Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, userfy to transwiki individual idioms on request. This essentially boils down to a quorum over whether "Not a dictionary" is applicable to this list, with a strong majority in favor of removing it from Wikipedia, either to delete or to transwiki (supposedly most of the content is already there, which I didn't check). There is also a preponderance by "keep" commenters to opine based on the usefulness, which is not a strong argument as the information will still be available. We don't have a monopoly on free content. Lastly, there is also the simple problem of sourcing, which has in all the debate not been addressed. There is of course no prejudice against creating articles for individual idioms, as long as they contain encyclopedic content. ~ trialsanderrors 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of idioms in the English language (A)[edit]

List of idioms in the English language (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is only a list of dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. These already exist as single definitions over at Wiktionary, see wikt:Category:Idioms and this page adds very little to them. Unreferenced and possibly original research.

There's another 25 of these to come (which are not nominated), so consider this as a test case. Contested prod. MER-C 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. This information is not generally found in dictionaries, and proves useful as a list. --Czj 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, however, to be found in Wiktionary, which has several categories of idioms, as the nominator linked to, as well as several appendices, including wikt:Appendix:English idioms. Please make the effort, follow the link, and actually look. Uncle G 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have looked, an impressive as that page is, it links through to individual Wiktionary entries, which in themselves do not provide country/region of usage information. They also do not provide the extended information found for some of the entries. How would you suggest the country/region of usage be recorded, as that is one of the intents of this article so as to allow non-native users of idioms to determine their appropriate use? WLD 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'Where used' information is uncited and occasionally doubtful, but wiktionary certainly has the capacity to store it. It's not encyclopedic. Apples and oranges is a good example of an encyclopedic article about an idiom, but it is in the rare minority in that respect. Vectro 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wiktionary's guide to entry layout explains how to mark usages that are specific to, say, U.S. English, and there are plenty of entries in Wiktionary that are marked as being Commonwealth English, Australian English, U.S. English, and so forth, that can be emulated. Uncle G 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The category is sufficient. wikipediatrix 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is only one article nominated here. The rest will follow if and when this article gets deleted. MER-C 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (all) per Czj. Also your nomination is a bit confusing... how can this information be included on Wiktionary AND be original research here? If it's not Wiktionary/dictionary material, then I think it belongs here. --- RockMFR 03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no indication whatsoever that the "nationality" of idioms is correct or even verifiable. Hence the possibility of original research. MER-C 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are many books on idioms that would have this information- it's unreferenced, but no, this isn't original research. --- RockMFR 04:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lots of dicdefs are still dicdefs. This list is too indiscriminate to be encyclopedic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary. Atlantis Hawk 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Czj. And it's not just because I started contributing to the articles when I discovered them... mais non! Danny Lilithborne 06:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, this is a useful list of idioms. JIP | Talk 06:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not only does it seem to violate original research but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this type of information belons in Wiktionary. --The Way 08:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Original research throughout. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sigh. This page (and the other 25) were created to split up an article which had become over-long, using the same technique as in List of Latin phrases. The original article was created as part of a popular and well-contributed to effort to document the differences between different varieties of English, and is of great use for those people trying to understand cross-cultural issues, as well as trying to understand unfamilar idioms. It is part of a group of articles, including List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, List of words having different meanings in British and American English, and List of British words not widely used in the United States, which as a whole have survived numerous AfDs. There is a move to relocate the content to Wiktionary, but the proposers of such a move have not demonstrated the practicality of this, especially as cross-Wiki authentication is still not implemented, and lack of IDs on Wiktionary would tend to put off contributors, as at least one has explicitly stated. Pending agreement on the mechanism for migration to Wiktionary, consensus could then probably be built for such a move. WLD 10:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and by the way, it would have been better to put the AfD nomination on the main List of idioms in the English language and List of idioms in the English language (full), rather than one of the transcluded sub-pages, where it is far less prominent. Could I suggest the AfD is moved to there so the proper audience (videance?) sees it? WLD 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put the AfD on this article to