CFI as a kind of names to be included or excluded. Therefore the following sentence applies: “The editors have not yet reached a consensus as to whether or not the names of places and geographic features other than those listed above should be included in Wiktionary.” I give the term more chance of being kept as being not only the name of a street, but also (and more originally) of the mound on which St. Paul’s Cathedral was built, considered “one of London’s three most ancient hills”, the other two being and . As to the etymology, the name comes from the historical, an actual gate in the defensive wall around (the City of) London first built by the Romans; it was demolished in 1760.  --Lambiam 08:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, we don't have a notability criterion and there are enough street names in the world to crowd out just about everything else. For every Ludgate Hill, there are thousands of Main Streets and Third Streets, and countless variations on Oak, Elm, Maple, Hill, Valley, Lake, Central, West, East, etc. If you're ever bored, try typing random English words into Google followed by "road" or "street", and see what comes up. Some of my favorites: Dork Street, Flounder Road, Peuse Road, Pancake Road, Sponge Road, Peep Road, Carrot Road, Plotz Road, Weasel Road, Drain Road, Sprat St... All of these bring up a Google Maps display (at least in the US, they do). As for Bob Avenue: there are at least four of those- in Rosedale, California (not far from Calamity Lane), Wichita Falls, Texas, Muskegan, Michigan and Canal Fulton, Ohio. I'm sure many of these also have some kind of interesting story, but the information that makes Third Street distinct from Lemming Street (which is in Lakewood, California, by the way) is all encyclopedic. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My favourites are Warning Tongue(s) Lane, in Bessacarr near Doncaster, and There and Back Again Lane in Bristol. Oh, and Powder Mill Lane, in Whitton near here, was named after the gunpowder mills that used to be nearby until they blew up. DonnanZ (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ludgate Hill is not the name of the area it's in, just a thoroughfare, unlike and  which are both suburbs and thoroughfares. I would keep this anyway, like, , ,  and other entries of this genre. DonnanZ (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All the examples of streets you gave have figurative senses, but this one doesn't. Delete. Old Man Consequences (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Sometimes the use of hill is a misnomer corresponding to a rise in the ground which is hardly a hill; this certainly applies to three places in my neighbourhood, Hampton Hill, Strawberry Hill and Marble Hill. However, Richmond Hill on the other side of the Thames is a true hill. DonnanZ (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would delete it just for the presumptuousness of using "the City" instead of "London" in the definition. - TheDaveRoss  13:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That was easily fixed. DonnanZ (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Delete absent any reason why this has anything to do with a dictionary. Mihia (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite there being no entry for Ludgate? There is in Wikipedia though: see . DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would the lack of an entry for "Ludgate" be a reason to keep "Ludgate Hill"? Mihia (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Etymology, my dear Watson. DonnanZ (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, all of the world's billion street names and place names have an etymology. If we are to decide to keep some such entries as being notable despite their definitions having no traditional lexicographical content, I'm not sure that having an etymology, even an "interesting" etymology, should be part of the notability criteria. Mihia (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I daresay more users would want to know about Ludgate Hill than about millions of other streets; I used to live in Ythan Street (named after a Scottish river), but I wouldn't create an entry for it. But even that name has a little story that I didn't know about . DonnanZ (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would keep this and other similar entries - but not go out of my way to add further similar entries. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all. We are not a normal, paper dictionary and we have plenty of room for these. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I dropped boldface since one bold keep from Semper is already above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Semper and because it isn't an SOP name. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No consensus, after over a year to discuss. bd2412 T 21:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ludgate Hill


text:
Talk:Janto

RFD discussion: October–December 2020
Yes, three cites have been given, but I'm not sure they comply with CFI and FICTION rules (they're not entirely dependent of the franchise). By that logic, should we also include, , , etc.? --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: By "not entirely independent", did you mean that the sources that reviewed and discussed Dr. Who are affiliated with Dr. Who by some corporate means, or did you just mean that the sources give the context that it's about Dr. Who? If it's the former, that may be a problem; but if it's the latter, Janto can still slip in, as the word (if not the pairing as a thing) seems to have originated outside the Dr. Who universe (like Eeveelution or Doomguy). Khemehekis (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment: In my opinion, this kind of thing is of low value to a dictionary, like having a dictionary entry on David Tennant would be, but I note that we have tended to keep nickname-y and name-smash-y things, like we also have J-Lo although we wouldn't have Jennifer Lopez, and have Brangelina (with a shoddy "references" section) where we wouldn't have Brad Pitt / Angelina Jolie. Anyway, in general if a term originated outside of the fictional universe, then as Khemehekis says it can still be included (even if all uses refer to the fictional universe), odd though that may seem. - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. An attestable word, not FICTION in-universe, but created by fans, like Famiclone or Wiimote. Equinox ◑ 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. People a thousand years from now might need to know this. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Late keep. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Janto


text:
Talk:get the bird

RFD discussion: November–December 2020
Redundant to bird, i.e. SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. Eh, you probably won't reply, but I'll stick to my MO:, would you like to keep the entry you created? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would keep this as the sense of "bird" is not the usual one. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this even a sense of by itself? No applicable sense is currently listed.  --Lambiam 16:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is, because it's also used in and . PUC – 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the question is, do these phrases all come from the relevant sense of "bird", or is one idiom the original off of which the others are modelled? If the latter, then "bird" doesn't really have this meaning on its own. I would keep this, as I would never have guessed its meaning without the entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, e.g. "expect the bird" and "deserve the bird" would also be examples of this meaning outside of the specific phrase "get the bird". My feeling is that "the bird" has an independent existence, but I think the definite article is a more-or-less essential part of it. I think we are presently unsure/inconsistent about how to handle "article + noun" phrases. Mihia (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is in the entry as Etymology 3. It's unexpected to find it so far down the entry, I agree; but not much can be done. This, that and the other (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've raised this at Etymology_scriptorium/2020/December. (Also, FYI, I have added the British(?) sense of booing and jeering which was previously missing.) Mihia (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 10:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Late keep. For one, this doesn't appear to always involve or exclusively involve rude gesticulating with the middle digit of the front paw? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:get the bird


text:
Talk:only to

RFD discussion: September 2019–December 2020
"Conjunction" with non-gloss definition.

I think this should be a redirect to a sense of only (using ). DCDuring (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment. The relevant sense at only appears to be:
 * She's only gone and run off with the milkman!
 * They rallied from a three-goal deficit only to lose in the final two minutes of play.
 * Are we quite sure that it is the same sense -- even PoS -- of "only" in both these usage examples? Mihia (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we quite sure that it is the same sense -- even PoS -- of "only" in both these usage examples? Mihia (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Three observations. (1) It seems to me that the sense is not so much to express surprise or consternation, as to mark a definitive reversal of fortune. (2) The collocation is always followed by an infinitive, which is not particularly an action, but rather a state change by which all hopes are dashed. (3) There is an action involved, which is in vain, but it is the action of the main clause of which the “only to” clause is a dependent clause. (“He rushed to the hospital, only to learn that his mother had already died.”) --Lambiam 11:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And, of course it is easy to confuse it with "only too". SemperBlotto (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention only two.
 * Oxford has only to as part of a phrase,  and only too -. I'm undecided on this at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at a definition of only in the likes of Century provides a multitude of semicolon-separated items that take the form "(in, for, by) but one (purpose, means, result); (in, at, for, with) no other (manner, respect, place, direction, circumstances, condition, time, way, purpose, result) than". So Lambian's example (above) might be defined as "with no other result than". One could also say "I stood only to ask a question" where it would mean "for but one purpose". The insertion of only in the verb-infinitive structure emphasizes the singular result of the infinitive with respect to the verb.
 * I do think this is a question of how to properly define only and that only to should be deleted (or redirected). -Mike (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One more observation: (4) only to announcing a reversal of fortune is preceded by a pause in speaking, often reflected in the punctuation when written, like a comma here and an em dash here. That is particular to this sense; one would not write, *“we don’t want to punish; we want, only to help”, or, *“I stood—only to ask a question”. --Lambiam 22:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I have created a new sense at only:
 * ''See also only to.
 * They rallied from a three-goal deficit only to lose in the final two minutes of play.
 * If only to is deleted, this "see also" link should be deleted, and additional content presently at only to can be moved to only as seen fit. Mihia (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Given the above, delete "only to". Mihia (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can use it without to also, e.g. "I helped him out only for him to betray me". 76.100.241.89
 * Good point. I added that as an example. Mihia (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Redirected to the newly-added, abode-discussed sense at only. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