establish a precedent for dealing with the other 24 (and the front page). MER-C 11:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Putting it on the 'front page' would have been more visible, in my opinion. However, I've added notification on the two 'front pages' and notified recent editors of the AfD. WLD 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That editors are unwilling to pull their fingers out and edit Wiktionary, which is as easily editable as Wikipedia is, is not a reason for overriding our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. As for "pending agreement on the mechanism for migration": We've had a transwikification process for several years, now. I suggest learning about it. It's also unnecessary in this case, as Wiktionary already has categories and appendices that are better than this misplaced dictionary of idioms in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe it is a case of simply 'trying harder'. For better or worse, Wikipedia is far better known than Wiktionary, and contributors are apparently more motivated to contribute to the former rather than the latter. I have learned about transwikification, and I have 'tried harder', and have an account on Wiktionary. Do not presume my knowledge. User:Rossami is even proposing it for some other articles, but has yet to demonstrate it. Just because you think something is easy or obvious does not make it so for others. It might also have been better to propose a Copy to Wiktionary rather than outright deletion - note that Wiktionary does not give country/region of usage for the idioms that it records - which is actually useful information, and of cource citations need to be improved from the current non-existent state of most, if not all entries. All in all, I think the Deletion process is an overly blunt weapon for improving this article. WLD 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This stuff is already at Wiktionary, hence {{Copy to Wiktionary}} is unrequired. MER-C 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? Have you checked every entry? And what about the 'where used' information, which, as far as I can see, is not in Wiktionary? Deleting information contibuted in good faith by many people will tend to put people off from contributing, which is not what I thought Wikipedia was about. My personal view is that information like this probably does belong in Wiktionary, but I have not voted Delete, or even Transwiki on the basis that I an not convinced that the current state of Wiktionary is fit for purpose. Uncle G would no doubt disagree, but I am sure that there is room in a debate for different opinions. Simply pointing people at individual Wiktionary entries, or a category does not provide a proper replacement for the function this article (and others like it) provide. To use the deletionist/inclusionist tags, I would probably be of an inclusionist bent, and I see little if any harm that this article is doing - especially as Wikipedia is not paper, and it could well do positive good. If the article is less comprehensive than Wiktionary, I can see good grounds for adding an introductory paragraph that points out that it is not comprehensive and that more comprehensive and/or accurate information can be found at Wiktionary - thereby encouraging people to look at and use Wiktionary. Simply deleting the article removes that signpost, will demotivate good faith contributors, and removes what would be a useful link between the -ipedia and the -tionary. WLD 08:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "It might also have been better to propose a Copy to Wiktionary rather than outright deletion" — No. I repeat: It is unnecessary in this case, as Wiktionary already has categories and appendices that are better than this misplaced dictionary of idioms in the encyclopaedia. Notice the fact, demonstrated below, that Wikipedia has got several entries wrong, for example. Wikipedia is simply bad at being a dictionary. There are many examples of mis-placed mini-dictionaries that Wikipedia has grown here and there, that Wiktionary has done far better at, often from a standing start. This mis-placed dictionary of idioms is one. Uncle G 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • We obviously differ in our opinions of the relative merits of the Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary. I do not believe that Wiktionary presents information collected together in Wikipedia articles like this one in anywhere near as good/useful/accessible format - so in my opinion, until Wiktionary improves to equal or excel the Wikipedia articles, I will not support a 'Delete' or 'Transwiki'. As it happens, I agree with the underlying tenet - that such information should be in Wiktionary, but I do not think the Wiktionary presentation style is ready for it yet. In addition, I do not believe that Wiktionary and Wikipedia are sufficiently integrated for editors as yet. Automatic cross-Wiki logins should at least be implemented. Where that particular project has got to, I don't know. In your opinion, I'm probably blinded by the merits of Wikipedia; and in my opinion, I think you are blinded by the merits of Wiktionary. While neither of us is likely to convince the other of the correctness of our views, there is probably a reasonable middle way. I think that middle way would not include a summary 'Delete' of this article, but is more likely to be a 'Transwiki' pending improvement of Wiktionary's presentation style for such information - so it is not a vote for a Transwiki now. I really don't think it is essential to delete this article now. WLD 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is a great deal of debate on a related policy item about the inclusion of Glossaries in Wikipedia - see here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Glossaries. Rather than rehash that debate here, it is probably worth reading the quite voluminous debate there as well, as I think the arguments apply here. As I understand it (and I am open to being corrected here), no consensus was reached as to their inclusion or exclusion, so a glossary's inclusion needs to be argued according to its individual merits. A 'List of idioms' seems pretty close in structure to being a glossary, so I would conclude that it is not a matter of policy that they be excluded. WLD 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary + original research. This is almost as bad as List_of_two-letter_English_words. Wikipedia is not a place for Scrabble/crossword-cruft! MartinDK 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a dictionary of idioms, plain and simple. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is official policy. And Wiktionary already has far better than this, with over 2600 idioms (counting just the English language alone) at this point, all with their own individual articles. I strongly suggest that the Lost Lexicographers wandering Wikipedia in search of a dictionary come to Wiktionary. You'll find that a quite large one has already been developed over the past several years. Strong delete. Uncle G 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WLD. Very useful for both native and non-native speakers of English. --さくら木 11:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So are the yellow pages. That doesn't make it Wikipedia material. This could easily be put in Wikitionary so we could stay an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. I believe that's why Wiktionary was created though most people seem to miss that point. MartinDK 11:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary is already right there, and already more useful, since it has all of this and far more. If non-native speakers of English want a dictionary of idioms, they should use the dictionary that is right there. Wiktionary, after all, aims to document all idioms from all languages in all languages. Wikipedia, in contrast, is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Uncle G 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously violates WP:WINAD. Recury 14:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, obviously violates WP:WINAD. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Dicdefs and original research. Edison 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Uncle G. Wickethewok 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WLD. Explaining literary allusions and other cultural backgrounds behind English idioms is not dictionary material. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The information contained on the list goes beyond what you would find in a dictionary. It selects idioms, their locations and meanings. Perhaps a fraction is original research, but most of the terms are well-known. 129.98.212.74 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; in particular, these are unsourced and constitute original research. Some are matter of opinion. Many of the terms on the list are not idioms at all. Not all maxims, axioms, literary allusions and metaphors are "idioms". Agent 86 19:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While I like this concept, it has several problems. 1) It is better suited for a dictionary, and Wiktionary's coverage is already more complete. 2) There is no real standard for the information at this point in time. The areas in which these are used are pretty questionable as far as accuracy, and I think a lot of them are just editors making judgment calls. This alone isn't a reason for deletion, but combined with the dictionary thing, I feel it's better to improve the already more complete location of this information at Wiktionary and let this one go. DISCLOSURE: I got an unbiased notification of this AfD on my talk page. GassyGuy 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. This list is useful as an encyclopedic article due to the depth with which it covers many of the particular idioms. I might choose to weaken my 'keep' proposal by advocating that the list be shortened to a select, group of idioms per letter about which multitudes can be written and they can be explained in great detail. E.g., "at sixes and sevens" is a very old idiom about which the history and cultural influence and relevance can be given, as well as information about its use in print. In contrast, supposed idioms like "at one's beck and call" are barely more than unique diction, not deserving of the title, 'idiom'. Illuminatiscott 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Bigtop 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd like to keep but WP is not a dictionary †he Bread 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki --HappyCamper 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Czj's remark has been sufficiently rebutted by Uncle G. Per illumantiscott, I'd be willing to keep the list if we can shorten it to idioms that are notable enough to have their own article, though I might also favor categorization in that case. Note also that I came across this AfD because of a canvassing campaign by West London Dweller (talk · contribs) which included my talk page. Cheers, Vectro 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intention was to politely request recent editors of the article to take a look at this debate, which had (in my opinion) been initiated but putting the AfD notice in a less-than-prominent position, given the article's structure. The messages were placed by hand (no bot) on people's talk pages in as neutral a manner as I could, choosing all the recent editors in the last two pages of history that did not edit via anonymous IP IDs. If this was wrong, I apologise. WLD 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is generally frowned upon and seldom results in any advantage for the person doing so. However, it is not as bad as votestacking and since you are being open about it your apology should be sufficient. The AfD will still be settled based on arguments by experienced non-anon editors and not votes. Often what you see is a whole stack of votes going in one direction and with very little text to explain why they voted that way. That is votestacking and will almost certainly result in the closing admin disregarding the votestacking sides arguments. In other words, it isn't worth the effort. Because the system is open to abuse it is something we are very aware of and sometimes that results in well-meaning people getting frowned upon. MartinDK 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following idioms (14 out of 35) are not currently present on wiktionary, thus a transwiki process should be preferred to mere deletion.