only for
This should also be redirected to the relevant sense of only. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Also redirected for consistency and per the section above. - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:only to


text:
Talk:Election Day

RFD discussion: November 2020

 * The day on which a general election is held

Sum of parts. The presence of the word "general" might be flimsy grounds on which to keep this if it were true that "Election Day" could only ever refer to a general election, but I don't think it is true. Mihia (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how, at this capitalization, this is any more SOP than Christmas Day or Memorial Day. It's basically the proper name of the day designated for the event. bd2412 T 20:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Capitalisation can occur (in practice inconsistently) when one particular instance of any similar descriptive phrase is meant, as in Graduation Day, Coronation Day, Carnival Day, or even Birthday Party, and many others in the same vein, all of which can readily be found capitalised. To some extent, such capitalisation may also be influenced by the "Capitalisation of Important Words" style. Mihia (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete, and I would delete Christmas Day too if it weren't useful as a translation hub. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sum of parts, and nothing to indicate that it’s only for a “general” election.
 * Keep. Election Day is considered a holiday by some US states, and I kind of agree with the definition that the capitalized form can only refer to the general election. To me, Election Day and election day imply two different things: election day is a SOP, but Election Day, as a proper noun, refers to one day only. If it weren't a holiday, I'd say you could call it a sum of parts akin to, but the capitalization of Graduation Day feels to me like something an individual might do to form a novel proper noun (there's no widespread Graduation Day and no reason to capitalize it normally), whereas Election Day can be capitalized because could easily be construed as a proper noun (the title Election Day is understood to refer to a specific concept by a large group of people). —Globins (yo) 22:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to mention that the original US-specificness of this sense was removed per this, which, sorry, I forgot to link to. Mihia (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. How the Grinch deleted Christmas. – Jberkel 21:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Imetsia (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I wonder if sense 2 should be changed by removing the word general. Can’t the day on which the poll for a by-election is held also be called “Election Day”? — Cheers, Jack Lee –talk– 10:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can, but the definition would then read "Election Day = The day on which an election is held" which is absolutely blatant sum-of-parts. Mihia (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Article has changed. This vote has become confused, possibly to the point of invalidation, due to the article being edited while the vote has been in progress. Originally there was one sense, the one I listed at the top of this thread. Now a US-specific sense has been added back in, and it is no longer clear whether people are voting on the first sense, the second sense, or both. We may need to begin again. Mihia (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep anyway. Editing is permitted during an RFD discussion; I have just added a lemming. DonnanZ (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Editing may be permitted, but it is unhelpful when edits apparently change without notice the entire nature or purpose of the RFD, with no clear indication to voters that this has happened, and no explanation of how earlier votes are now to be interpreted. Mihia (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Withdrawn by nominator for reasons mentioned above. I may renominate just the original sense. Mihia (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. It is the name of a holiday. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary has an entry for this. 172.58.171.182 03:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The RFD was withdrawn but I just thought I'd add my 2c. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Election Day