    1. Airs and Graces (but Wiktionary does have 'putting on airs')
    2. Albatross around one's neck (but Wiktionary does cover albatross as burden, and I'm sceptical about the definition given here.)
    3. All bark and no bite
    4. All piss and wind
    5. All talk and no trousers
    6. All over the place
    7. All roads lead to rome (I'm quite sceptical about this definition)
    8. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride
    9. have ants in one's pants
    10. Any port in a storm
    11. Argue the toss
    12. As far as I can throw you (is this really an idiom? More of a cliche metaphor.)
    13. Asleep at the wheel.
    14. A stitch in time saves nine
  • I still think this list should go, but we need to move what's left over to wiktionary first. Vectro 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary has had all over the place since 2005. "A stitch in time saves nine" isn't an idiom. It's a proverb. You can find a whole list of such proverbs in Wikiquote at q:English proverbs. You'll find "All roads lead to rome." which is also a proverb and not an idiom, there, too. This is yet more proof, as if any were needed after years of cumulative evidence, that Wiktionary and Wikiquote are better at being dictionaries of idioms and collections of quotations than Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is simply bad at being a dictionary. Uncle G 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My experience of Wiktionary's handling of glossaries leads me to the opposite opinion to Uncle G - that is to say, I currently believe that Wiktionary is simply bad at handling glossaries. I am hopeful it may improve, however. Categorising wiktionary entries as idioms, then relying on the category for the presentation of the list of idioms simply doesn't work, prividing a list with no context to the entries. Individual articles give no indication of where particular idioms are used. Wiktionary is not yet ready to take over the functions of this and related articles. When it is, I would support a transwiki. WLD 08:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep useful, but as one mentioned above, wiki is not a dictionary. Tulkolahten 08:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep think of it as a supplement to the idiom article. Otherwise, delete all of these, too:

See also 

   * Collocation
   * Set phrase
   * Wiktionary Idioms category
   * List of idioms in the English language
   * List of idioms in the Finnish language
   * List of idioms in the French language
   * List of idioms in the Portuguese language
   * Four-character idiom (Chinese)

-THB 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki Falls between Wikipedia and Wiktionary, but insofar as the items require definitions ( = A phrase that cannot be fully understood from the separate meanings of the individual words which form it, but instead must be learned as a whole unit of meaning), that would make Wiktionary the better place. Jd2718 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - being useful isn't an argument for keeping the article, see WP:ILIKEIT. I thought I'd mention this, since I counted 7 !votes that attempt to argue this. Once they are taken out of the equation it becomes more obvious that this list, and the 25 others that will soon appear on AFD, should be deleted. MER-C 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:ILIKEIT to quote from that tag at the top of the linked article, "is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline". That is, it is the opinion of an individual editor, and not a consensual position. Hope that clarifies. WLD 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it isn't even the same argument. That cautions against arguing in favor of (for example) a page about a band because you particularly like that band. People are not arguing to keep this page of idioms because they especially like particular idioms, but because the page itself is inherently informative and useful in a way it might not be elsewhere. Straw-man. --Arvedui 04:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, nor is it Wikiquote. --Orange Mike 16:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & transwikify the new ones This is what a dictionary is for. If Wiktionary does not have a category for them, oneshould be made--there--not here.DGG 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since when did whining become a valid reason for keep? And THB, I might just nominate all those other lists of idioms. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaaa, I see we're back on our respectively correct sides for this one... *grin* --Arvedui 04:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as this AfD is closed, I'll subject the rest for deletion in bunches of 10 if appropriate. MER-C 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you said "if appropriate" there. :-) WLD 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All per THB and especially the extended discussion-points by WLD. Failing that (much less-preferred) Transwiki in full including country/region-usage. This is valuable information and should not be lost, wherever it ends up being put. --Arvedui 04:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_idioms_in_the_English_language_(A)&oldid=1136110195"