text:
Talk:price to sell

RFD discussion: November–December 2020
SOP. 212.224.234.45 16:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (I created these entries.) WT:SOP says, “This criterion is sometimes referred to as the fried egg test, as a fried egg generally means an egg (and generally a chicken egg or similar) fried in a particular way. It generally doesn't denote a scrambled egg, which may nonetheless be cooked by frying.”
 * I'd think that this fails the “fried egg test” because it's used euphemistically and as a strictly promotional term for things which aren't actually priced attractively. I can look for some examples of such usage  if that would help. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters if it's sometimes used euphemistically. Any term can be used euphemistically sometimes; it would only be non-SOP if it *always* (or almost always) is a euphemism, which isn't the case here. Benwing2 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realized that I've misunderstood the “fried egg test” and gotten it backwards—since “fried egg” is included, it seems that passing the “fried egg test” by having a more specific meaning than sum-of-parts is what merits inclusion. And in that case, I'd think that while price for quick sale would fail WT:SOP overall and be ineligible for inclusion, price to sell would pass the “fried egg test” because it has a more specific meaning than its parts—from its parts you'd infer it to mean something like “to price at any level that will not prevent a sale”, but in actuality it specifies an attractive price level, set at an optimum to cause a sale. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, price for quick sale is definitely SOP. Not sure about price to sell; maybe others have opinions. Benwing2 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's no less SOP than "made to last" and many others. "to sell" is simply an infinitive of purpose. Of course, if you want to sell something you'll have to set an "attractive" price, but it's a logical inference. There's nothing lexical there. PUC – 11:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But “to last” as an infinitive of purpose actually implies persisting for a lengthy time as its use in “made to last” connotes. We define it with “To endure, continue over time”, synonyms “continue”, “endure”, and “survive”, and the related term “lasting” which as an adjective we define as “Persisting for an extended period of time” or “Persisting forever.” Conversely, the use of “to sell” in “price to sell” has a different, specific meaning than in  “to sell up”, “to sell down the river”, “to sell the dummy”, “to sell one's life dearly”, or “selling price”, or a host of other included phrases. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but AFAICT this is our sense 2 of : "(ergative) To be sold." PUC – 10:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that you are incorrect when you say, “Of course, if you want to sell something you'll have to set an "attractive" price...” because none of those other included terms refer specifically to selling at an attractive price; in fact “to sell one's life dearly” is explicitly referring to selling at an unattractive price.  There's definitely an extra “part” in addition to “price”, “to”, and “sell”. (And in fact, despite using two of the same “parts”, “selling price” has a notably different meaning—“price to sell” does not simply mean to price something at the “selling price”.) --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. Hi, S.B.. Would you like to keep the entry you created? You should probably state that explicitly. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hi, Dentonius; yes, whereas I can see that “price for quick sale” fails Wiktionary's inclusion criteria per SOP, it looks to me as though “price to sell” is valid for inclusion. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Surely the whole point of pricing is so that one may sell an item, so in a sense all items with price tags have been "priced to sell", but that is not what the expression means - it means priced at a cheaper than ordinary price. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Sonofcawdrey. Mihia (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:price to sell


text:
Talk:Scheherazade

RFD discussion: May–December 2020
RFD-sense: A fictional character, the wife and storyteller of the king Shahryar in One Thousand and One Nights.

Should this sense exist in the English Wiktionary, in addition to sense "A female given name from Persian"? In, a similar sense is in M-W, Lexico, and Collins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep since we have the likes of Snow White which I suppose won't be going away any time soon. This is a name of long standing that literate people might well expect to encounter in passing while reading other texts ("it was like one of the tales of S~!, he said"). Equinox ◑ 15:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 * BTW the adjectives Scheherazadean and Scheherazadian exist. I'll create 'em. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep, although I wish we had some sort of objective notability criterion that we could apply to such cases. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have WT:FICTION. Does the name comply with the policy? — SGconlaw (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's have a look: looks very promising: "Thus, to put things succinctly, Mandelbrot, if not the Scheherazade of the natural order [...]", "This was none other than the Scheherazade of my dreams and imagination with her glorious and slender stature and her round radiant face and black eyes which emitted the legendary magic with which she tamed the beast.", "I'd mentioned some bizarre case history from Oliver Sacks, the Scheherazade of neurobiology, and he asked me—with real intensity—where I'd read it", "Angleton had become the Scheherazade of the Cold War". Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes mentions "[...] was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" as an example of out of universe use. Whether Scheherazade really originates in a fictional universe is another question; this fictional character seems to be imagined to exist in this universe, not a fictional one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 * "the Scheherazade of neurobiology" is fantastic (in the good sense) because it literally just means "storyteller" with no implication of telling stories to save your life, or to defer a fate (as in the Nights). So there has been dilution of the sense. BTW Sacks is great. Equinox ◑ 13:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've always thought a "fictional universe" doesn't have to mean one that is apart from the world we are in, or the universe occupied by planet Earth. It could be an imaginary place on Earth populated by imaginary people, or simply a community of fictional people living on Earth. Batman (a fictional character) occupies a fictional universe in that he lives in the fictional Gotham City which is somewhere on Earth. King Arthur and Merlin are fictional characters supposedly living in bygone Britain. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy says what it says. It says "names of persons or places from fictional universes" rather than "names of fictional people and fictional places", and it uses Harry Potter books, Tolkien's Middle Earth books, and the Star Wars films as examples. Middle-Earth is part of a fictional universe, the Earth is not, and Old Shatterhand is not a person from a fictional universe, by a plain sum-of-parts reading of "fictional universe". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that Harry Potter is set on Earth- he grew up in England, after all. The conceit is that it's all part of what we consider to be the real world, but that it's hidden from muggles like us by magic. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Along with the Marauder's Map and any sense of proportion. Equinox ◑ 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Harry Potter; if the above is true, it would mean that WT:FICTION contradicts itself, or that for Harry Potter the world he lives in is considered to be "fictional universe"; after all, it is a universe full of magic, which this universe is not. By contrast, Harpagon is a fictional character that does not live in a fictional universe. I would say, if "names of fictional people and fictional places" is what is meant, put it to policy and be done with it. I think WT:FICTION is a rather unfortunate policy, and the broader its scope, the worse. For names of fictional characters not covered by WT:FICTION, we have WT:NSE, a time-tested policy that leaves things open-ended on the policy level. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're over-analyzing it. "Fictional universe" can just mean "alternative to reality". It doesn't have to literally be another universe in the scientific or philosophical sense. After all, Star Wars doesn't take place in another universe, but in a "galaxy far, far away". And I see no reason why it should have to be a different planet. That seems arbitrary to me. The spirit of CFI is quite clear. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Policies should be clear and be written in reasonably literal language. Let editors change the phrasing of the policy from "names of persons or places from fictional universes" to "names of fictional persons or fictional places" if that is what is intended. To me, "fictional universe" is a universe that is fictional and therefore, one that does not really exist rather than one that possibly exists yet with fictional characters moving in it. I will oppose such a change since I find WT:FICTION problematic and extending it to Scheherazade is not a good idea, in my view. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I see that "names of persons or places from fictional universes" is broken anyway. Since even if the universe of Sherlock Holmes is a fictional universe as some suggest, then London is a place from fictional universe (the place is not required by the phrase to be fictional, only the universe) and is subject to WT:FICTION. This cannot be the intention. Therefore, literal reading of WT:FICTION seems impossible anyway, and one has to read into (or edit into) the policy things that the policy does not say. Discarding WT:FICTION and replacing it with editor discretion should probably be considered, like "Inclusion or exclusion of attested names of fictional persons and fictional places is subject to editor discretion"; then, editors could use any tentative policy they like in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 * If this fails and "Jigglypuff" passes then let's slit our wrists. Equinox ◑ 17:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that this cannot reasonably fail and "Jigglypuff" pass. Tharthan (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Classic character from folklore whose name is often brought up and encountered in literature. No different than King Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, Pied Piper, Sleeping Beauty etc. Tharthan (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep, IMO. As to whether this should be or is subject to FICTION: ehh. De facto we treat very old "fiction" different from modern stuff, e.g. we have Aeneas and (and indeed Aeneid) and Abednego whereas we wouldn't have the character Tom Riddle or the book title Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I consider Merlin and Scheherazade to be in the same boat as Aeneas. (I agree with Chuck that based on the use, in the text of WT:FICTION, of Harry Potter as an example of a "fictional universe", it's clear that fiction set on earth is still a "fictional universe".) - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not clear that fiction set on Earth is in a "fictional universe" since that is contrary to the usual meaning of "fictional universe". What it means is that, probably, WT:FICTION is broken, which is not surprising given how difficult it is for humans to write policies that are not broken. When interpreting WT:FICTION, it is upon the interpreter to decide whether to abide by the specification part of the policy or whether to use the Harry Potter example to override a common meaning of the term "fictional universe". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence for your belief about the usual meaning of "fictional universe", and I see plenty of evidence against it. As far as I have seen, "fictional universes" usually include universes of fiction set on Earth, like the MCU: finds plenty of references to the MCU as one of the most famous fictional universes, and it is set on Earth with battles being fought in New York City and characters referring to Starbucks and so on. Indeed, searching for examples via the phrases  and  turns up many books naming universes of fiction set on Earth as fictional universes, and few books where the list happens not to name (but it is hard to conclude the author would definitively rule out) such universes:
 * 1986, Thomas G. Pavel, Fictional Worlds, page 101:
 * With respect to scope, we can construct a scalar typology ranging between maximal fictional universes, such as the universe of the Divine Comedy, and minimal universes, such as the world of Malone Dies.
 * 2015, Torill Elvira Mortensen, Jonas Linderoth, Ashley ML Brown, The Dark Side of Game Play'', page 88:
 * This changed during the 1990s when Lego not only started producing toy products that were essentially imitations of specific, high-profile fictional universes such as the worlds of Star Wars, Disney, or Harry Potter movies
 * 1998, Greg Cox, Battle On!: An Unauthorized, Irreverent Look at Xena, page 230:
 * flashbacks to unrevealed chapters of Xena's past, hopeful projections of the Warrior Princess's future, crossover sagas blending the Xenaverse with other popular fictional universes such as those of Star Trek or Highlander, and
 * 2017, Vanda Zajko, Helena Hoyle, A Handbook to the Reception of Classical Mythology:
 * These are fictional universes like those of Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who, or the Marvel Universe, in which multiply authored, serial and/or interconnecting narratives play out
 * 2019, Vanessa Frangville, Gwennaël Gaffric, China’s Youth Cultures and Collective Spaces (naming two universes not set on earth, and one set on a fictionalized earth):
 * and often on fictional universes, like Warcraft, Game of Thrones, DC Comics Universe, etc.
 * 2018, Cynthia J. Miller, A. Bowdoin Van Riper, Terrifying Texts: Essays on Books of Good and Evil in Horror...:
 * Likewise we pass the time with friends, in meaningless card games, or in fictional universes like Dostoevsky's
 * - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:-sche: As per above, some authors do appear to use the phrase "fictional universe" in the way that I find contrary to plain sum of parts reading of "fictional universe". Let me ask: do you believe that each fictional character lives in fictional universe? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the proper noun and add a common noun. Why are we including proper noun senses for fictional characters? By all means include common nouns derived from their characteristics; I'm glad for the noun sense at Darth Vader, because I truly did not understand what "becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" at CFI/Fictional universes meant. But the page includes the proper noun with a pointless quote even though this is a dictionary. Benedict Arnold, although not fictional, is exactly what I think pages named for individuals should look like. The many examples for "the Scheherazade of" point to a common noun sense meaning "storyteller" which is all we should include on the page. We need to be more explicit about our treatment of proper nouns at WT:FICTION and individuals at WT:CFI.
 * Also, the last example at CFI/Fictional universe is terrible. "...who looked at us as if we had just announced that we were from the planet Vulcan." It doesn't refer to the characteristics of Vulcan or Vulcans in any way. She could have written "from the planet Zeepzorp" for the exact same effect. Ultimateria (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As for "Why are we including proper noun senses for fictional characters?", I don't see why we should not; other dictionaries do it, and translations are bound to these proper-noun senses. These senses make for a better dictionary. The criterion of "attributive sense" is in CFI to provide some filter to make exclusionists happy; it does not generate a common noun sense. Various attributive or metaphorical uses are going to pick different characteristics of the fictional character so there is not even a common-noun sense to be defined. I know no dictonary that defines "Scheherazade" via a common-noun definition. The above seems like a creative invention not bound with any lexicographical tradition known to man, and not based on any sources.
 * We have all sorts of names of fictional entities, including mythological creatures, and define them as proper nouns.
 * We have "Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany between 1933 and 1945" as a definition rather than a common-noun definition "a very evil man" or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the character sense; keep any idiomatic sense. I agree with Ultimateria. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the above is based on policy, nor do I know of a dictionary that does what the above proposes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding of the sentence from WT:FICTION: "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense." Thus, say, Bazookaman may be defined out of context in an attributive sense as "a very strong man", but not as "an ABC comic character who wields a bazooka". But if I'm interpreting it wrongly, then I'm happy to be corrected. (.) — SGconlaw (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence says that "[...] they [names of persons or places from fictional universes] shall not be included unless [...]"; thus, the sentence regulates names and not sense/definition lines. In particular, the sentence does not say that the "attributive sense" is what is to be placed on the definition line. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if "used out of context in an attributive sense" is emphasized in that sentence, the attributive sense must be one of the senses (otherwise an editor would not be able to tell if WT:FICTION has been satisfied). But I accept that the sentence may not exclude adding the character sense as well. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence does not say where the evidence of meeting the requirement should be placed, whether in the entry, on the entry talk page or elsewhere. The sentence as worded does not indicate that an attributive sense should be created in the mainspace. Furthermore, one might argue that these quotations can be put under the literal sense since these are metaphorical uses of that literal sense, but that is not clear and is open to discussion. It is not clear to me why a Wiktionary regulation should propose to do in a Scheherazade entry definition what other dictionaries having Scheherazade entry do not do; of course it might, but then if it intends to deviate from common dictionary practice concerning these kinds of entries, it should be very clear and explicit about it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This meets WP:FICTION, as hundreds of writers have used the name (the adjective Scheherazadean was even given at the National Spelling Bee several years ago) without naming 1,001 Arabian Nights. Khemehekis (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the fact that there are adjectives, etc., based on a fictional character or real person is by itself justification for also including the character or person. For example, the fact that and  exist as words does not, in my view, support the inclusion of Leonardo da Vinci and Ferdinand de Lesseps in the Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree on that point. However, I would be OK with Leonardo defined as "Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci". Scheherazade, though, is a one-word name, and those are kept. We couldn't have a Ferdinand de Lesseps entry for the same reason we couldn't have a Walt Disnet entry. Khemehekis (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scheherazade


text:
Talk:birdloving

RFD discussion: November–December 2020
Is it okay to keep such adjectives when set solid, as opposed to hyphenated? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. This isn't German Wiktionary. bd2412 T 01:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hi, . Would you like to keep the entry you created? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going to canvass the creator in every case, can we have a bot do it instead of Dentonius please? Equinox ◑ 00:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be difficult, because the version of the entry that is challenged may not have been the first one created. For RFV I actually consider it good practice to ask the creator, since they may remember where they found it.__Gamren (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep ("all words in all languages") SemperBlotto (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just the same as "Xlike". We need to be clear why we want to keep these, of which there are an open-ended number, all totally and transparently SoP wrt the suffix "-loving", apart from the lack of explicit component boundary. Is it because we want to record all those for which we can find the requisite number of citations, to show that they have somewhere been used? To help people who can't see that "birdloving" means "bird-loving"? Some other reason? Mihia (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it took me a while to translate Xlike. Because I don't want to have this discussion over every single word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mihia, by that logic we could say why bother to have -ly adverbial forms? We could delete all of them and leave only the adjectival forms. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This sort of argument has been made many times, and I understand what you're saying, and this is why it is so difficult to exactly legislate, but somewhere between an "-ly" adverb and "grapefruitloving = fond of grapefruits" a line is crossed IMO between useful and sensible dictionary definitions and thousands of useless crappy self-evident entries. Mihia (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is grapefruitloving attestable? If it is, we should have it. bd2412 T 02:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep, although would be the form I would use. DonnanZ (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see it as terribly different from e.g. trainspotting or motherfucking; some words just end up solidifying this way. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to know where to draw the line, since even e.g. "spotting" could potentially be added to lots of nouns unhyphenated, but "loving" is a particularly blatant case where VAST numbers of nouns can potentially be suffixed with "loving", from "grapefruit[-]loving" to "algebra[-]loving", so we could potentially end up with thousands of nouns duplicated with fairly pointless "fond of X" definitions (admittedly depending on attestability as things work, but any presently unattested combination could be used tomorrow by someone). If these compounds were always hyphenated, e.g. "bird-loving", then we would exclude them as SoP, according to the decision that SoP rules apply to hyphenated terms in the same way as spaced terms. The fact that some people may, fairly arbitrarily, write them unhyphenated is not of any great lexical importance or significance, IMO, and it is just an awkwardness or inadequacy of our SoP rules that obliges us to retain them. Most dictionaries do not list thousands of "-like" or "-loving" compounds. Mihia (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 * In the case of loving, I doubt there are thousands of them written hyphenless. Equinox ◑ 23:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Equinox, I just invested an embarrassing amount of time looking for attestations for catloving, and only found one (Google Books, at least, errantly returns lots and lots of instances of "cat-loving" for that search, particularly where the hyphen coincides with the end of a line). An attestation requirement is a powerful tool for dissuading the creation of entries that don't exist in real usage. bd2412 T 02:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Usenet has many uses of catloving. J3133 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we should have it. bd2412 T 06:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But why? Is it to record that this word has been written by someone without a hyphen? To help people who cannot see that it means "cat + loving"? Some other reason? Mihia (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is a word. bd2412 T 05:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that I am flogging a dead elephant here, but the observation that "catloving" is "a word" does not really address the question that I raised. For lookup purposes, these limitless SoP combinations could be handled by a hint, so that if someone types in e.g. "elephantloving", in the event that someone wrote it that way and the reader can't figure it out, it can be suggested that they mean "elephant-loving". I accept that documenting recorded usage of such words is a valid exercise. The downside of basing our inclusion or non-inclusion of "Xloving" on whether we can find three durable citations is that these words can be arbitrarily coined, or written unhyphenated, so, as far as lookup is concerned -- that is, someone encountering "Xloving" and wondering what it means -- it hardly matters whether our processes have discovered those three citations. Mihia (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 * A machine can't necessarily know that e.g. "degloving" doesn't mean "loving a deg". Equinox ◑ 04:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting any change to the behaviour of an entry such as degloving. I was suggesting that people trying to look up e.g. "elephantloving", which does not (presently) exist, could be advised that they may want elephant + -loving. This would relieve us of the need to provide individual articles for a trillion potential "Xloving" combinations that anyone can arbitrarily write or coin, that mean no more than "X-loving"; and it would indeed entirely suffice if the only purpose of listing these combinations was to allow people to find their meanings, which I have acknowledged may not necessarily be the case. Yes, there might be pathological cases of "Xloving" where the hint would not be appropriate. Mihia (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would repeat, there are not limitless attested combinations. There may well be people who love sloths or talcum, but I would defy you to find citations for slothloving or talcumloving. bd2412 T 18:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "slothloving", at least, has apparently been used. And I would repeat that when someone can arbitrarily write "slothloving", or anything-else-loving, unhyphenated, if that is their style, then, for the purposes of looking up meanings, it does not matter whether such a word has previously been used to our standard of attestation. Mihia (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Apparently been used" does not equal "attested". Show me three sources in permanently recorded media. bd2412 T 05:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, "slothloving" is a word (your criterion) that someone can write if they care to, irrespective of whether we can find attestations to satisfy our rules. Moreover, in my opinion, selectively including only "-loving" words attestable to our rules is potentially misleading, as it may imply that those not included are not valid words, which in my opinion will frequently be incorrect. Mihia (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Kept - yeah, calling this one early Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Lest we forget: Criteria_for_inclusion " each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form." -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A noble idea, perhaps, but clearly unworkable in practice. Mihia (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And an idea used very selectively, too: strangely, I never see it applied the other way around. Inclusionists often argue that the existence of some entry automatically warrants the existence of some other entry. PUC – 19:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:birdloving